Pro-Choice "Sleepwalking Rapist Reductio" (Viewer Q&A)

I often receive questions from pro-lifers asking me about pro-life argumentation. Here is a question I recently received from a pro-lifer that I will address in this article:

"There is a sleepwalking rapist. This sleepwalker does not have the intention to cause harm. Can the person kill the sleepwalking rapist?"

The Nature of Rape
To understand the action taken, absent the volition on the part of the rapist, we must first understand the nature of rape. "Nature" here refers to how the action is typically organized and realized. I understand rape to be an egregious perversion of the sexual act, caused by non-consensual sex, directed toward the violation of a victim. It is essential, to answer this question fully, that the pro-lifer and pro-choicer come to an agreement on what the act is that is being asked about.

The pro-choicer seems to assume that the rapist being a sleepwalker will cause the pro-lifer serious issues, as the person does not mean to cause harm. While it is true that there is no intention to cause harm, it is also true that harm is caused by virtue of the action itself, not solely by someone intending harm.

Considering the intention behind an action is important, even when the action is directed at you, but some actions are so vile and corrupted that intention is not necessary in determining the response. Furthermore, rape in principle is ordered in an intrinsically evil way toward a victim. By understanding the universal nature of such an action, we can appropriately address any situation in which that action is perpetuated.

The pro-choicer's contrivance may appear complex because of the manipulation of what rape typically entails, voiding a common feature of the act (the intention of the rapist). However, at its core, it is simple: the victim is being violated sexually. The grotesqueness of this violation remains true based on our understanding of the act itself, the nature of rape, and is not negated simply because intention is absent. The evil is still present and being inflicted upon the victim.

Can the Victim Kill the Sleepwalking Rapist?
Rape carries a wrongness that presents an imminent threat to a person. The victim is justified in doing what is necessary to end the attack. If killing the rapist is necessary to stop the assault, then it would be justified, as the intention here is driven by the desire to defend oneself and to disrupt the violation.

The pro-choicer may press on the idea that the rapist is seemingly being punished despite lacking intention. The object of this discussion is based on the pro-choicer's original question about what “can” be done, which is not oriented towards punishing the sleepwalking rapist but rather considering what is morally permissible. In this case, if necessary, killing would be just if the intention is in ending the attack.

If you have any questions you'd like me to consider, please feel free to DM me on any of my socials.