C
carn
Guest
Absolutely NO!
Self-defense is allowed the moment someone else acts illegally against your rights or attacks your rights. You have property right to the beer in my hand and did not give consent, so you are allowed to take it from my hand. You have property right to the sofa and did not give consent to sitting me on it, so you are allowed to remove me from that sofa.
See it this way, if i would next get up and say “I swear, i will not do any physical harm to you, i just want to destroy all your property.” and next would smash your TV and then your refrigirato, you would not be in any danger (assuming i do not violate the safety standards one should observe when smashing things) and yet when i move on to smash your oven, you would be allowed to act in self-defense by applying adequate and proportional force against me, e.g. holding me, so i could no longer smash your furniture.
The only difference between my sitting on the sofa, running around and smashing things or jumping up and attacking you, lie in the methods and means you are allowed to apply against me. Gunning me down, since i sit on your sofa would not be ok (except maybe in texas), gunning me down when i attack you is ok and gunning me down while i demolish your furniture depends a bit on circumstances, alternatives, relative financial damage and so on.
Self-defense is not only allowed against violent acts.
(I try to be rather clear in this point, because the mistake that only violence allows for self-defense is a very often repeated mistake and this error has serious political consequences in the long run for pubic order.)
A machete would bedrastically disporportionate. But even if you call the police, the minutes i continue to sit around on your sofa drinking your beer is a continued illegal attack against your rights, which you are allowed to use self-defense against, if the means are not drastically disproporionate. (E.g. if you can only get me out by braking my bones, you probably should accept the illegal attack till police arrives, but if it can be done with little physical harm to me, you can do, even if the police arrives in 5mins.)
If he suffers from a serious mental disease that could happen, though unlikely. But unlikely is irrelvant when discussion absolutes like “Contraception is always immoral inside marriage.”
But contraception might be efficient to keep his sperm out of her body. Her body, she has a right to decide what gets inside, insofar the use of this right does not interfere with the rights of other humans (which why only non-abortive contraception can be an option).
And because way better defensive options exist, a defensive options does not stop being a defensive option. And it does not change its moral character.
@the one who selected the second option in the poll:
As a general principle or only in the sense of a personal choice with no relevance for others?
) But that’s not new depending on the environment. But to give it a lesser “description” just because the rapist is spouse is hineous in itself to me. Rape is rape, and it doesn’t matter who does it. It’s not the same as fornication, which has it’s own definition, which is “sex outside of marriage”, and it’s not the same as adultery, which has it’s own definition, which is “sex with someone other that their spouse”. Domestic violence can include rape and beating, but rape is not simply “domestic violence”, or simply “sexual assault”, which doesn’t have to include rape. Rape is forced sex, period. And yes, only a woman with no sense of self worth and extremely low self esteem would actually go back to a rapist. That woman needs some serious counseling and intervention.