Posted on 05/28/2004 5:25:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
I agree completely with steve-b's #84 on this thread. It's not government's duty to suppress "intrinsic evils," it's government's duty to defend the rights of its citizens. In this specific case, I fail to see how anyone's rights were trampled.
We agree on individual rights.
But no one has a right to do evil, even if it's consensual.
How can they if our rights come from God, our Creator, as the Constitution specifies?
Thus the abolition of man. We are now no more than the Trouserd Ape of which Lewis spoke.
Not that there aren't pockets of humanity left.
Shalom.
Anything else, professor?
Main Entry: in·trin·sic Pronunciation: in-'trin-zik, -'trin(t)-sik Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French intrinsèque internal, from Late Latin intrinsecus, from Latin, adverb, inwardly; akin to Latin intra within -- more at INTRA- 1 a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing b : being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains 2 a : originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part b : originating and included wholly within an organ or part
I like the looks of Chasey Lain, myself.
It Takes A Village.
Raped by 12 guys on film for $4,000? Nobody took advantage of her, gosh no.
But the flip-side is that now she can walk away any time. She's built her own glided cage.
She was 18 and she wasn't victimized --- she had money waved in her face and she went for it each and every time. At 18 --- look at her choices, she could have joined the military --- there are 18 year old women in Iraq. She could have worked at a McDonalds --- but that wasn't good enough money for this one. There's nothing about her that's a victim.
Every good lie has a foundation in truth.
Socialism is not the answer, but neither is radical individualism.
Men should not prey on young women, they should protect them.
Shalom.
Because we all want our kids to have a little self-respect, be willing to work hard and stay moral and have good lives. We teach them that way --- and you would certainly hope you taught your daughter so she wouldn't make these same choices.
But no one has a right to do evil, even if it's consensual.
Obviously we don't. If you believe that an individual has the right do with his life as he pleases then we only have to understand whether or not he consented to certain activity. You don't put him in jail for exercising his rights to consentual individual choice just because you call his activity evil. It's like saying you can eat anything you want for dinner but then arrest people for eating steak.
According to the article, she was paid $4K to have sex with 12 guys.
From Law.com:
1) n. the crime of sexual intercourse (with actual penetration of a woman's vagina with the man's penis) without consent and accomplished through force, threat of violence or intimidation (such as a threat to harm a woman's child, husband or boyfriend). What constitutes lack of consent usually includes saying "no" or being too drunk or drug-influenced for the woman to be able to either resist or consent, but a recent Pennsylvania case ruled that a woman must do more than say "no" on the bizarre theory that "no" does not always mean "don't," but a flirtatious come-on. "Date rape" involves rape by an acquaintance who refuses to stop when told to. Defense attorneys often argue that there had to be physical resistance, but the modern view is that fear of harm and the relative strengths of the man and the woman are obvious deterrents to a woman fighting back. Any sexual intercourse with a child is rape and in most states sexual relations even with consent involving a girl 14 to 18 (with some variation on ages in a few states) is "statutory rape," on the basis that the female is unable to give consent. 2) v. to have sexual intercourse with a female without her consent through force, violence, threat or intimidation, or with a girl under age. Technically, a woman can be charged with rape by assisting a man in the rape of another woman. Dissatisfied with the typical prosecution of rape cases (in which the defense humiliates the accuser, and prosecutors are unable or unwilling to protect the woman from such tactics), women have been suing for civil damages for the physical and emotional damage caused by the rape, although too often the perpetrator has no funds. Protection services for rape victims have been developed by both public and private agencies. On the other side of the coin, there is the concern of law enforcement and prosecutors that women whose advances have been rejected by a man, or who have been caught in the act of consensual sexual intercourse may falsely cry "rape."
You're using "rape" incorrectly. Belladonna was not raped.
You are attempting to conflate legal rights with moral righteousness.
To take the example that comes most readily to hand (a movie review in today's paper), it is clearly an evil to present pseudoscientific claptrap in such a way that it can be easily mistaken for fact. However, it is clearly within the legitimate legal rights of the producers of The Day After Tomorrow to do precisely that.
God must have believed in our right to do that since he gave us "Free Will". A girl raised as a Mormon certainly knew there were other ways to make her life, she chose evil. She still is choosing it.
She could have said --- no, I won't do that for $4000 and gone out and found another kind of job. The love of money drove her.
I would hope if she made bad choices that there wouldn't be people legally using those choices to kill her. What next? People selling away their freedom for an 8-Ball?
Reductum ad absurdum. There were social standards for protecting the innocent from the predators in our society for decades without any bedroom police.
Actually, this article isn't about bedroom police anyway, it's about asking the true adults (those who have matured a little past 18) to take some responsibility for their own actions, and how their actions become a snare for the young and unprotected. The argument "Well, she was 18" is an excuse to take no responsibilty for the fact that we are complicit in her destruction. Your libertarianism has become nothing more than an excuse to use other people who are not smart enough to avoid being used.
But Libertarians always resort to the "bedroom police" argument. I guess it's because because they want to avoid their responsibility to society. It's easier.
Shalom.
I imagine actual rape victims view your definition of "rape" with similar distaste that cancer victims feel when they hear alcoholics talk about their self-inflicted "disease"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.