A moral question about rape

[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?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #21]

Being female is a disability. You know this intimately if you've known that little girl who wanted to be the first female to play in the NFL because every day, she was told that she had the same abilities and was told she was just as good as a boy and could do whatever she wanted.

Being female is not a disability. In the human species, the female has the ability to bear offspring, which the male doesn't have (the only disadvantage she has there is when someone is telling her when to do so). Women tend to live longer than men, another ability.

I think the problem is that women have been told for so long that their gender is inferior that they've begun to believe it, and to assume that they have to be masculine in order to be as valuable as men. In pre-industrial tradition, the man ruled the hunt and the woman ruled the home. In the modern Western world the man has wanted to rule the hunt and the home, and women have been force-fed the notion that there's nothing noble about being female until they've actually become ashamed of it, thinking that the only real strength is "manly" strength which they have to adopt for themselves.

[Purple Knight]

Being female is not a disability. In the human species, the female has the ability to bear offspring, which the male doesn't have (the only disadvantage she has there is when someone is telling her when to do so). Women tend to live longer than men, another ability.

The children belong to both the man and the woman. One sex became a specialised incubator because the species needed one. We're not the only species that is dealt a lopsided hand, certainly not the most lopsided, and the male isn't always the winner. The male deepsea anglerfish is an appendage, for crying out loud!

If I were a deepsea anglerfish, I wouldn't just say, no, the male is just as good as the female at everything. I would say there's a problem and we need to fix it, because I actually want equality. I want to live in an actually egalitarian world where nobody can be told on their zeroth birthday that they can't play in the NFL because of the sex chromosome they got.

Pretending there isn't any lopsidedness is a cruelty. Women have to work harder to accomplish the same, especially if it's physical, while being told that they have the same abilities as a man and can be anything.

I want to use technology to fix the problem, not pretend there isn't one and that if there seems to be one, it's just me, or someone else discriminating because they refused to draft a female quarterback who was every bit as good as her male counterparts. She'd have succeeded, we just held her back. This thinking is a cruelty to everyone involved.

I think the problem is that women have been told for so long that their gender is inferior that they've begun to believe it, and to assume that they have to be masculine in order to be as valuable as men. In pre-industrial tradition, the man ruled the hunt and the woman ruled the home. In the modern Western world the man has wanted to rule the hunt and the home, and women have been force-fed the notion that there's nothing noble about being female until they've actually become ashamed of it, thinking that the only real strength is "manly" strength which they have to adopt for themselves.

There is no longer a home, only a hunt. You go to work, you hunt for money, end of story. If you need your house cleaned, someone who is going to work cleaning will do that, or you can do it yourself or your wife can do it, but it won't be professional quality. Those who clean by hunting for money have adapted to hunt and have the necessary resources, often in the form of industrial products you cannot buy yourself, in the store. Preparing food is a joke. It's too easy. Everything is basically already prepared, and it's as cheap to subsist on fast food as to keep a stocked fridge, which is why so many do so. The female has reduced capabilities for hunting in exchange for increased capabilities at homemaking, when the home has basically disappeared.

This is not anyone's fault; it's just how society evolved. If we were out in the wild, and a similar shift occurred, there would be a bottleneck and a female dieoff and we'd evolve, the problem solved by the cruelty of nature. But because we are out of nature, we're going to have to find a solution, or simply let the problem be, electing to ignore it.

[Athetotheist]

Being female is not a disability. In the human species, the female has the ability to bear offspring, which the male doesn't have (the only disadvantage she has there is when someone is telling her when to do so). Women tend to live longer than men, another ability.

The children belong to both the man and the woman. One sex became a specialised incubator because the species needed one. We're not the only species that is dealt a lopsided hand, certainly not the most lopsided, and the male isn't always the winner. The male deepsea anglerfish is an appendage, for crying out loud!

If I were a deepsea anglerfish, I wouldn't just say, no, the male is just as good as the female at everything. I would say there's a problem and we need to fix it, because I actually want equality. I want to live in an actually egalitarian world where nobody can be told on their zeroth birthday that they can't play in the NFL because of the sex chromosome they got.

Pretending there isn't any lopsidedness is a cruelty. Women have to work harder to accomplish the same, especially if it's physical, while being told that they have the same abilities as a man and can be anything.

I want to use technology to fix the problem, not pretend there isn't one and that if there seems to be one, it's just me, or someone else discriminating because they refused to draft a female quarterback who was every bit as good as her male counterparts. She'd have succeeded, we just held her back. This thinking is a cruelty to everyone involved.

I think the problem is that women have been told for so long that their gender is inferior that they've begun to believe it, and to assume that they have to be masculine in order to be as valuable as men. In pre-industrial tradition, the man ruled the hunt and the woman ruled the home. In the modern Western world the man has wanted to rule the hunt and the home, and women have been force-fed the notion that there's nothing noble about being female until they've actually become ashamed of it, thinking that the only real strength is "manly" strength which they have to adopt for themselves.

There is no longer a home, only a hunt. You go to work, you hunt for money, end of story. If you need your house cleaned, someone who is going to work cleaning will do that, or you can do it yourself or your wife can do it, but it won't be professional quality. Those who clean by hunting for money have adapted to hunt and have the necessary resources, often in the form of industrial products you cannot buy yourself, in the store. Preparing food is a joke. It's too easy. Everything is basically already prepared, and it's as cheap to subsist on fast food as to keep a stocked fridge, which is why so many do so. The female has reduced capabilities for hunting in exchange for increased capabilities at homemaking, when the home has basically disappeared.

This is not anyone's fault; it's just how society evolved. If we were out in the wild, and a similar shift occurred, there would be a bottleneck and a female dieoff and we'd evolve, the problem solved by the cruelty of nature. But because we are out of nature, we're going to have to find a solution, or simply let the problem be, electing to ignore it.

The problem isn't that we have differences; the problem is that the differences aren't valued equally. We shouldn't eliminate those differences. We need them. Men are strong where women are weak [lifting loads, protecting] and women are strong where men are weak [childbearing, organizing, nurturing]. Our differences compliment and balance each other. Yin and Yang.

[Purple Knight]

The problem isn't that we have differences; the problem is that the differences aren't valued equally. We shouldn't eliminate those differences. We need them. Men are strong where women are weak [lifting loads, protecting] and women are strong where men are weak [childbearing, organizing, nurturing]. Our differences compliment and balance each other. Yin and Yang.

Society has evolved to reward one set of strengths and not the other. This has not been malicious. In the wild I would go so far as to say females are more valuable. If I was some caveman leading some cave of cavemen, and I had the option to add a female or add a male, I'd choose the female.

But we've evolved in a way that nurturing is done by a school, and cooking is done by a restaurant. It will only be a matter of time before babies are cooked up in laboratories.

It's no longer economically feasible to have a stay-at-home mother. Both parents need to work, unless one is insanely rich.

[Miles]

The problem isn't that we have differences; the problem is that the differences aren't valued equally. We shouldn't eliminate those differences. We need them. Men are strong where women are weak [lifting loads, protecting] and women are strong where men are weak [childbearing, organizing, nurturing]. Our differences compliment and balance each other. Yin and Yang.

Society has evolved to reward one set of strengths and not the other. This has not been malicious. In the wild I would go so far as to say females are more valuable. If I was some caveman leading some cave of cavemen, and I had the option to add a female or add a male, I'd choose the female.

But we've evolved in a way that nurturing is done by a school, and cooking is done by a restaurant. It will only be a matter of time before babies are cooked up in laboratories.

It's no longer economically feasible to have a stay-at-home mother. Both parents need to work, unless one is insanely rich.

Or the family reverts to a 1940-1950 way of life, and gives up all the luxuries we now indulge in.


.

[Athetotheist]

The problem isn't that we have differences; the problem is that the differences aren't valued equally. We shouldn't eliminate those differences. We need them. Men are strong where women are weak [lifting loads, protecting] and women are strong where men are weak [childbearing, organizing, nurturing]. Our differences compliment and balance each other. Yin and Yang.

Society has evolved to reward one set of strengths and not the other. This has not been malicious. In the wild I would go so far as to say females are more valuable. If I was some caveman leading some cave of cavemen, and I had the option to add a female or add a male, I'd choose the female.

But we've evolved in a way that nurturing is done by a school, and cooking is done by a restaurant. It will only be a matter of time before babies are cooked up in laboratories.

It's no longer economically feasible to have a stay-at-home mother. Both parents need to work, unless one is insanely rich.

Or the family reverts to a 1940-1950 way of life, and gives up all the luxuries we now indulge in.


.

That wouldn't be possible. Even if a family gave up luxuries, modern necessities are far too expensive. Capitalism has made it impossible for a single working-class income to support a family.

[Miles]

The problem isn't that we have differences; the problem is that the differences aren't valued equally. We shouldn't eliminate those differences. We need them. Men are strong where women are weak [lifting loads, protecting] and women are strong where men are weak [childbearing, organizing, nurturing]. Our differences compliment and balance each other. Yin and Yang.

Society has evolved to reward one set of strengths and not the other. This has not been malicious. In the wild I would go so far as to say females are more valuable. If I was some caveman leading some cave of cavemen, and I had the option to add a female or add a male, I'd choose the female.

But we've evolved in a way that nurturing is done by a school, and cooking is done by a restaurant. It will only be a matter of time before babies are cooked up in laboratories.

It's no longer economically feasible to have a stay-at-home mother. Both parents need to work, unless one is insanely rich.

Or the family reverts to a 1940-1950 way of life, and gives up all the luxuries we now indulge in.


.

That wouldn't be possible. Even if a family gave up luxuries, modern necessities are far too expensive. Capitalism has made it impossible for a single working-class income to support a family.

That may be the party line, but the fact is, in the USA quite a few single income working-class families are supported quite nicely on that single income. My working-class income exists as just such an example.

work·ing class
/ˈwərkiNG ˈˌklas/
noun: working class; plural noun: working classes

the socioeconomic group consisting of people who are employed in manual or industrial work.

.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Miles in post #28]

That may be the party line, but the fact is, in the USA quite a few single income working-class families are supported quite nicely on that single income. My working-class income exists as just such an example.

Have you factored in various types of insurance? College tuition for kids?

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #28]

That may be the party line, but the fact is, in the USA quite a few single income working-class families are supported quite nicely on that single income. My working-class income exists as just such an example.

Have you factored in various types of insurance? College tuition for kids?

For myself, yes. For others it would depend on the number of children and their ambitions (not all want college). As for insurance, that's too large a variable to factor in, maybe yes, maybe no.

Thing to remember is that not all working-class folk are only making a subsistence level incomes. A lot of us do quite nicely, making more than many in white-collar occupations.


.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Miles in post #28]

That may be the party line, but the fact is, in the USA quite a few single income working-class families are supported quite nicely on that single income. My working-class income exists as just such an example.

Have you factored in various types of insurance? College tuition for kids?

For myself, yes. For others it would depend on the number of children and their ambitions (not all want college). As for insurance, that's too large a variable to factor in, maybe yes, maybe no.

Thing to remember is that not all working-class folk are only making a subsistence level incomes. A lot of us do quite nicely, making more than many in white-collar occupations.


.

A blue-collar job that hasn't been outsourced or automated? You are lucky indeed.