A moral question about rape

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 176 times

A moral question about rape

Post #1

Post by Athetotheist »

I'm not sure if this is quite the right subforum for this, but I'm taking a guess that it is.

Assault is a violent move against someone. Rape takes assault to another level because, in the case of rape, the assault continues even when the assailant is no longer present; the victim's body is still being invaded.

Question for moral debate:

Given that rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene, is someone who denies emergency contraception to the victim of a rape acting as an accessory to that rape?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10551
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1148 times
Contact:

Re: A moral question about rape

Post #51

Post by William »

Athetotheist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:31 am
William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:35 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:36 pm [Replying to William in post #48]
There is no difference between "conceived" and "conceived".
There is a difference between that which is conceived and the impetus of the conception.
Please explain further.
I've spent this entire thread explaining.

Are you suggesting that the victim of a brutal, dehumanizing sexual assault who chooses not to conceive should be required to conceive anyway because someone else holds "the natural process of impregnation" in such high regard?
No. I am saying that embryo's should not be considered something which assaults a woman, as the sentence "rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene" implies in relation to the idea that "those who deny emergency contraception to the victim of a rape" act as an accessory to that rape.

The embryo is not assaulting the woman is it?

Now some rape victims in that situation might think the embryo is part of the assault and thus the assault continues, and if they are denied that contraception they might think those denying are part of the assault and thus the assault continues, but it is not a given that all rape victims who get pregnant as a result of rape, think that.

Thus, the question for moral debate;

Given that rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene, is someone who denies emergency contraception to the victim of a rape acting as an accessory to that rape?

appears to be a loaded question.

A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption. In the case of the OPQ for moral debate the controversial assumption is that rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene and includes the example of the victim of a rape being denied emergency contraception [drugs which can abort any sperm/egg interaction which may have occurred as a result of rape] asking if those who do so, are themselves accessory to that rape.

My replies re the OPQ have to do with questioning the validity of the OPQ itself, since it is NOT been shown in the OP that the first part of the question is a given.

given [noun]
a known or established fact or situation.

That is why I mentioned that some rape victims do not think that becoming pregnant, giving birth to, or raising a child who was the product of the rape, as "a continuation of the assault".
For them, the assault stopped at the moment the rape stopped. [or thereabouts] but certainly around the time the pregnancy which resulted, was known about.

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: A moral question about rape

Post #52

Post by Athetotheist »

William wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:38 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 7:31 am
William wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 11:35 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Fri Nov 26, 2021 4:36 pm [Replying to William in post #48]
There is no difference between "conceived" and "conceived".
There is a difference between that which is conceived and the impetus of the conception.
Please explain further.
I've spent this entire thread explaining.

Are you suggesting that the victim of a brutal, dehumanizing sexual assault who chooses not to conceive should be required to conceive anyway because someone else holds "the natural process of impregnation" in such high regard?
No. I am saying that embryo's should not be considered something which assaults a woman, as the sentence "rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene" implies in relation to the idea that "those who deny emergency contraception to the victim of a rape" act as an accessory to that rape.

The embryo is not assaulting the woman is it?

Now some rape victims in that situation might think the embryo is part of the assault and thus the assault continues, and if they are denied that contraception they might think those denying are part of the assault and thus the assault continues, but it is not a given that all rape victims who get pregnant as a result of rape, think that.

Thus, the question for moral debate;

Given that rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene, is someone who denies emergency contraception to the victim of a rape acting as an accessory to that rape?

appears to be a loaded question.

A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption. In the case of the OPQ for moral debate the controversial assumption is that rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene and includes the example of the victim of a rape being denied emergency contraception [drugs which can abort any sperm/egg interaction which may have occurred as a result of rape] asking if those who do so, are themselves accessory to that rape.

My replies re the OPQ have to do with questioning the validity of the OPQ itself, since it is NOT been shown in the OP that the first part of the question is a given.

given [noun]
a known or established fact or situation.

That is why I mentioned that some rape victims do not think that becoming pregnant, giving birth to, or raising a child who was the product of the rape, as "a continuation of the assault".
For them, the assault stopped at the moment the rape stopped. [or thereabouts] but certainly around the time the pregnancy which resulted, was known about.
See post #11.

Anyway, it occurs to me that perhaps I'm being too belligerent. I have a perspective on this and I assume that I would defend that position if the question came up elsewhere, but since it was me throwing out the question here for debate I should give you room to respond as you see fit. I got caught up in the debate and lost sight of that.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10551
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1148 times
Contact:

Re: A moral question about rape

Post #53

Post by William »

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #53]
See post #11.
Post 11:
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:33 pm
The Tanager wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:42 am [Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

Why do you see the child produced (if one is) as an assault?
What I see as part of the assault is the production----against the victim's will.
Anyway, it occurs to me that perhaps I'm being too belligerent. I have a perspective on this and I assume that I would defend that position if the question came up elsewhere, but since it was me throwing out the question here for debate I should give you room to respond as you see fit. I got caught up in the debate and lost sight of that.
Belligerent being hostile and aggressive.
Are you saying then that the OPQ was the product of hostility and aggression?

Emotions are easy to get carried away in and we all fall into that trap on occasion until we get to know how to reign those emotions in and control them rationally.

Understandably it doesn't always help if posts come across as cold and logical, even that they are not intended to give that impression to those who are emotionally charged.

So to clarify - I am certainly not forgetting the trauma that rape victims go through and that some of them carry that trauma for the rest of their lives.

So certainly [it can be argued] those [type] rape victims are perpetually feeling that rape is a type of assault which continues even decades after the assailant leaves the scene...and this will spill over into all areas of their lives and affect others.

Do I think that folk should have access to medication which might help them heal, even if that medication is for the purpose of aborting an embryo?

If they are simply using the medication to kill something that the rapist raped into them, is that going to help them not become a perpetual victim of the crime?

Or;

Will other destructive symptoms surface re their state of mind?

When does the victim of rape become responsible for their own peace of mind and general well-being? At what point does the responsibility of the rapist stop and the responsibility of the victim begin?


These are not easy questions to answer but if the rapist pays for his crime, becomes a supporter of rape victims, forgives himself etc - all in the process of his own healing, while his victim remains a victim of his past actions which happened so long ago now... has enough time gone by for the victim to have taken the opportunity to heal herself?

Everyone is different yes? While we wouldn't blame a victim for choosing to cling to the past and be stuck in the trauma, we probably do nothing positive to help her remove herself from said traumatic effects, if we continue to offer ways of enabling her to cling to said trauma, rather than offer her ways in which to heal from said trauma.

Sometimes we just have to make rational decisions which are not emotionally-based or charged...

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: A moral question about rape

Post #54

Post by Athetotheist »

William wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:12 pm [Replying to Athetotheist in post #53]
See post #11.
Post 11:
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:33 pm
The Tanager wrote: Sat Jan 02, 2021 8:42 am [Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

Why do you see the child produced (if one is) as an assault?
What I see as part of the assault is the production----against the victim's will.
Anyway, it occurs to me that perhaps I'm being too belligerent. I have a perspective on this and I assume that I would defend that position if the question came up elsewhere, but since it was me throwing out the question here for debate I should give you room to respond as you see fit. I got caught up in the debate and lost sight of that.
Belligerent being hostile and aggressive.
Are you saying then that the OPQ was the product of hostility and aggression?

Emotions are easy to get carried away in and we all fall into that trap on occasion until we get to know how to reign those emotions in and control them rationally.

Understandably it doesn't always help if posts come across as cold and logical, even that they are not intended to give that impression to those who are emotionally charged.

So to clarify - I am certainly not forgetting the trauma that rape victims go through and that some of them carry that trauma for the rest of their lives.

So certainly [it can be argued] those [type] rape victims are perpetually feeling that rape is a type of assault which continues even decades after the assailant leaves the scene...and this will spill over into all areas of their lives and affect others.

Do I think that folk should have access to medication which might help them heal, even if that medication is for the purpose of aborting an embryo?

If they are simply using the medication to kill something that the rapist raped into them, is that going to help them not become a perpetual victim of the crime?

Or;

Will other destructive symptoms surface re their state of mind?

When does the victim of rape become responsible for their own peace of mind and general well-being? At what point does the responsibility of the rapist stop and the responsibility of the victim begin?


These are not easy questions to answer but if the rapist pays for his crime, becomes a supporter of rape victims, forgives himself etc - all in the process of his own healing, while his victim remains a victim of his past actions which happened so long ago now... has enough time gone by for the victim to have taken the opportunity to heal herself?

Everyone is different yes? While we wouldn't blame a victim for choosing to cling to the past and be stuck in the trauma, we probably do nothing positive to help her remove herself from said traumatic effects, if we continue to offer ways of enabling her to cling to said trauma, rather than offer her ways in which to heal from said trauma.

Sometimes we just have to make rational decisions which are not emotionally-based or charged...
My original question didn't come from hostility or aggression; I just got too defensive on a subject which I had opened up for discussion myself.

And remember----contraception doesn't abort an embryo; it prevents conception.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10551
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1148 times
Contact:

Re: A moral question about rape

Post #55

Post by William »

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #55]
contraception doesn't abort an embryo; it prevents conception.
Okay.

That in itself doesn't change anything re the OPQ being too loaded to be considered a moral question about rape.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: A moral question about rape

Post #56

Post by Purple Knight »

William wrote: Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:38 pmThe embryo is not assaulting the woman is it?
Not deliberately. And neither are you assaulting the woman deliberately if I mind-control you and force you to rape her. I'm the one at fault.

However, it's not her responsibility to figure that out or even consider it when we're talking about self-defending her existence from a physical intrusion she does not want. She has every right to kill you to get you to stop.

And I'm the murderer.

That's why I think, if you really believe in the rights of the embryo, in the case of rape, let the woman have the abortion.

And charge the rapist with the murder.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10551
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 1148 times
Contact:

Re: A moral question about rape

Post #57

Post by William »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #56]

Please explain why you add the idea of being a mind-controlling murderer to the mix.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 671 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: A moral question about rape

Post #58

Post by Purple Knight »

William wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 3:13 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #56]

Please explain why you add the idea of being a mind-controlling rapist to the mix.
Because it gives a good example of being not guilty of assault, but still committing it.

I'm suggesting there are times when you can self-defend (bypassing the need for guilt) against an innocent.

It sucks for the innocent but I don't think there's a need for the aggressor to be guilty of anything to be able to defend against him. I think people mix up punishment and defence, thinking that someone needs to be personally guilty before you can defend against his intrusion. In all fairness, this conflation is probably caused because almost any scenario in which an attacker is attacking but is not guilty of the attack, is an absurd scenario that will never happen.

Post Reply