Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo
The problem here is your making the assumption that the person or people involved are doing so not only with a free will, but also with a fairly reasonable understanding of the situation.
They may see a person mentally deficient, think he isn't getting any (or whatever reason they find), and without him cognitevly able to convey correct information, they may place themselves at risk without proper knowledge that he is obligated (but unable) to convey.
|
If that's your logic, then you must also necessarily include a ban on sex for all people who have failed to inform someone they have an STD, may cause (or not cause) parenthood, or profess love where there is none because they are either unwilling or unaware.
Quote:
|
Given the man's mental inability to make proper decisions regarding sexuality, it is entirely possible that this is also an action designed to assist in protecting society. If he cannot figure out when and how it is safe to "do it", how can he be expected to be capable of understanding the repercussions of refusing a "no" from a partner - who upon saying no becomes a victim if he fails to stop?
|
In that case, why not jail people on suspicion of being capable of rape?
Quote:
|
Slippery slope? Perhaps - but tell that to the woman or man that is his first victim. Personal rights end when they infringe on another's rights. The question should be - is he a sufficient enough danger to himself and society to be limited - and if such then I agree - he should be a ward of the state or responsible adult.
|
Other than the first sentence, we're in complete agreement. I hate to pull out the slippery slope argument, since it's often a logical fallacy, but one only needs to look at the number of slopes that have been slid upon to know that the argument carries some weight, especially in the case of civil liberties.
As far as telling it to the victims, I'd have no problem with it. Well, no moral problem anyway. If they're willing to blame the state for not restricting the rights of another law-abiding person in such a way as to prevent the incident from ever happening, I would suggest that they consider the fact that they want other people's rights to be violated in the same way theirs were. Previous offenders, on the other hand, are another case entirely.