Folkbabe, I respect your Nirvana-like optimism regarding the "sanctity" (in a pagan sense, of course) of all human life.
You are not alone in your point of view, since many great men and women throughout history have shared and practiced it without an ounce of hypocrisy.
I guess I am more of a social darwinist. I tend to think that any human being who decides to violate his side of the social contract to the extent of Raped's attacker, keeping him among us does a disservice to humanity as a whole.
You say that you wouldn't kill someone who was forcing himself on you. Fine. What if he was forcing himself on your 4-year-old daughter? On on your 70-year-old mother? Would you still value the dignity of the attacker's life as equal to that of your daughter/mother?
In his excellent book "Principles of Ethics", the British philosopher Herbert Spencer clearly distinguishes ethical behavior from what makes an individual (of most species) a rogue. This, mind you, without any mention of Religion or revealed morality, which is not relevant to this thread.
Anything that contributes to rearing healthy and intelligent offspring is considered ethical. On the contrary, hindrance to the health of our young, including no doubt rape, incest and abuse, is considered unethical and makes an individual "unfit".
So: you are standing over a drunken stranger, that, just for fun is brutally raping your 4-year-old daughter. Her pleading, terror-stricken eyes turn to you. There is a gun (/knife/basebell bat) just within reach.
What do you choose to be?
------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.
Check out these gals:
www.sas-aim.org
[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited May 24, 2000).]