garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (04/03/84)
Someone who either forgot to sign his/her article or wishes to remain anonymous is now trying to redefine 'rape'. > Consider the following scenario. A rapist is trying to rape a woman. > The rapist is driven to rape by dementia, which is the result of a > disease of the brain. He is stronger and faster than the woman, but the > woman is armed. Thus, she is certain to be raped unless she kills the > rapist. I am addressing this article to those of you who will agree > with me that the woman, in order to avoid being raped, has a perfect > right to kill the rapist (others can stop reading here - if you do not > believe that one has a right to self defense, it is unlikely we will > ever agree on anything except by chance). Several problems come to mind as I consider the above scenario: 1. It is not universally accepted that a brain disease can force someone to commit rape. Thus, it is not true that "there is no question that the rapist ... is ... innocent," as you claim below. 2. It is not certain that the woman will be raped if she does not kill the rapist. She may be able to shoot him in such a way as to stop him without killing him. Self-defense does not necessarily require killing. 3. It could be argued that she does not have the right to kill him because he is trying to rape her, but because he is likely to kill her in the process. > There is no question that the rapist in the above scenario is a human > being, and an innocent one at that. The reason it is OK for the woman > to kill him is that some rights, including the right to secure one's > body against forcible invasion by another, are considered in our > culture to be worth defending at all costs. This is so because without > an absolute right to maintain the integrity of one's own body, no > rights are possible. The right to own property produced through the use > of one's person, for example, cannot be more absolute than the right to > one's person itself. > Now there are two possibilities about the personhood of a fetus. It is > either a part of the mother's body, in which case the right to abort it > is implied directly by her right to do with her body as she wills; or > it is a separate person. But the occupation of one person's bodily cavity > by another person, without the first person's consent, is the > definition of rape.... You're joking, aren't you? You aren't really saying that a fetus has committed the crime of rape, are you? > ... If the fetus is a separate person, and not a part > of the mother's body, then being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy > is rape.... Please tell me you're joking. "Unwanted pregnancy is rape?" I thought calling the fetus a parasite was stretching a definition (to say the least), but to call unwanted pregnancy a rape is ridiculous. I guess before a woman can get an abortion, we should file charges, produce witnesses, appoint a defense attorney, and then, if the fetus is found guilty, sentence it to life imprisonment, with possibility of parole after so many years. Or commit it to a mental hospital, until it outgrew its tendency to rape its mother. > ...And even if killing that separate person would be homicide, a > homicide necessary to end or prevent a rape is considered justifiable > throughout Western civilization. > Note that the scenario in paragraph 1 answers many possible objections > to legal abortion. The fetus is an innocent human being? So is the > crazy rapist of paragraph 1. Pregnancy is a loving and natural > relationship? So is sex, but only in the context of choice and consent. > Is it a contradiction when the postulate, that the fetus is a separate > person, is used to justify the legitimacy of abortion? When you come to > a contradiction, CHECK YOUR PREMISES. By all means, let us check the premises. Shall we start with the one which identifies an unwanted pregnancy with rape? It would be funny, if this writer didn't appear to be serious. Did someone mention Newspeak? Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!bunkerb!garys