For instance - If you have two extremely pretty young little virgins as daughters - And Somehow they happened to be the only two left out of an extremely wide radius of Men fighting for survival?
I'd probably kill them too. Then kill myself.
Perhaps that is selfish? Perhaps you should pick a man to mate with them - For the propagation of the species?
Or at least give them the choice - After educating them on the situation. I'm talking about 10 - 14 year olds here.
Do you particularly feel attracted by 10 year olds? :) I think some years would have to go by until this would be an issue. Yes, I would kill her for other reasons (if necessary), until that problem might occur.
If this was the only problem, I think I would like to fight for their survival. If this was one of the many problems, I would not think twice.
By the way, I would protect any girl/woman from a pack of 'hungry' men, so the age doesn't really matter.
I think a 10 Year old can still be 'pretty'. I didn't say anything regarding my sexual attraction to her.
Just like a painting can be pretty - but I wouldn't want to have intercourse with it.
What if the men are closing in on them - And you have a gun with some bullets.
Do you kill your little girls - Or start shooting at the men?
Well, you implied that men would want to sleep with them. If I would have to worry only about child molesters, I would kill the child molesters, if every men would be after my little daughters, I would kill my little (or big, it wouldn't matter) daughters.
Of course, I would kill my little girls in that situation. You don't have to think twice, it's just math and common sense.
Unless you have never been accurate with a gun in your life. It's not like you just 'pull the trigger'. You're aiming the gun at your little girls after all - in order to kill them.
I think when faced with this - Some people may panic - And misfire. If this happens - I bet your little girls will suffer even more. Those men won't like the idea of you trying to kill their fresh meat.
One of the things that makes humans fit for survival is our ability to form communities, and to pool and organize resources. So, ultimately, I would be working towards finding people I could work with.
Post apocalyptic films tend to portray a world in which we are all unshaken of the social moors that keep us in line, but I tend to think most people would lean the other way. The new sense of uncertainty and fear would probably reinforce the need for groups and the sense of group dependence.
That said, I think the notion of ownership would have to be revised. Right now, what I own is defined by the current laws and monetary systems set in place. What happens when both of those systems disappear? Perhaps I own a little lakeside cottage on the opposite side of the continent, stocked with some canned food and a hunting rifle or two. My sense of ownership would seem awfully abstract to anyone who had an immediate need of shelter, food and protection. Preservation of life should take priority over my sense of property entitlement.
I guess what I am saying is, I would work towards creating a new set of laws to fit the current reality, and I would be looking for people to do it with. Part of me knows that if I had a family to support, there's no act so low that I wouldn't commit it to protect them. The crux of the matter is, how low can you sink before you are no longer protecting your family from suffering, but rather just keeping them alive in the midst of it?