Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

dod123 · 07-28-2003, 09:42 PM

Well, the whole question of rape is interesting, i suppose. However, not to be injust to the women, there are times and situations that do not call for morals. It depends on reality. If anyone has seen the movie, umm, Extreme Measures (a good movie btw) where a doctor is doing extreme things to homeless people to try to find some type of medical cure. Basically the concept of the movie revolves around, if you could murder X number of people to cure something like cancer, is it justified. Can you distinguish X being 1, or 1 million when cancer kills MILLIONs? Where can someone 'morally' draw the line. In such a case, it depends on your 'morals'. Nobody can tell me what mine are, and i cannot tell anyone else what theirs should be.

But this case is completely different, assuming TONS of men, and 50 women, we're talking about a situation that is... well... desperate. Reality 'should' prevail, and the reality of the situtation is, the importance of those 50 women reproducing 'may' outweigh the 'immorality' of forcing some or all of them into reproducing.

I'll simply ignore the scientific genetic problems because the number of women is random, so let's not get too complicated right? It is asked, if someone breaks into your home (or whatever) and gives you the option, one of your loved ones must die, and the other, shall live (whether it be your mother or father, sister or brother, wife or gf, etc etc). What do you do, who do you choose. Morals, feelings, whatever aren't relevant here. Sure, some people don't like a family member or another, but assume for a moment that you love them equally. You have 60 seconds to choose, what do you do? Brutally enough, i would suggest logic in the absense of good moral or emotional judgement. I would choose to live, the one who would live longer in life. I dare not judge the 'quality' of life that they live, because that can change, but in essence, i'd choose the younger one. That's me anyway. It's brutal, but it's honest. And that, in my mind, is what a desperate situation calls for.

Rape is not a good thing, we can agree on this, but the real world isn't so nice. I won't bother arguing whether humanity is worth saving if this is what it comes down to, i cannot justify it either way.

*AN INTERESTING POINT* how about this situation, which i find more interesting.

What if one of them women has an incurable transmittable disease (such as AIDS) that will be passed to her child. Should she be ALLOWED to give birth? Essentially, if she doesn't, we could rid society of it. What if the disease was even more specific, more infectious, more deadly, and it could infect all the new children in society etc. NOW you have a dilema. Opinions?

07-28-2003, 09:42 PM	#70 (permalink)
dod123 Upright Location: US	a more interesting note Well, the whole question of rape is interesting, i suppose. However, not to be injust to the women, there are times and situations that do not call for morals. It depends on reality. If anyone has seen the movie, umm, Extreme Measures (a good movie btw) where a doctor is doing extreme things to homeless people to try to find some type of medical cure. Basically the concept of the movie revolves around, if you could murder X number of people to cure something like cancer, is it justified. Can you distinguish X being 1, or 1 million when cancer kills MILLIONs? Where can someone 'morally' draw the line. In such a case, it depends on your 'morals'. Nobody can tell me what mine are, and i cannot tell anyone else what theirs should be. But this case is completely different, assuming TONS of men, and 50 women, we're talking about a situation that is... well... desperate. Reality 'should' prevail, and the reality of the situtation is, the importance of those 50 women reproducing 'may' outweigh the 'immorality' of forcing some or all of them into reproducing. I'll simply ignore the scientific genetic problems because the number of women is random, so let's not get too complicated right? It is asked, if someone breaks into your home (or whatever) and gives you the option, one of your loved ones must die, and the other, shall live (whether it be your mother or father, sister or brother, wife or gf, etc etc). What do you do, who do you choose. Morals, feelings, whatever aren't relevant here. Sure, some people don't like a family member or another, but assume for a moment that you love them equally. You have 60 seconds to choose, what do you do? Brutally enough, i would suggest logic in the absense of good moral or emotional judgement. I would choose to live, the one who would live longer in life. I dare not judge the 'quality' of life that they live, because that can change, but in essence, i'd choose the younger one. That's me anyway. It's brutal, but it's honest. And that, in my mind, is what a desperate situation calls for. Rape is not a good thing, we can agree on this, but the real world isn't so nice. I won't bother arguing whether humanity is worth saving if this is what it comes down to, i cannot justify it either way. AN INTERESTING POINT how about this situation, which i find more interesting. What if one of them women has an incurable transmittable disease (such as AIDS) that will be passed to her child. Should she be ALLOWED to give birth? Essentially, if she doesn't, we could rid society of it. What if the disease was even more specific, more infectious, more deadly, and it could infect all the new children in society etc. NOW you have a dilema. Opinions?