[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[The New California Republic]

Is it possible to speak nonsense objectively? This statement for instance, that you are calling "objective", is nonsensical.

What do you or do you not understand?

Others seem to have the same concerns as me. A more pressing question is this one.

[Sundiata]

Rape is not neutral; it is violence. Again, a neutral situation would not involve violence or the responsibility to stop violence.

So...you are talking about a hypothetical rape devoid of violence? Just what exactly are you saying here? We were talking about rape, and now you are talking about rape as a neutral situation...?

No, again, a neutral situation would not involve rape. Again, does not involve rape. Why? Because rape is by definition violence, ergo, not a neutral circumstance.

[The New California Republic]

So...you are talking about a hypothetical rape devoid of violence? Just what exactly are you saying here? We were talking about rape, and now you are talking about rape as a neutral situation...?

No, again, a neutral situation would not involve rape. Again, does not involve rape. Why? Because rape is by definition violence, ergo, not a neutral circumstance.

Let's start again. Let me quote you, in full, with the relevant section bolded and underlined, so you can please explain what you mean by this:

I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances. However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.

[Neuer California]

If we're derailing into morality and objectivity, I'd like to point out that since good, evil, altruism, greed etc. are all ultimately subjective beliefs and constructs created by man as a framework for morality and society (unless you can.prove that they are in any way objectively good or bad through some sort of outside measurement) ALL actions are morally neutral from an objective standpoint. Objectivity and morality are two separate, non-intersecting concepts.

Prove me wrong

[Ifreann]

These are the knots one must tie oneself in to argue that it is morally correct to force people to remain pregnant against their wishes.

[Sundiata]

No, again, a neutral situation would not involve rape. Again, does not involve rape. Why? Because rape is by definition violence, ergo, not a neutral circumstance.

Let's start again. Let me quote you, in full, with the relevant section bolded and underlined, so you can please explain what you mean by this:

I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances. However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.

In laymen's terms: have the potential for lethal force but don't try to kill.

[Sundiata]

If we're derailing into morality and objectivity, I'd like to point out that since good, evil, altruism, greed etc. are all ultimately subjective beliefs and constructs created by man as a framework for morality and society (unless you can.prove that they are in any way objectively good or bad through some sort of outside measurement) ALL actions are morally neutral from an objective standpoint. Objectivity and morality are two separate, non-intersecting concepts.

Prove me wrong

It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of this discussion about humanity.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

I simply extended your logic to a 'natural' conclusion, in order to point out how absolutely bullshit your logic is. A woman should very much be able to defend herself with deadly force, and that does not change even remotely between born persons and not-born.

Your position is internally inconsistent and frankly outright horrifying.

I feel the same way about your position. If you can't distinguish between a rapist and an unborn human being then you've got some cycling back to do. Rape is a crime; existence should not be. In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances. However, one's intention should never be to kill anyone even in circumstances where their death unfortunately occurs. The intentional killing of anyone, including an unborn human being is wrong.

You are wrong. According to natural law, you are wrong.

Any non consensual violation of a person’s bodily integrity is wrong, and no amount of special pleading on your part will change that. You need to understand that a woman experiencing an unwanted pregnancy can and likely will feel like they are threatened in a great many ways similar to being raped, and though they may not blame or hold it against the fetus they are (and very much should be) permitted to remedy this. To do otherwise is to be utterly devoid of any semblance of empathy for those who are actually capable of feeling anything.

But then, it must feel easier to empathize with the fetus, as it’s easier to ascribe your own desires on an entity devoid of any agency.

[The New California Republic]

Let's start again. Let me quote you, in full, with the relevant section bolded and underlined, so you can please explain what you mean by this:

In laymen's terms: have the potential for lethal force but don't try to kill.

Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.

[Neuer California]

If we're derailing into morality and objectivity, I'd like to point out that since good, evil, altruism, greed etc. are all ultimately subjective beliefs and constructs created by man as a framework for morality and society (unless you can.prove that they are in any way objectively good or bad through some sort of outside measurement) ALL actions are morally neutral from an objective standpoint. Objectivity and morality are two separate, non-intersecting concepts.

Prove me wrong

It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.

Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch

[Sundiata]

In laymen's terms: have the potential for lethal force but don't try to kill.

Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.

"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.

[Spirit of Hope]

It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.

Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch

I mean there are more than a couple societies that don't view rape as morally wrong, especially under specific circumstances. The most obvious example I can think of is forced marriage and marital rape. A women has little or no power to choose who she is marrying and once in marriage has no ability to say no to their husband. While I, and I suspect many here, view that as morally wrong, there are many cultures, past and present, that don't.

[Celritannia]

Sorry, but that explanation for your statement of "In the instance of detering rape, force utilized could potentially and should be potentially deadly for most neutral instances" makes no sense. Are you sure you are explaining the correct section? What do you mean by "most neutral instances" is what I am getting at.

"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.

Rape is violent, to say it isn't is idiotic.

[Sundiata]

It shouldn't be controversial to say that rape is objectively evil in the context of humanity.

Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch

Non-human animals can't rape one another.

[Celritannia]

Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch

Non-human animals can't rape one another.

Yes they do. It's documented.

[Spirit of Hope]

Saying rape is morally wrong? Sure.

Calling it objectively wrong? Well, considering how much rape happens in the animal kingdom (ducks, dolphins, and many other species routinely practice it with no negative consequences), that is far more of a stretch

Non-human animals can't rape one another.

Where do you get that from?

Rape, sex without consent of one party, definitely happens in the animal kingdom.

[Sundiata]

Non-human animals can't rape one another.

Yes they do. It's documented.

Their behavior resembles rape, sure. But a situation can't be rape if it doesn't involve a human being.

[Spirit of Hope]

Yes they do. It's documented.

Their behavior resembles rape, sure. But a situation can't be rape if it doesn't involve a human being.

Ahh, so you're defining rape so that rape in the animal kingdom isn't rape. Nice circular logic.

[Celritannia]

Yes they do. It's documented.

Their behavior resembles rape, sure. But a situation can't be rape if it doesn't involve a human being.

This is such idiotic reasoning.

[Sundiata]

"Most neutral instances," the range of instances that don't involve any form of violence, including rape. For example, tripping on a lethal weapon, for instance.

Rape is violent, to say it isn't is idiotic.

I agree; I consistently have.

[Sundiata]

Their behavior resembles rape, sure. But a situation can't be rape if it doesn't involve a human being.

This is such idiotic reasoning.

Okay.

[Celritannia]

This is such idiotic reasoning.

Okay.

Animals rape, that is an indisputable fact by all laws of natural science.

[Sundiata]

Okay.

Animals rape, that is an indisputable fact by all laws of natural science.

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape at least involves a human being.

[Celritannia]

Animals rape, that is an indisputable fact by all laws of natural science.

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape involves a human being.

Science disagrees. Which is why your comment is idiotic.

[Sundiata]

Sexual coercion amongst non-human animals is not rape but it's certainly comparable. Rape involves a human being.

Science disagrees.which is why your comment is idiotic.

That is not the scientific concensus.