Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[seer]

That's way beyond the pale, and incredibly offensive. Apologize right now.

What is beyond the pale? You advocate the killing of children - so what is worse - killing the child or having sex with the child?

[Starlight]

What is beyond the pale?

Your gratuitous assertion that I would be okay with the rape of children. Obviously I am not, and your assertion is offensive.

As we have discussed in the past, ad nauseum, and the discussion is not going to reoccur here, when it comes to abortion where the parents and the doctors jointly make the decision to end the life of the fetus/baby, I think that any ending of the fetus' life after its nervous system has developed (~24 weeks) is wrong and should be discouraged, but I accept that it is necessary in some circumstances for abortions to happen later, and when medically necessary I am okay with it being legal for them to do it even after birth as the Netherlands currently allows. That is in no way equivalent to saying that it would be fine for you to wander down the street killing any child you saw - "killing children" in general would make you a murderer, and I would not be in any way fine with that.

You saying that I think "killing children" is okay (I do not), is offensive - you killing children would be murder. And you implying I would be fine with the rape of children (I am not) is offensive. Your comment was purely intended as offensive and inflammatory, merely to insult me and misrepresent my views. I happen to think you're a horribly immoral person and have atrociously evil views on many issues especially those having to do with gay people, but I don't go around making up lies like "Since Seer is fine with gay people being murdered, he's probably fine with them being raped."

[seer]

Your gratuitous assertion that I would be okay with the rape of children. Obviously I am not, and your assertion is offensive.

As we have discussed in the past, ad nauseum, and the discussion is not going to reoccur here, when it comes to abortion where the parents and the doctors jointly make the decision to end the life of the fetus/baby, I think that any ending of the fetus' life after its nervous system has developed (~24 weeks) is wrong and should be discouraged, but I accept that it is necessary in some circumstances for abortions to happen later, and when medically necessary I am okay with it being legal for them to do it even after birth as the Netherlands currently allows. That is in no way equivalent to saying that it would be fine for you to wander down the street killing any child you saw - "killing children" in general would make you a murderer, and I would not be in any way fine with that.

You saying that I think "killing children" is okay (I do not), is offensive - you killing children would be murder. And you implying I would be fine with the rape of children is offensive (I do not). Your comment was purely intended as offensive and inflammatory, merely to insult me and misrepresent my views. I happen to think you're a horribly immoral person and have atrociously evil views on many issues especially those having to do with gay people, but I don't go around making up lies like "Since Seer is fine with gay people being murdered, he's probably fine with them being raped."

Your distinctions are meaningless and completely arbitrary. Others have already pushed the bounds of why/when a child can be killed:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full

And they are being taken seriously by academe. And as my OP suggested, objections to pedophilia are not really moral in nature but merely aesthetic. How could you rationally argue against either? You can't without descending into arbitrary distinctions. So spare me the feigned outrage, you are not part of the solution, you are the problem.

[Starlight]

And as my OP suggested, objections to pedophilia are not really moral in nature but aesthetic.

You might be fine with pedophilia and think objections to it are merely aesthetic, but some of us hold different moral views to you and disagree.

[Sparko]

From the Mishnah:

Mishnah 5.1:
A girl of the age of three years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; If the yabam had intercourse with her, he acquires her thereby;

A very common theory among the early Christians about why Jesus's father is absent from most of the gospels (and why Mary was an ever-virgin) was that when Mary and Joseph got engaged, Mary was extremely young and Joseph extremely old, so he died of old age.

Anyone familiar with ancient Jewish culture knows that very young brides were a thing.

they would "betrothed" them off as promised to someone. they could not have sex with them as children.

I found a commentary on it:
http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/niddah-5-4-htm/

Niddah, Chapter Five, Mishnah Four



Introduction

This mishnah teaches that in a legal sense, sexual relations with a girl over the age of three counts as sexual relations.

I should emphasize that this mishnah in no way condones such an act (which is certainly rape) it just teaches that this counts as an act of intercourse. At the core of this notion is their understanding of the physical consequences of intercourse for the first time namely the breaking of the woman’s hymen. As we can see at the end of the mishnah, if a girl has intercourse (i.e. is raped) before the age of three her hymen will repair itself. After the age of three, it will not. This, to the rabbis, means that after the age of three, intercourse “counts” in a legal sense. Before the age of three, it does not.

[Jaecp]

Adrift, this isn't really an issue that I spend a lot of time on. I'm making the arguments solely off of what might be effective and, if its not effective, wouldn't support that. I'm not sure who B&H are, but i'd rather be dealt with directly than be treated as a proxy for old discussions with people coming at this from entirely different perspectives.

[rogue06]

Your distinctions are meaningless and completely arbitrary. Others have already pushed the bounds of why/when a child can be killed:

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full

And they are being taken seriously by academe. And as my OP suggested, objections to pedophilia are not really moral in nature but merely aesthetic. How could you rationally argue against either? You can't without descending into arbitrary distinctions. So spare me the feigned outrage, you are not part of the solution, you are the problem.

Not to go way off subject but after birth abortion is something I've brought up previously

As I noted in a thread from awhile back...

I had a thread on after-birth abortions that was lost in the crash. From Slate (described as a United States-based liberal, English language online current affairs and culture magazine created in 1996 by former New Republic editor Michael Kinsley)":

...“after-birth abortion” is a term invented by two philosophers, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.


Source

Ann Furedi, head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the primary abortion provider in Britain, is on record as saying at the 2012 Fédération Internationale des Associés Professionnels de l'Avortement et de la Contraception (a.k.a., International Federation of Professional Abortion and Contraception Associates or FIAPAC) Congress that, “There is nothing magical about passing through the birth canal that transforms the fetus into a person" demonstrating her support for this concept.

This appears to be the opinion of BPAS's American counterpart, Planned Parenthood, when a lobbyist for their Florida affiliates, Alisa LaPolt Snow had the following exchange with Jim Boyd and Jose Oliva -- members of the Florida House of Representatives:

"It is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow. . . .

Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”

Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

You can see the exchange here:

Melissa Victoria Harris-Perry, who hosts a weekend news and opinion television show on MSNBC and was recently in the news for mocking Mitt Romney and his adopted black grandson (for which she later apologized for), appears to be another advocate of after-birth abortions based upon her comments on her show back on July 21: ""When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science."

And keep in mind that while a senator in the Illinois legislature, our current president, Barack Obama, opposed efforts to protect babies who had survived abortion attempts voting against Born Alive acts in Illinois as well as opposing legislation that would define those babies as persons. During debate over one of the Born Alive bills Obama made it clear that he was far more concerned with things like protecting abortion itself and with protecting doctors who just shouldn’t be required to preserve the lives of babies who stubbornly refused to die and were born alive as can be seen from his remarks:

As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.

So if the doctor was wrong and the baby certainly was viable in that it actually survived an attempt to kill it, then the doctor shouldn't be "burden[ed]" with trying to keep the baby alive since it had the gall to "not just coming out limp and dead."

I guess if someone is sick or injured and a doctor assumes that they won't survive but in fact does then that doctor shouldn't be burdened with helping to keep them alive but should be free to refuse all treatment and even food and water so that they will finally die.

What does it say about our society when it can seriously consider such a reprehensible evil practice?

[KingsGambit]

To answer the OP: Yes, it would surprise me.

[Starlight]

What does it say about our society when it can seriously consider such a reprehensible evil practice?

Dude trying to take threads off topic like you just did is bad, but I don't think I'd call it reprehensible evil. I'd save that description for posts by LPOT, MM, or Mossrose.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah, I'm befuzzled by the war on child porn, given that I would have thought that letting these people look at porn gives them an alternative outlet for their desires...

Do you really have no concern whatsoever for the psychological impact on the children whose photos are being distributed for the sexual gratification of adults?

"We won't tell the child!" As if photographing a child in the nude isn't bad enough, but what if he finds out what it's for? What if someone recognizes him on the street? What if he finds out later in life? And what of the parents who would let their child be the subject of such exploitation? Isn't that child abuse?

The fact that you consider child porn a viable outlet for pedophiles shows how morally perverse you really are. And you wonder why I treat you with contempt.

[Adrift]

Adrift, this isn't really an issue that I spend a lot of time on. I'm making the arguments solely off of what might be effective and, if its not effective, wouldn't support that. I'm not sure who B&H are, but i'd rather be dealt with directly than be treated as a proxy for old discussions with people coming at this from entirely different perspectives.

When I referred to B&H I did not have you in mind Jaecp.

[Starlight]

Do you really have no concern whatsoever for the psychological impact on the children whose photos are being distributed for the sexual gratification of adults?

I hadn't thought of that aspect of it, but now you mention it, that's definitely a valid concern. Congrats for making your first good point ever!

"We won't tell the child!" As if photographing a child in the nude isn't bad enough, but what if he finds out what it's for? What if someone recognizes him on the street? What if he finds out later in life? And what of the parents who would let their child be the subject of such exploitation? Isn't that child abuse?

Obviously the creation of new child porn is morally wrong and should be banned. However plenty already exists, and I was suggesting using the existing material to prevent the creation of new material. However, as you point out, the use of existing material still has the potential to have some impact on the victims.

The fact that you consider child porn a viable outlet for pedophiles shows how morally perverse you really are.

I would prefer that rather than raping children that they instead spent their time looking at pictures that already exist.

[Adrift]

I hadn't thought of that aspect of it, but now you mention it, that's definitely a valid concern. Congrats for making your first good point ever!

Obviously the creation of new child porn is morally wrong and should be banned. However plenty already exists, and I was suggesting using the existing material to prevent the creation of new material. However, as you point out, the use of existing material still has the potential to have some impact on the victims.

How are these things you hadn't considered?

I would prefer that rather than raping children that they instead spent their time looking at pictures that already exist.

Yeah, no, that's not the solution.

[Starlight]

How are these things you hadn't considered?

Because as much as I'm brilliantly intelligent and an unbelievably incredible genius, sometimes I don't quite think of absolutely everything.

Yeah, no, that's not the solution.

What is the solution, O All-Knowing one?

[Adrift]

Because as much as I'm brilliantly intelligent and an unbelievably incredible genius, sometimes I don't quite think of absolutely everything.

You didn't consider that giving child porn to pedophiles might not have greater consequences outside the immediate gratification of the subjects? Why would you even speak on something like this if you hadn't analyzed obvious issues like the one that MM brought up? What is wrong with people like you? What sort of jacked up world do we live in where this is even an option on the table?

What is the solution, O All-Knowing one?

I already did in post #14. Intense social stigma to shame people away from even the thought of child molestation. Or do you think that there might be no good therapy for pedophilia except the instant gratification that comes from providing child porn to pedophiles? Your post #22 is so ironic. You mocked the OP for even suggesting that this was an issue, and here you are supporting the very thing that he condemns. What happened to this world that these things would even be up for consideration? I'd be happy if your stupid myopic views were limited to your own island nation, unfortunately your mental poison is just a product of the rest of a fallen world. I can't wait till Christ makes his kingdom on earth to wipe this insanity away.