I have read that the long-running play The Vagina Monologues presents a statutory lesbian rape of a child in a positive way. Also, NAMBLA presents statutory rape of boys by men in a positive way.
Now now, let’s not turn this into a debate over “statutory rape” versus “real rape.”
Well, it wouldn’t be. Good thing my morality does not demand I absolutely value life. Now, if I can just turn the boy parts into girl parts and get pregnant, I can safely have an abortion. Whew!
Medical cites, please?
Bob Cos
No way. Makes the top 10, but many things are more important than a person’s right to live.
Believe me, if you trap me and the only way I can escape from the cage you’ve put me in is for me to kill you, and the opportunity presents itself, you’re dead.
Heck, I’ll go further: if someone ELSE traps me and the only way I can escape from the cage THEY put me in is for me to kill you, even if you had nothing to do with it, you’re still dead, although I’d feel sad about having to do it.
Perhaps, but that only says that some people DO condone rape. It doesn’t suggest that these acts are acceptable.
SHOULD we treat acts of rape as morally acceptable (in at least some situations) or as absolutely wrong? I can not imagine ANY situation in which, say, child rape by a mentally competent individual can be morally justified.
By utilitarian standards, any of these acts can be justified, depending on the outcome. If the choice is between violently raping the boy and letting him be killed, I’d rape him, and I’d feel like the greater good had ultimately been served in a really, really bad situation.
Don’t mistake me: I’m not arguing for “the ends justify the means”. Philosophically, though, any of these can be justified by the doctrine of double effect.
Saying that no moral precept is absolute simple recognizes that there’s no clear hierarchy of moral principles for resolving conflicts. Like rights in a constitution, there will certainly be competing claims that may leave, as Thomas Nagel calls it, moral residue–the aftereffects of choosing the lesser of two evils.
I can. Pretend children are not people and have no rights. Voila! You can do whatever you want to them.
Abortion has been around for thousands of years. It is only referred to indirectly in the Bible in Ezekiel, where Israel is compared unfavorably to a woman having an abortion. Abortion itself is never directly condemned in the Bible, despite their knowledge and use of it, and in spite of their having an opinion on it (unfavorable). My question to fundamentalists (I’m and evangelical, which gives plenty of room for interpretation) is why so much emphasis is given in their religious practice/belief to something that is never spoken to directly and what appears to me (and maybe I am wrong) to be direct and unequivocal commands to love thine enemy as thyself and to give a poor person the coat off your back appear to me to be ignored if not actually scorned?
Well, there is a post I wish I had put more thought into. I don’t mean to flame fundamentalists here, but I sure do get frustrated trying to figure out why abortion is so important to them and love thine enemy (or non-fundamentalist neighbor) doesn’t seem to come across to the observer as nearly as important when Jesus says it is the most important thing.
Well, I’m speechless (almost). That certainly must make moral decisions much easier for you. Your immediate release justifies killing an innocent person? In your hierarchy of rights, the operative qualifier is how a given exercise of rights will affect you alone, I guess, at least beyond some line…
Am I paraphrasing properly? If so, um, okay, at least we know where you stand…not sure there’s anywhere else to go in debating a moral dilemma, though, if this is axiomatic for you…
(BTW, Gomez, the content and tone of your contributions are always a nice addition to these debates!)
Let’s turn the question around for a moment. To those of you who oppose abortion: how would you argue that the folks on the other side of this issue are fundamentally immoral people?
Consider how many adults adhere to an ethical system that differs from yours mainly on this particular issue. Consider why they describe themselves not as “pro-abortion” but as “pro-choice.” Also consider that the majority of them either cannot or have not actually had an abortion.
Some on the “pro-choice” side of this debate would assert that ethical decisions where good people disagree should be left in the hands of the individuals who live with the consequences.
For instance, a young married couple with no children discovers that the husband has an incurable brain tumor. His probable life expectancy is 12-18 months. His sperm still stand a normal chance of producing healthy children. They consider freezing some at a sperm bank before he begins cancer treatment.
Would this be wrong? If so, should something prevent them from doing this? If not, then where would you draw the line between private freedom and public morality?
Comparisons to child molestation and rape shouldn’t be necessary: all of society condemns these extreme behaviors. We’re talking about areas that are open to mainstream debate.
Do you really not understand how this is begging the quetion?
Why do feel the need to misuse the word “life” when there is a perfectly good term for human life (that is, “human life”) in existance already? Is it really too much trouble to type the word “human”? This seems to be a common phenomenon among anti-abortionists, and leads to such ridiculous statements as “Life is precious and unique among all living things” (no, I’m not making this quote up). My morality includes respect for life, but it also includes respect for clear and honest communication.
I don’t know, so I take birth as the least arbitrary criterion.
If by “sanctity”, you mean “can not be taken in any situation”, then no, the vast majority of morality does not include the sanctity of life, human or otherwise.
I think the point is that AHunter’s life is more important to him than any other individual’s life. If another individual stands in his way of being alive, he finds moral justification in living over killing. I would agree. Apparently you do not.
Might I ask how you determine if another individual is more important than you? I only see a moral dilemma if one accepts the premise that all individuals, including the self, are equal.
This is not a medical issue. This is an issue of pragmatic reality.
Do you consider a stem cell to be a human? A human being imprisoned in a frozen orphanage (as one congressman put it)? Obviously not - that is ludicrous from a common sense standpoint. A fertilized egg is potential human life, not a living, breathing, eating, defacating, emotional, intelligent human.
Belief that “a human being exists at conception” is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.
The evils for forcing women to remain pregnant (keep in mind, if men were the ones who got pregnant we would not be having this conversation - abortion would be a daily routine without second thought), in addition to the costs to society (overpopulation, unwanted children not being cared for, higher crime - see the Donohue/Levitt study) greatly outweigh the opinion that terminating a pregnancy is analogous to shooting a person in the head for no reason.
Nothing, in my opinion, is worse than a child born to parents who do not care about it, cannot support it, and do not love it. A million aborted fetuses is better than one child born into such a situation.
It seems to me that the time of life’s beginning IS a medical question.
Boy! Talk about red herrings.
Of course, the stem cell is not human. Nobody claims that they are though, so what’s your point? Stem cells are NOT the same as embryos or fetuses. They are often harvested FROM the unborn, but they are not unborn humans themselves, and nobody claims taht they are.
Once again though, can you provide a medical citation citation which says that it is merely “potential” life?
Once again, medical cite? Or is it just your opinion that its humanity is a matter of opinion.
Besides which, the overwhelming majority of abortions occur LONG AFTER conception. LONG AFTER. So even if we grant that life does not begin at conception, that doesn’t address the problem of whether abortion takes a human life or not.
And yet a recent Gallup poll showed that the percentage of women who are pro-life is virtually identical to the percentage of pro-life men (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr990518.asp ). What does that tell you?
Does anyone honestly believe that the fetus is merely “a collection of cells”?
If you still believe the lie that the unborn is just a lump of tissue, then I recommend that you check out http://www.unborn.com for evidence to the contrary.
Suppose that the parents do not care about the child, cannot suppor it, or do not love it. Is abortion the only alternative? Do their desires take precedence over the unborn’s right to live?
“But wait!” you might say, “I don’t consider the unborn to be a human being.” Aha! There lies the real issue. Is the unborn a living human being? If it isn’t, then no amount of pleading is necessary to justify abortion. On the other hand, if it is a living human, then no amount of pleading is sufficient.
Once again, I challenge everyone to look the documentation on http://www.unborn.com . Do you still think that a fetus is just a stem cell, or vice versa? Do you still think that the unborn is nothing but a lump of tissue, or a collection of unwanted cells?
JThunder–do I have this right? Did the woman on that website say that she went to women who had had abortions and showed them ultrasound pictures of what the fetus looked like before the abortion? Because if so–I’m speechless.
Look, I’m a developmental biologist, and I am still pro-choice. I really don’t think that the issue is about whether the fetus appears to have tiny fingers and toes.