Is it wrong to trade rights for rights?

[Anonymous]

I'm having a conversation with someone, about, how to prevent rape, and what should or shouldn't be done to rapists. She believes we should castrate male rapists, and I believe that if that were true, then we should have the tubes tied of female rapists. Of course both would be done forcibly, as they did their victims, so, there's no option to back out of it of course, but, the problem with doing this then is, that, while yes, rape is bad, you can't take rights away from a rapist. You can't strip them of their right to have children, if they want them. It's diff. if they don't want them, cause then yes, you could go ahead and do it but, still.

So, basically what we have here, is a conversation about trading rights, for rights. Is this wrong? Should we really castrate male rapists, have the tubes tied of female rapists.

It won't PREVENT rape, because you can still use the vagina and penis as weapons, but, it might help deter, is what she's saying. Isn't deter, and prevent, the same thing though

I work in a field, where this is an interesting topic. A client at work, legally can't take care of herself, the court has said so, so, she has a guardian (us) as that's what we do for our clients, because they're DD. She keeps trying to have kids though, and while we can't tell her she can't have them, we do try and sort of push her in the direction of not. We also can't tell her to abort, though abortion is legal here. She has her rights still, we're just her LEGAL guardian.

If she chooses to keep having kids, should her tubes be tied, just as if she was a rapist, in the case of the conversation im having with this girl right now

[phraseology]

The Bible states rapists should be stoned to death. Being that the USA was founded by a bunch of Christians, you should probably start there. Lead fired from a gun is a good way to stone someone to death with modern technology. So the firing squad seems applicable. That said, it also says that you have to resist rape and scream out for help. So you can just lay there and take it passively and have sex with someone in a non violent manner and then latter claim it's rape because you feel dirty afterwards or you were drunk and made a bad judgement. Nor does statutory rape where one person is 18 and another is something like 16 really seems to apply when it comes to consensual sex. The point is rape is a forced sex act that you try to resist but can't defend yourself from a stronger attacker. There is clear evidence of defensive wounds, DNA, witnesses that heard you scream and what not to prove the person raped you. That's what rape use to mean, but the definition has gone down a slippery slope sense then so it's hard to get consensus on punishment these days. Someone makes a rape claim with limited evidence and it becomes he said she said, where one person says it was consensual and the say it was not, and then they say I don't remember anything I blacked out from drinking but someone else said that person had sex with me. If you stick to the original meaning of forced violent rape, then the punishment of death is clear.

[phraseology]

*can't

[KostasKouvalis]

"Detering" and "preventing" aren't the same.

"you can't take rights away from a rapist. You can't strip them of their right to have children"

We can't for LEGAL reasons, or for MORAL reasons? Because there are countries who don't have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.

In the other example, are you talking about legally, morally or physically?
Let me phrase it this way. If you could stop her from having kids within the confines of the law, would you?
Other countries carry out sterilization practices or have laws limiting children.

I agree with cutting off his dick. No fine. No jail. But he has to live the rest of his life without a dick.

How is trying a woman's tube's though punishing her for rapes? Tubes are only to have kids. If has nothing to do with rape. It's her clitoris that gets aroused, so if anything THAT'S what should be removed, but I wouldn't be for that. Call it hypocrisy and a double standard. But a woman "raping" a man, isn't the same as a man raping a woman. Honestly, I feel if a woman "raped" a man, in most cases the man wouldn't even snitch on her. The worst she can do is give him an STD and some emotional damage, but a man can do much more harm raping a woman.
I've seen women do stuff to men on reality shows, where of a man did that it would be considered sexual assault. The men just brush it off. Men are more thick skinned when it comes to this kind of stuff. Also, if they make a fuss about them people will laugh at them and call them "gay".
There was a girl on this website. She said her friend raped her boyfriend and gave him an STD. She then ended up attacking her, she only pressed charges for assault, but the guy didn't press any charges for the rape. Who's gonna take that seriously? Even if she's found guilty, no one's gonna punish her as severely as they would a man.

[Agape93]

Way I see it, rapists are subhuman monsters, not people and not human. As such they don't get and don't deserve human rights. Kill em all, far as I'm concerned

[jshm2]

Yes, and you are both idiots talking about subjects you have little intellect to discuss, past drawing with crayons.

Firstly, any accusation of "rape" needs to be proven in a court of law. Often time there are more mitigating circumstances than headlines will publish. It is often not a case of "random stranger rape," and there are sorry actions from both parties.

Secondly ANY form of state punishment cannot violate the constitution. The constitution does not allow for the sort of shit you are suggesting.

Lastly, ardent rapists will rape regardless of medical procedures. They will just find other means to do it with. They don't CARE about the deterrent, and it's why they will often get locked up.

[msc545]

This is just another angry person who's willing to resort to violence to assuage her anger. This is definitely not okay and illegal as hell. I would not even have this conversation with someone other than to help them deal with their anger appropriately. So yes, to answer your question, this is extremely wrong.

[Anonymous]

Should the Duke Lacrosse players have been castrated?

https://people.com/duke-lacrosse-author-recalls-interview-falsely-accused-player-accuser-admits-lie-8761318

[Anonymous]

2 wrongs don't make a right. so there