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?
A moral question about rape
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #31I consider it to have been a wise choice (I looked into it pretty thoroughly), rather than luck. The same is true of several of my friends who did the same with their occupations, and, like myself, have end up comfortably.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:37 pmA blue-collar job that hasn't been outsourced or automated? You are lucky indeed.Miles wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:53 pmFor 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.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:36 am [Replying to Miles in post #28]Have you factored in various types of insurance? College tuition for kids?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.
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.
.
.
Last edited by Miles on Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #32I assume you're not implying that those who have lost their livelihoods to downsizing and offshoring were just foolish and to blame for their own predicament. That would be a little bourgeois.Miles wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:07 pmI consider it to have been a wise choice (I looked into it pretty thoroughly), rather than luck. The same is true of several of my friends who did the same with their chosen occupations, and, like myself, have end up quite comfortably.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:37 pmA blue-collar job that hasn't been outsourced or automated? You are lucky indeed.Miles wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:53 pmFor 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.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:36 am [Replying to Miles in post #28]Have you factored in various types of insurance? College tuition for kids?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.
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.
.
.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #33Not implying a thing.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:58 pmI assume you're not implying that those who have lost their livelihoods to downsizing and offshoring were just foolish and to blame for their own predicament. That would be a little bourgeois.Miles wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:07 pmI consider it to have been a wise choice (I looked into it pretty thoroughly), rather than luck. The same is true of several of my friends who did the same with their chosen occupations, and, like myself, have end up quite comfortably.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 5:37 pmA blue-collar job that hasn't been outsourced or automated? You are lucky indeed.Miles wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:53 pmFor 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.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Nov 20, 2021 7:36 am [Replying to Miles in post #28]Have you factored in various types of insurance? College tuition for kids?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.
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.
.
.
.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3514
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1139 times
- Been thanked: 733 times
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #34I'm replying to this in a thread more suited to my reply.
This is in stark contrast to the safe, overpopulated world humans find themselves in. If we had 90% males, we would get the benefit of physically fitter individuals and not experience a cost, since there are already too many people.
The safer the world, the better males are for it, and the worse the conditions, the more females you want. Rats figured this out long before me, and pregnant female rats make more males in good times, and more females in lean ones.
So when you're looking for someone to blame for sexism, blame the people who made the world too safe, so much so that it has almost obsoleted the female's natural adaptation-set. They're the same ones who made Idiocracy come to pass. Humpty-Dumpty falls off a wall and no matter that no one else did, the collective flips its lid and demands that the wall be made safer. They may not seem related but these extreme safety reactionaries are more responsible for sexism than any patriarchy.
In any rational world, females would be just as valuable as males, if not more so. We happen to live in an irrational, idiocracy of the safety-obsessed, and we have come to live in a padded room, where it's everyone else's responsibility to save idiots from the consequences of their actions. This world can't last. But in this brief period, the bolder, stronger male has the clear advantage.
This spells out pretty clearly the fact that in the wild, males are useless beyond being gene banks for females. In the wild, the female is the valuable one. The female can make more. When acts of god hit the species, it is the females that take it on the chin and save their kind, while all the males do is take up space.The Barbarian wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:33 amPretty much so. There are environments where parthengenesis is selected for, but they aren't common, and when the environment changes, such organisms are pretty well screwed. In general parthenogenic species of lizards live where conditions are marginal for lizards. For the obvious reason:
Science
Vol. 197, No. 4306
Animal Parthenogenesis: A new evolutionary-ecological model is needed.
Parthenogenesis can only evolve in areas devoid of the generating bisexual species, because such species would prevent newly formed unisexuals from establishing clones due either to hybridization or competition. Furthermore, the two unique features allowing parthenogenetic species to invade and occupy open habitats faster than bisexuals are (i) a double intrinsic rate of increase and (ii) the ability of one individual to establish a new colony.
This is in stark contrast to the safe, overpopulated world humans find themselves in. If we had 90% males, we would get the benefit of physically fitter individuals and not experience a cost, since there are already too many people.
The safer the world, the better males are for it, and the worse the conditions, the more females you want. Rats figured this out long before me, and pregnant female rats make more males in good times, and more females in lean ones.
So when you're looking for someone to blame for sexism, blame the people who made the world too safe, so much so that it has almost obsoleted the female's natural adaptation-set. They're the same ones who made Idiocracy come to pass. Humpty-Dumpty falls off a wall and no matter that no one else did, the collective flips its lid and demands that the wall be made safer. They may not seem related but these extreme safety reactionaries are more responsible for sexism than any patriarchy.
In any rational world, females would be just as valuable as males, if not more so. We happen to live in an irrational, idiocracy of the safety-obsessed, and we have come to live in a padded room, where it's everyone else's responsibility to save idiots from the consequences of their actions. This world can't last. But in this brief period, the bolder, stronger male has the clear advantage.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #35[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
It is an interesting question.
Some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
Therefore, the OPQ is redundant, because the claim "since rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene", is not able to be established or otherwise made as "a given".
Clearly is it not a 'given'.
It is an interesting question.
Some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
Therefore, the OPQ is redundant, because the claim "since rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene", is not able to be established or otherwise made as "a given".
Clearly is it not a 'given'.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #36If someone puts you in restraints to torture you and you choose to remain even though you could break the restraints and escape, the continued abuse is still an assault. And if a woman chooses to take a pregnancy to term after a rape, the rape----and its consequences----are still an assault. It's made an assault by the assailant's action, regardless of the victim's reaction to it.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:27 am [Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
It is an interesting question.
Some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
Therefore, the OPQ is redundant, because the claim "since rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene", is not able to be established or otherwise made as "a given".
Clearly is it not a 'given'.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #37You are thinking, and consequently arguing about this too narrowly.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:34 pmIf someone puts you in restraints to torture you and you choose to remain even though you could break the restraints and escape, the continued abuse is still an assault. And if a woman chooses to take a pregnancy to term after a rape, the rape----and its consequences----are still an assault. It's made an assault by the assailant's action, regardless of the victim's reaction to it.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:27 am [Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
It is an interesting question.
Some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
Therefore, the OPQ is redundant, because the claim "since rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene", is not able to be established or otherwise made as "a given".
Clearly is it not a 'given'.
The consequences of getting pregnant are the same whether the woman was raped or not. This is natural and there is no logical [or reasonable] cause to refer to a fetus as an assault, just because it was conceived through the act of rape.
Which was what I meant, when I wrote that some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #38I wasn't referring to the fetus as an assault; I was referring to the forced impregnation as an assault.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:58 pmYou are thinking, and consequently arguing about this too narrowly.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:34 pmIf someone puts you in restraints to torture you and you choose to remain even though you could break the restraints and escape, the continued abuse is still an assault. And if a woman chooses to take a pregnancy to term after a rape, the rape----and its consequences----are still an assault. It's made an assault by the assailant's action, regardless of the victim's reaction to it.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:27 am [Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
It is an interesting question.
Some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
Therefore, the OPQ is redundant, because the claim "since rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene", is not able to be established or otherwise made as "a given".
Clearly is it not a 'given'.
The consequences of getting pregnant are the same whether the woman was raped or not. This is natural and there is no logical [or reasonable] cause to refer to a fetus as an assault, just because it was conceived through the act of rape.
Which was what I meant, when I wrote that some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14187
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #39It looks to me that you were referring to the fetus, as you wrote;Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:26 pmI wasn't referring to the fetus as an assault; I was referring to the forced impregnation as an assault.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:58 pmYou are thinking, and consequently arguing about this too narrowly.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:34 pmIf someone puts you in restraints to torture you and you choose to remain even though you could break the restraints and escape, the continued abuse is still an assault. And if a woman chooses to take a pregnancy to term after a rape, the rape----and its consequences----are still an assault. It's made an assault by the assailant's action, regardless of the victim's reaction to it.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:27 am [Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
It is an interesting question.
Some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
Therefore, the OPQ is redundant, because the claim "since rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene", is not able to be established or otherwise made as "a given".
Clearly is it not a 'given'.
The consequences of getting pregnant are the same whether the woman was raped or not. This is natural and there is no logical [or reasonable] cause to refer to a fetus as an assault, just because it was conceived through the act of rape.
Which was what I meant, when I wrote that some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
the assault continues even when the assailant is no longer present; the victim's body is still being invaded.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2696
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: A moral question about rape
Post #40If you look back at my OP, you'll see that I was raising the issue of emergency contraception.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:34 pmIt looks to me that you were referring to the fetus, as you wrote;Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 2:26 pmI wasn't referring to the fetus as an assault; I was referring to the forced impregnation as an assault.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:58 pmYou are thinking, and consequently arguing about this too narrowly.Athetotheist wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 1:34 pmIf someone puts you in restraints to torture you and you choose to remain even though you could break the restraints and escape, the continued abuse is still an assault. And if a woman chooses to take a pregnancy to term after a rape, the rape----and its consequences----are still an assault. It's made an assault by the assailant's action, regardless of the victim's reaction to it.William wrote: ↑Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:27 am [Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
It is an interesting question.
Some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
Therefore, the OPQ is redundant, because the claim "since rape is a type of assault which continues even after the assailant leaves the scene", is not able to be established or otherwise made as "a given".
Clearly is it not a 'given'.
The consequences of getting pregnant are the same whether the woman was raped or not. This is natural and there is no logical [or reasonable] cause to refer to a fetus as an assault, just because it was conceived through the act of rape.
Which was what I meant, when I wrote that some women chose to keep their babies even though the fetus came about through an act of rape.
the assault continues even when the assailant is no longer present; the victim's body is still being invaded.