Okay I think maybe for the sake of this discussion we should define "morals". In my dictionary, I come up with
a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
Synonyms for moral are MORAL, ETHICAL, VIRTUOUS, RIGHTEOUS, NOBLE
I recognize that by its very definition morality is very subjective. I also doubt we can come to a final conclusion ("probable though not proved") due to the very subjectivity of the concept. But just to create a framework for discussion, I think "principles of right and wrong in behavior", (such as ethical behavior) most closely fits this thread.
Now then, my feeling is that there are two events for which I can see no moral, ethical, virtuous or noble reason to engage in sex with children and/or unwanted sexual contact. Is that a moral absolute? By that, for this discussion, would either act be immoral, unethical or "wrong" in ALL cases?
Now I still think Reborn's example is a good one, it's horrible and it is convulted, but it has sadly happened before and I'm sad to say might easily happen again. But let me also point out the reaction to your example. Czar said he'd fight, teejay was repulsed. I think that, in a microcosm would be the reaction of society at large. So to me, there is not in our society, a moral or immoral response. People would make a choice, though both are ugly, but I submit neither option is a question of morality. The fact that in our society, or any other in today's world, people's opinions would vary seems to me to indicate most people would not look at this situation and think of an ethical or virtuous response. It sounds to me like a survival response.
Consider the example of taking a life whilst defending yourself. If someone, or a society, believe it was immoral to take life for whatever reason, then by that standard it would be immoral. In this country it is not considered wrong or immoral. Good lord in Texas you can kill someone who has broken into your house. But either way, it a judgment based on the morality of the situation, whether it be the individual's sense of morality or society's in general. In your example Reborn, the parents are not presented with a choice of moral or immoral. The entire scenario, by our Judeo-Christian ethics, laws and beliefs is wrong and it is only the question of which wrong the parents will choose. In the case of taking a life whilst defending yourself, there is a question of moral or immoral. If I believe taking of a life is always wrong, no matter what, or I am a pacifist, then if I took the attacker's life I would be commiting an immoral act (by my own set of beliefs). If I allowed the attacker to kill me, I would have preserved my beliefs and by my own standards stayed moral. But I'd also be dead, which would be a downside.
I still don't see where the rape of the child is somehow "okay" in your situation. Yes it preserves the child's life, and that is very important, but the very controversial nature of the event abrogates the possible virtue, i.e. there is no clear "right" or "wrong" answer here. There is survival and there is death.
Or am I wrong?
