Ethical question about rape...
 

The other night, seen “28 days after” with my girlfriend. I’ll spare you guys the movie details, as having spoiler info could make less people give their opinions… but anyway, this ethical question has arisen in our afterwards conversation:

In a situation where there is only, say, 50 fertile women left in the world, would it be within such women’s rights, for whatever reason, to decide not to have children, or would it be their duty to bare as many children as they could manage to during their life, in the interest of preserving the human species?

And then there is the real trick question… if they decide not to have children… would it be acceptable that people forced them to? And when I say force, I mean resorting to every way available, regardless how unethical, including rape?

What is the ethical limit of the rights of the disposition of a person over his/her own body? In what moment, if any, would such terrible violence be acceptable over the legitimate free will, the rightful freedom of a person, in the interest of the human race? And if so would there be limits? And what limits?

that would depend on the morals of the remaining 50 people
and hey, even if they didnt like it, its only 49 people that hate you

There's a tendency to say that what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong -- unless survival is at stake. But if the only way to survive is to make yourself less than you are -- say, by condoning rape -- I'd say, maybe your line should die.

i think that they have a morla obligation to bear children, but i dont think that it would be right to force them too. It would happen anyway though, regardless of morals, i dont believe that the geans(sp?) we are born with affect our personalities very much, but if there is one instinct that we do have, that we fairly obviously have, its survival of the human species. Our deepest, most primitive desire is to mate, to procreate, to continue this human race and make it stronger and better. So, with 50 people left, regardless of the peoples disposition, they probably will bear children, of the woman chooses not to bear them, i would try my best to defy my body, but not everyone would do so.

I believe it'd be more of an issue of convincing said women that it's necessary. I believe that'd be possible over time. If not, there's still 49 other women to try your luck with.

my very first thought on seeing that thread title was a George Carlin routine....

Rape is rape, no matter how you try to justify it.

if there are 50 women, then there are enough to gain choice. I doubt all 50 would be against the idea of being "Eve" if some were, then try persuasion. If they still dont want to, then fine. Then her lack of children will be the death of her dna. If there are so few people left, then the importance of right and wrong and morals will be decided by those few.

Is there a moral imperative to perpetuate the human race? Where is it written that if the human race gets down to its last 50 souls, its our job to make more humans?

Fuck that.

Yep, rape is rape.

But given the circumstances - you and 50 women left in the world - the survival of the human race at stake. Some calling.

You'd be rather pissed off if all 50 women gave birth to girls.

Well id that u have to do wat u gotta do... In this situation u need to prolong the human race this is survival. Im not sayin rape is good in any which way but im also sayin the end of man kind is not a good thingb either ... So this definetely a tough subject to comment on!!

Then i guess we'd be assessing the moral implications of incest...

Does the date rape drug exist in this scenario? Do police exist?

It's not rape if she doesn't remember it, right?
It's also not rape unless you get caught, right?

When girls say "no" they really mean "yes".

NOT that I would ever do it. I would Jedi Mind Trick them and use the force.

Ok, ok, in all seriousness...rape is about power and control and it is a very serious crime. But something that may seem more serious at the time is keeping the human race in existence.

It seems like they would want to all keep the race in existence no matter how ugly you were. But, if they were that much against it...who is to say that they wouldn't try to kil the baby in the 9 months of pregnancy?

I must really be bored answering this shit...on to something else.

oops, am I aloud to say "shit"? That was my first post. Also, how about my favorite word "fuck"? Are people STILL offended by such great words? Or have we gotten over it?

Survival of the species is more important than the "feelings" of the last remaining humans. I can't imagine that any of the last 50 women would not understand that.

Yes.

I would do it, this question is a bit of a paradox in the same sense as asking if it was moral to nuke nagasaki and hiroshima in order to save more lives then we killed. Would I feel bad doing it? Yup. Does it need to be done? Yup.

If rape is necessary for the human race to survive, then the human race will not be missed.
Whatever grand scheme it is necessary for, it can never be grand enough.

You'd be suprised at the things people have done to "survive". Like the guy who recently sawed his own arm with a dull pocket knife off when he got it caught under a boulder in the middle of nowhere.

People have done much worse...I'm sure you can imagine. Some civilizations and religions have broken every law towards humanity (rape, murder, torture, etc.) just to stay in power.

It's not only morally right to do it...we are obligated to do it.

Your quote about guns....I like. But, if you think about it, if we didn't have guns murder and war and crimes would just me more gruesome....ever seen the movie Braveheart?

I'd rather be shot than hit with a battle ax or some of those weapons. Guns are a nice quick death. There are worse things then death. Of course, I guess you can be shot and still live and/or die slow by getting shot too.

Slow deaths suck.

When it comes down to it, humans are merely animals, nothing more.

If it's for the greater good of the human race I doubt that all fifty woman would be overly opposed to submitting.

I think the scenario is far too hypothetical to even make it worth thinking about.

I'd think it'd depend on supplies. For instance, if she wouldn't reproduce, we'd have more of a problem justifying providing her with protection and food. If she still doesn't want to, we've eliminated her stubborn, stupid genes from the pool.

How could they justify their feelings. "I'm not ready to be a mom." or "Let's get to know each other first" certinly wouln't cut it in my book. I don't think it would come to the point where you'd have to rape them, but like denim said, it'll just make for a cleaner gene pool.

maybe we'd be lucky and they would reproduce all by themselves ala Jurassic Park...

It seems like most folks in this discussion think there is a moral directive to preserve our species. Does this apply to other animals as well? Would you commit rape if, for example, it would somehow prevent the extinction of the California Condor?

Given that none of us are a condor, I figure that's a bogus question.

I think so. I think it is a great tragedy and a shame for any species to become extinct due to the carelessness of an intelligent species such as humans.

It's a shame the way we reproduce and overpopulate and over use our resources in a greedy manor...in such a thoughtless, unconsicous way that another beautiful, God-created species has to die off altogether.

In my humble opinion, it is very evil when genocide of another species weaker than us has to die because we want to use more than we should.

Some of us have evolved...but, most of us are reproducing like we still don't realize their IS NOT ENOUGH FUCKING RESOURCES. A few of us are using birth control. However, the ghetto mother fuckers and third world nations have just not caught on yet.

The more we overpopulate, the shittier the quality of life is per person.

Unfortunately, war, disease and natural disasters are the universe's only way to cleanse itself of our filth.

We need to evolve as a society and think as a higher consciousness for this to stop.

if we ever result to rape to forego our species then I pray we go extinct. fast.

No, just no.

It is not an individuals place to 'ensure' the survival of our species through rape. Nobody has an obligation to bear children, even if that means you won't be able to father any.

This thread reminds me of Dr. Strangelove....

Hang on a minute, what real grounds do anyone have for claiming that the survival of the species is paramount above the needs and desires of the individual? So the human race will die out, big deal. The world is made of individuals. You have obligations to yourself and those you interact with first and foremost. The end of the species is no direct harm to any individual so I fail to see how you could claim that not reproducing harms anyone.

And to say that its a moral duty is just plain moronic. Morals are subjective. If you agree with that you're allowing one individual's moral values to supercede that of others, and thats not acceptable.

tracer bullet: actually, the whole individuals thing is a very *very* recent fenomenon. Up until not that long ago, there were a few individuals, but most of them were masses, no matter how you look at it.
Morals and values of the individual are again a recent phenomenon. They are in reality a luxury we have these days because of a general welfare, civilisation and technology.

If you take that all away, most human will easily slump back to previous forms of living.

The survival of the species is not a moral duty, it's beyond that, it's a natural urge, an instinct. If it really came to it, that instinct would kick in I'm sure.
I don't know whether any woman would refuse it, and if she did, I'm pretty sure the others would peer-pressure her into it.

In both cases it was wrong...

Rape is rape and like many here there is nothing that says the human race must survive... and if there was who'd want it to be populated in such a manner.

As for Hiroshima and Nagisaki... it wasn't neccessary. They could have left the Japanese with the territories they had and called for a cessation of war... They *might* have been open to the idea. (sorry didn't mean to hijack the thread)

Manslow's Hiarirarchy of Needs (spelling)

The base comes first. It does not matter if you need food if you don't have air, as such it does not matter if you don't have the spreading of the race, free-will does not matter...

Reikes: never heard of that one, but I totally agree with you.

Hierarchy of Needs probably. Should look into that Manslow-character, any info on him?

Fuck this...you guys are a bunch of fuckin fruit cakes...acting like rape is so horrible that you would rather see the extinction of the human race.


I would take great pleasure in raping the hell out of a dumb bitch that didn't think it was necessary for the human species to exist any longer because of her selfish ways.

I would violently fuck the hell out of each and every single one of them - six ways, sideways...24 hours a day, doggie style, wheel barrow, donkey punch and all...and then spit on them for being so stupid.

That'll teach them to question the importance of the human race's survival.

It almost offends me that others think its not important, but then I realize that it is just a crazy hypothetical question in a forum and they are just trying to be "politically correct" and impress others with the answers they think others want to hear.

My personal opinion is that you don't have sex unless you're invited too, regardless of the circumstances.

As men, we don't have the right to just "take" what we want. It's not right, or we might as well be mindless animals too. We call ourselves civilized for a reason right?

Who the fuck are you? You do realize you've made yourself look about 10,000 times less of a person. I will now ignore everything you say.

You're a fucking idiot. You wouldnt live to "rape the hell out of a dumb bitch".

Re: Ethical question about rape...
 

NO never. They have a "Duty" to do so, as much as they have a Choice not to.

Are you the same one that says you are as American as SERIAL KILLERS?

Hmmm....whatever makes you feel better.

Ignorance is bliss. I'm sure you have ingored great opinions all of your life.

Stop posting answers you think will make others happy. Post what you really feel - you fall in line like a fuckin robot...you are exactly what society wants you to be....playing your role.

FREE YOURSELF! LET IT OUT! IT FEELS GOOD!

And I would take great pleasure in making sure you never touched another human being again, let alone a woman. If the only way your genes can survive is through rape, then maybe it'd be best if your genes died.

This is a tad off subject, but just for the record, we aren't even close to being over populated.

I have never raped a woman, nor would I ever.

But, crime towards humanity by letting the human race die out like that, if one were to be so selfish...is much more serious than rape.

Well, unless the remaining 50 were all trashy skank whores like you...then I would just let them die.

:icare:

In our hypothetical situation you'll only be around for another 50-70 years before everything about you vanishes, and if history judges either of us I would be the man who gave life to the modern human race, rather then a common rapist. I personally feel not doing so would be an abomination.

Also! In the interest of keeping focus on this rather interesting subject I reply to your statement with: "nu uh." and invite you to do the same!

Well, chizzle, you certainly believe that the survival of the human species is more is more important than the rights of an individual. Further, you are not afraid to express an unpopular opinion.

I'm curious as to WHY you feel this way. Do you feel that God put us on the Earth, and its your duty to make sure we don't disappear? You think the moral foundation of your argument is obvious, and therefore left it unsaid. But I'm a little dense, so please, clue me in.

OH MY GOD! ARE YOU SERIOUS?

We are using up our resources at an ubelieveably horrible, rapid, destructive rate.

http://www.overpopulation.net

Almost everything wrong in the world is caused by overpopulation.

We will run out of drinking water in less than 50 years.
The quality of the air we breathe is shit.

Povery is caused by overpopulation...been to Africa lately?

Ghettos, slums, the projects a result of overpopulation. The rainforests, the lakes, EVERYTHING! Too many people = too much waste!

Too many fuckin cars on the road.

Must I go on?

Yeah, I think God made our number 1 instict survival. We are made to survive.

I like what Phaenx said:

"In our hypothetical situation you'll only be around for another 50-70 years before everything about you vanishes, and if history judges either of us I would be the man who gave life to the modern human race, rather then a common rapist. I personally feel not doing so would be an abomination."

In this situation, one is not raping another to dominate or commit a crime against another...or merely for sexual pleasure...one is giving life to the modern human race and should be looked at as a hero..not a criminal.

I admit I took it too far in saying some of the things I said, though. I sure got a rise from it! :lol:

Humans tend to crowd into small places, ever been to Montana? Pennsylvania? That's a cute site, but they're only trying to scare you.

(make a new thread to respond)

No matter what you say now will take away what you said before. You're a sad excuse for a human being.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Are you the judge? Please respond so I can no whether to give a shit or not what you think about me.

If you are God, let me know...then I care.
:icare:

chizzle:
That makes no sense. Clearly you would rape a woman, and in fact enjoy it:
I think rape is a crime against the universe, or God if you prefer. I will never condone forcing oneself onto another.
If I am the trashy skank whore for being the one that will not condone rape for any reason whatsoever, then there is no need to explain what you are.

PKoi,

You are right and I am wrong.

I wouldn't have to rape anyone though...all the bizwiches would want my children...they'd be fighting over my shit.

What kind of person wouldn't want to make the human race surive, I can't begin to comprehend anyone who would just say let our race die because I don't want to have children, it boogles my mind, so I would say in terms of survivial "rape" shouldn't even be an option

Oh Jesus Christ.


Thanks for the laugh.:lol:

oh the irony. :P

i am seriously confused as to why the mods have let this soap opera go as long as it has.

isn't this the site of respect, state opinions, but do not flame?

hmmm. www.tfproject.org i am at the right site.

this is sad.

I actually was just digging into this thread in depth as I came to if via another post about overpopulation.

WhoaitsZ is correct, there is no need to flame.

Please post respectful comments or the thread will be locked.

Any race that deems violence or forced sex ok should be extinct. That's just IMHO.

You're missing the point.

If rape was necessary to continue the species, even though it should be done, it doesn't ever make it "okay". It's merely a horrible thing that has to be done. Try to make a distinction between the two ("okay", and "necessary") in your mind, and I think you'll understand where some of us are coming from.

As for "chizzle", . . . http://www.e46fanatics.com/forum/ima...ilies/jack.gif

We must secure the existence of our people, ill be damned if I let my race die.

If it came down to it , I would rape, I would feel like shit after but it would still be done.

I'm sorry for my rude and disrespectful comments earlier. I appreciate forums like this with no flaming. Please forgive me...I will not do it again.

just a question, are you trying to bring up a crop of psychologically well humans through rape?! Rape will destroy the psyche's of the women who refuse and that will pass on to the children. Then, the precedent will be set and will breed awful repercussions.
An easy way to get the refusers to understand the importance of it is to shun them. The inbreeding problem is difficult, but not insurmountable. (just don't know how long it would work)

i don't see how people can speak for other people, especially when ethics are involved.

i mean it's not like you have can just stick your hand up someone's ass and make someone share your beliefs and ideas. if it only were that simple, i'd be neck deep in everyone's ass... wait a minute, that didn't sound right...

i can only speak for myself, as male of the human species, in the situation noted above. i couldn't rape a woman under any circumstance. if the human race ends because i chose not to rape a woman against her will, then so be it.

Oh MY, but you must not be aware of quite a bit of what goes on in the animal world.

Cats and moles are the first critters that come to mind. Male cats have burrs on their pricks which tear at the female on the out stroke, and they're necessary to get the female to ovulate, otherwise she just goes into heat. Moles, IIRC, are worse: the female is a virgin every time! That is, her equivalent of a hymen heals between matings. If you look, you'll find more.

point 1: 50 fertile women and (presumably) 50 fertile men are not enough to ensure the repopulation of the world by the human species. That's way too small of a gene pool. If I remember my high school biology correctly, you would need about 1000 of each to prevent the species from degrading into and inbred, retarded and infertile mess that would die out quickly of its own bad genes.

point 2: the human species became what it is through rape. 10,000 years ago there was no recreational consentual sex as we know it today. the males of the species took the females whenever and whereever they wanted, by force if necessary. You can see the same thing happen by watching stray cats if you have them in your neighborhood. the difference is that back then, they didnt know it was rape, they acted thusly on instinct.

point 3: unless you believe in a mandate for survival from whatever god you worship, then I dont see how you can say that humanity needs to survive. sure, I think we all want the species to go on, and I think its commonly accepted that there is a survival instinct in our genes that propels us to try to keep the species alive. But I dont personally see how it is any great loss to the universe if homo sapiens sapiens becomes extinct. the universe "cares" less for us than we do for the common housefly. with or without humanity in the mix, the universe will continue to do its thing for many millenia, and the passing of humanity will not affect it in the slightest.

point 4: I agree with those who say that if rape is the only means for the survival of the species, perhaps it is time to let the species die out. Rape is a crime against not only the individual but also the species as a whole. In my system of morality, the only crime worse than rape is murder. And I dont believe that either of them can ever be justified.

point 5: There are other means of continuing the species, such as artificial insemination, in vitro vertilization, etc, that could potentially be utilized so that even those women who didnt want have or bear childern could contribute to the continuation of the species.

point 6: chizzle, just in case the mods havent already informed you (and i'm sure they have) you were way out of line in this thread. you are free to express your opinions here, but insulting the other members is NOT accepted. another outburst like what you did in this thread will most assuredly result in your being banned from TFP. please clean up your act.

Please read the thread before you post - there is nothing more annoying. I already apologized.

point 1: if I recall correctly, modern science has also traced back through the mitochondria of the human cells the number of "primeordial Eves" and there are a helluva lot less than 1000. So science contradicts itself constantly, since nobody ever knows for sure what would happen given those circumstances.

point 2 & 3: we care! that's the whole point.
quote George Carlin: "you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it UP!" Life in itself has the urge to feed and to procreate. We feel (note feel: not rational, pure instinct) we are something special, so we will go on, no matter what it takes. Nobody cares at that point what "the universe" thinks of us.

point 4: explain to me how rape is a crime to humanity? I agree with todays morals and standards, it is a crime, and should be punished. Why? Because we are civilised and cultured enough to refuse it. But we're talking about a totally different setting here, we're talking about no more real culture, since there are only 50 people left (or 100, don't remember if it was 1 man or 50)

point 5: I don't know how well you are aware of this, but when there are 50 men and women around, I doubt high-tech things like in-vitro & artificial insemination will be possible. Also, if you use artif. insemination, the woman still has to bear the child. And I figured in-vitro meant fertilising the egg outside the body and then implanting it... so again she has to bear the child... seems a moot point.

I read the entire thread from first to last. I saw your apology. I said what I did to reiterate to you that we do NOT tolerate such behavior around here. Just want to make sure you take the issue as seriously as the rest of us do.

there. Im now done flogging the lifeless equine.

fuck rape. if people act like this we should become extinct anyhow.

bats also rape for breeding.

we have flawless communication if we try, so there should never be any reason whatsoever for anything like that. and yeah i know you're just saying 'if'. and if 'if' were to occur I say "No."

I understand, just didn't think we had to relive it. I will be nice and try to make friends - I'm not very good at that. :(

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?

*deleted because I just read Chizzle's apology*

Would you guys repopulate the earth with unbelievably fugly women? The kind that make you dry heave when you see or touch them...

Imho, nothing justifies rape, absolutely nothing.

I know most people would do anything for survival. The problem is, I equate rape with murder. I know four people who have been raped. The before/after-picture is always the same. In one, there's a soul present. In the other, there isn't.

Furthermore, I don't see what impregnating a woman has to do with my own survival.

Nothing can be done to justify rape. It's my firm conviction.

As for guns - yeah, I have friends who've been stabbed. I also have friends who've been shot. Let me ask you this - when was the last time the wrong person died because of a drive-by stabbing? I don't see what Braveheart has to do with it. Is Saving Private Ryan nicer? Please leave the guns issue for another thread. My sig is not a direct reply to the previous posts.

Which means that the only males who would reproduce, given 50 women none of whom wanted to reproduce, would be rapists.

Good hypothetical...
pitting moral imperative against social imperative.
Look to existing cultures for the answer. Many cultures native to extreme habitats where survival rates are low tend to practice a "sanctioned rape through marriage". I think that this sort of solution is likely because it deals with the moral issue through (forced) marriage. I get the impression that a race so heavily depleated would suddenly become quite conservative and mysogenistic.

Survival trumps morality and ethics, unfortunately.

this post shouldn't even be allowed to be posted...RAPE is RAPE. Your forcing someone to have sex. I guess the question I would ask Meridae'n is would you force that woman to have sex with you because she wouldn't have children?

To all the guys who think rape justifies the survival of the species -

Here's a hypothetical question for you. What if somehow (I don't know how) the survival of the species was only possible if YOU got raped? Would you think "this is for the greater good" while you got violently buggered? Would you?

I know it's just a hypothetical, but in that situation, I find it hard to believe that someone would refuse to procreate. It's ingrained in our genetic makeup. That's why we have urges. There would be no reason to force anyone, just wait awhile and sit around the campfire or ruins or whatever, and with only 50 people alive, she'd bound to come around eventually!

besides, with only 50 people around, it would probably be a bad idea to start having lots of babies until some sort of societal/survival support system were in place. Othwise, the new kids would not help the human race survive. I don't buy the you-should-rape-her-for-the-good-of-the-species argument. Then again, the rape-is-wrong! crowd needs to realize that death by starvation/ being eaten by Bears, etc... is probably much more unpleasant.

I guess I should not have replied to myself, but I just now figured out about the edit thing.

clavus,
I would accept someone raping me for the survival of humanity (I'm a guy).

I think that the rights of any individual are insignificant compared to the survival of the species. The hypothetical women in this situation would in essence be giving all previous humans a second death. All the things that they worked for in their lives would be lost for the selfishness of a few individuals. I consider that a far higher crime than any other, and that any women acting like this could no longer be considered human, and certainly should not retain any rights. One would hope that their offspring wouldn't be so messed up.

Clavus, for asking that question, even though i can only answer for myself, the answer is yes, i firmly believe that if i could do something of that much importance, i would give up anything that is my own (my body, my life, my possessions) to do it. To me, giving life is truly a great gift. As i said before, sometimes, we have to look at reality. The real world is not so nice, it is not kind, nor is it forgiving. There aren't always second chances, and no, life IS NOT FAIR, and it will never be. This is my take on life. Desperate situations call for desperate measures.

The mere fact that we are talking about 'rape' is vaguely irrelevant. If the situation were reversed, and there were a million women and 50 guys, should the guys be forced to impregnant the all? What if there were all ridiculously disgusting? My answer would be the same, reality calls for desperate measures. And nobody commented on what i said earlier. If one of the women had a infectious and devastating disease, would you PREVENT her from having children, or prevent her children from procreating? Or worse, would you simply kill her off just in case? This is truly a moral predicament, because now we're talking about the so-called 'quality' of someone's offspring.

When we're talking about life, or no life, the choice is easy. If life is more important, then things must happen that may not be pleasant. In this instance, i would say impregnate them all, not necessarily by rape, but if need be, sure. If the situation were reversed, have those 50 guys do the same. My point is, life isn't fair.

If life were truly fair, Americans wouldn't throw perfectly good food away each day in the trash, waste electricity, over heat and over cool their homes, drive SUVs, etc etc and perhaps some of our surplus could continue to help those in need. (uhoh, i hope i don't open up a debate about foreign countries, i take it all back). Let me just say, life is NOT fair . We try to make it as fair as possible, but it just isn't.

But anywayz, that's just IMHO

Sure thing.

And TOTAL SELFISHNESS is TOTAL SELFISHNESS, and STARVATION is STARVATION. What's your point?

don't think i could ever bring myself to it. How we live is more important than if we live.

Consider telling the women you love that you feel this way-i figure they deserve to know your human rights record.

You can't be convicted of the rape of an imaginary woman, chavos. If she were to get pissed off, I'd make fun of her so hard she'd probably dump me anyways.

Human cloning !!!

One would hope that all of these fity wemon decided to do their part to repopulate the human race. However, if they were intent on never having childeren it is within their rights to make that choice and it should be respected.

hmm, you make a good point chavos.

I was thinking more about myself. Personally, i would do it for the 'good of the people' type of thing, but i don't think i could force my gf into something like that. I guess i just wasn't thinking. I love her too much to imagine that.

I retract all previous comments. Their body their right. It may be selfish, and it may definitely not be in the best interest of the (possibly) vast majority, but sometimes i forget that we have natural rights that shouldn't be taken away. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness (although, it's not like the government hasn't ever taken them away, but that's a whole different story). I retract my earlier statement with an apology.

Especially:
"Is there a moral imperative to perpetuate the human race?"

Very eloquent. I'd have to concur with clavus's opinion.

I don't think that rape would be morally acceptable even then.

On the other hand if that scenerio were the case I doubt that ALL the woman would refuse to have children.

When I was growing up my mother repeatedly told me about a study that she had read about. Her point of telling it was to encourage me never to put myself in a place where I would have the opportunity to have sex with anyone but my marriage partner. Obviously I haven't listened. Now I said all this to tell you about the study. I may have a few facts mistaken but if anyone happens to know of this study or any similar then they could help.

A far as I can remember there was a study done with rats. There were 2 groups all of which were kept in cages with a center strip of floor to them that was electrically charged. The test rats would be placed on one side of the charged strip and on the other side they placed the bait. The bait was either food or a rat of the opposite gender. The rats would actually almost starve to death to the point of being to weak to cross the strip when the only bait used was food. The rats with "procreation" as bait on the other side would all invitably cross and most would not wait very long. The conclusion - the instinct to procreate is stronger than any other instinct.

The fact that people now in our day and age choose not to procreate at times is based on many external motivators. I believe if the population would limited to such a small number that most if not all of the people would be willing to at least attempt to procreate.

Dolphins rape each other. It has been observed by many scientists but is usually not talked about. There are homosexual animals too, of pretty much every mammal and some birds. I know some cheetas or something like them rape too.

That was just general info. I don't think rape is a good thing. If there were 50 women left and 1 guy, I think it would be best if he had as many children as he could with each of the women as to create a larger population with some genetic diversity coming from their mothers. Each of those children should pair with a child with a different mother. As time goes on, natural selection will ensure that the humans that survive to retake the planet won't carry too many crappy genes.

This is an interesting and provocative thread- here goes my two cents worth- rape is wrong- period- but whether it should happen in this case is a question of two evils- which is worse? do you kill off the species or do extreme harm to the souls of 50 women ( I too know women that have been raped- most seem to me to be little more than shells, as has been mentioned by others in this thread, but some do seem to survive and live good lives) I know that in the course of human history we have on numerous occasions been faced with horrible choices , recognized them as such, and then chosen one because we thought the alternative was worse- would the children of rape victims be well adjusted- doubtful- would the gene pool be large enough- who knows- would such an event leave big scars and some fucked up shit behind- yes- but the alternative is to allow all of human achievement, good and bad, to fall into dust- in this case, horrible as it is I have to come down on the side of survival of the species...I guess this just comes down to whether you think the species is worth saving, and at the cost of trampling individual rights...

you pose a good point fire, and that really is the question, is 'this' (rape) worth the cost of trampling individual rights? If it were me, i would say i'd give up my rights. In fact, i thought that any individual should, for the 'greater good'. However, chavos makes a valid point, i have to reverse my decision. I would not, and i cannot, ask my gf to make such a decision. It is reprehensible for me to expect, or even consider, ASKING (not even forcing) her to give up her body, her individuality, for ANY reason. If she felt the obligation to do so, i would support her. But the image of her being raped... i would personally tear any man (or woman) limb from limb if they tried to hurt her. For that matter, i couldn't ask any of my female friends (or male if there was a similar situation) to do that. It's just not right. My heart tells me so, and well, brain comes in third in the command chain (can anyone guess what comes second? ;), hint, heart is #1)

Personally, I think the human race has done more than enough for it not to be missed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki included. Every facet of our being seems to tell us we have some kind of right to survive, when we really don't deserve it.

there is and never will be any excuse or reason for rape. period

IMHO, If you're so bored, perhaps you should check out some other venues that would cater to such thoughtful responses regarding such a serious question.


Rape is rape, which has been said before. If the world had come to that kind of scenario, my morals would still prevent me from even thinking of it, however, different situations lend to different actions. Right now I say no way in hell would I ever rape, but if the world was in a state where this happened, who knows what kind of mindset would compel me to do it. Tough question.

If I was left with a bunch of people who would resort to something as hideous as Rape, I wouldn't want to be apart of the "new" society they were trying to create.

now thats what im talking about......who cares if they hate you

Like 50 chicks are going to be able to resist getting it on with me....

Now, considering what this species has done to this planet, not to mention other animal species that co-inhabit it with us, there is the question of whether our species should even have the moral right to survive.

But then on the other hand, ANY species with as high an intellect that was on top of the food chain would likely commit the same crimes against moral that we as a species have. Morals as a concept are a human creation, to help us be able to exist together as a society.

If it were down to the last 50 fertile women, and the survival of the species was at stake, I do not see the world being a very sovereign place. At our most animal-like level, we have a need to survive and procreate, regardless of how much we try to supress it in favour of morals, ethics and wholesome values. The closer we get to that level, the less these values mean. The less you see the suit and the tie, and the more you see of the animal.

The survival of the species takes precedence over the feelings of an individual, and if it's down to the last 50, then fuck morals.