Posted on 12/26/2014 5:55:55 PM PST by Morgana
It stands to reason that if abortion is viewed as morally and legally correct, other immoral acts will become socially acceptable as well. Now, according to a judge in Australia, incest is one of those acts.
During the trial of a brother charged with raping his younger sister, Judge Garry Neilson said that incest may no longer be morally unacceptable because the only reason it is criminal is due to the potential for abnormalities in any conceived children. Neilson said that thanks to contraception and abortion, there is no longer that risk.
The man on trial had raped his sister beginning when she was as young as 10 or 11 and pleaded guilty to that. However, he pleaded not guilty to the charges against him for the incest that occurred after the sister turned 18.
“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner,” the judge said. “If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”
The judge went on to say that by the time the sister had turned 18, they were both mature adults, and since she had been sexually involved with two other men, she had been “sexually awoken.” And since sex outside marriage and homosexuality have now both become socially acceptable, so can incest.
This isn’t the first time that the legality and acceptance of abortion has led to the idea that other illegal and immoral acts should become acceptable. We saw it with the idea of after-birth abortion, or infanticide.
The Journal of Medical Ethics published an article that stated that babies are not “actual persons” and therefore have no “moral right to life,” therefore after-birth abortion should be legal. In some countries it is legal now to kill disabled newborns, and in 2013, Planned Parenthood lobbyist Alisa LaPolt Snow spoke in support of the choice to deny medical care to babies born alive as a result of a botched abortion:
How many longstanding laws based on our moral code will soon be struck down thanks to the legality of abortion?
No those things are not gone, just shoved down our throats. Now this judge wants to shove incest down our throats by allowing an incest victim to undergo an abortion in order to cover it up. Well incest of an underage child is still rape. Incest between two adults is still perverted.
o.O
No? They want much broader leeway in order to make abortion available at all times to all people??
Then what's the point of bringing up incest -- unless you're just shamelessly manipulating weak-minded fools?
Can’t fault his logic. The libertines should eat the crow.
It really IS the (ill) logical conclusion
San Francisco isn't the problem ... it's the planet
Jesus can't be too far away
He mowed our lawn last week.
It certainly is good logic that if same-sex activity is considered a right, then so should consensual incest and polygamy.
I don’t know the stats on incest. Really. I do know that abortion is used to cover it up. Was a case in Huntington, West Virginia where a father and mother took their daughter to Charleston for an abortion. Come to find out the father was one who got her pregnant. CPS later got involved but no thanks to the abortion clinic. Not sure how CPS found out but they did and it made the news. I know I posted it here. Sick case.
Not funny, FRiend.
Of course you could pass a different variation of the law to state that the aggressor in incest rape shall be put to death and the victim and any child will live.
This opinion is all over the place, with incest under and over the age of consent, abortion, same-sex, pedophilia, and who knows what else being brought in.
The sex positive agenda seeks to “normalize” (end all moral judgments regarding) ALL sexual pairings.
Now we’re talk’in. Preach it Bro. ;-)
Logic needs a viable premise to stand on.
Yup..just slidin’ down the slippery slope...
Once its OK to dismember babies, well...everything else is a short ride
Ping.
Sad.
The judge’s convoluted rationalizations are nauseating.
Because a young child is raped, they have had a “sexual awakening” is nonsense. That they are later able to have sex voluntarily with others does not negate the physical or emotional damage that took place. Even worse, to say that they suffered no harm because later they agreed to incestuous sex is just repulsive. It could justifiably be called “Stockholm syndrome”.
An analogy is that this judge is sent to prison, where he is raped repeatedly by violent criminals. After he is released from prison, the criminals look him up, and he is so emotionally subjugated to them he voluntarily agrees to be raped by them some more. The judge has had his “sexual awakening.” The courts find that he is now legally a homosexual, so cannot be raped by other homosexuals. Maybe with the logic that he can keep them out with a cork.
“The judge’s convoluted rationalizations are nauseating.”
You ain’t just whistling Dixie! Lucky for me I already threw up my egg nogg with what I posted last night.
I think they’ve succeeded. There is no moral standard being offered today other than “consenting,” and “consent” is defined to include “too drunk to stop it if you wanted to.”
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.