Should a rape victim be able to take the morning after pill?

Wake said:

I'm not sure what I think on this. If the zygote is indeed a developing human life, which it is, then, through my personal beliefs, I am not for the pill being used. However, since we are not a theocracy, I won't stop people from using the pill. Though, according to my personal beliefs, I definitely view abortion as murder and will vote against abortion unless it puts the mother's life in danger. Guess I put more importance on a developing baby than a developing zygote.

Click to expand...

To some degree, all pregnancies put the mother's life in danger.

As for complicity of the rapist's "zygote," despite the fact is it assaulting the woman's body, then it is your view that no parent can protect him or herself against her or anyone else's child until the child knows it intends to cause harm?

So if I could convince a child that a gun really is just a toy and won't hurt anyone, then you have no right to stop that child from gunning you down because the child isn't "complicite?"

In fact, the rapist's zygote is physically assaulting the woman every second during the pregnancy. The assault is preventing her (and her man/husband) from having their own child. The ongoing rapist's assault by his 'zygote" he forcibly injected into her can end up leaving her sterile unable to have another child. The rapist's ongoing assault likely will cost her employment time that may cause her evicted, to lose her job, etc. The rapist's zygote is going ultimately rip open her vagina more than the rape or require her stomach be slit open. The rapist's forcibly injected zygote - if not stopped - is going to cause the woman more physical pain in labor than any man can imagine. The growing foreign body of the rapist will permanently alter her body. The rapist's injected zygote may indeed kill her and with no warning.

DNA testing would confirm that the zygote IS the rapist doing the ongoing and worsening every-second of the woman's life assault.

What other rights to continuously assault the woman would you grant to rapist-men over women?

Wake said:

I see it differently, and I'll explain why. What we know is that the rapist was wrong for his actions. However, your premise is that the zygote was complicit in the rape, and willfully partook in the attack. I view the zygote as a developing human. The developing life, by all rights, is innocent. It is its own life; not the rapist's. The developing life is not a continuation of the rapist's physical assault. I feel you're dehumanizing the innocent life by deeming the as just the rapist's "evil appendage." The innocent life is innocent. Thus, you cannot call it an "assaulting foreign attacker."

Click to expand...

joko104 said:

So if I could convince a child that a gun really is just a toy and won't hurt anyone, then you have no right to stop that child from gunning you down because the child isn't "complicite?"

DNA testing would confirm that the zygote IS the rapist doing the ongoing and worsening every-second of the woman's life assault.

Click to expand...

I agree that though the unborn is innocent it is also like "original sin", fruit of the poisonous tree. The immoral action has created an unfair consequence that requires a final redress to bring about justice. This question moves beyond the abortion debate into "the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law", which is another debate.

I'm not going to read all 26 pages of this to see if anyone has introduced REALITY to this question, so I'll just insert it here just in case no one else has:

The Morning after pill can either 1) If taken early enough, stop the sperm from fertilizing the egg or 2) prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus.

How Does it Work? - Morning After Pill

That being said, even those against the pill due to it 'aborting' a pregnancy that has already started, please acknowledge that it's not necessarily true. It can take up to 3 days for the egg to be fertilized after sex. If you take it, literally the morning after, you're most likely just preventing fertilization.

Any person has a right to protect against and stop a physical assault. The "innocence" or "motive" of the other person or thing is irrelevant. That is fundamental civil and criminal law and has been for centuries. Thus, it is totally irrelevant if the zygote/fetus/unborn rapist's advanced sperm development lacks malicious motive.

However, that most fundamental fundamental right to self defense from violent assault and to stop violent assault is a right that historically people want to take away from women - only from women.

The claim above is that a woman can be physically multilated, sterilized, denied her birthing and parentage selection of her children's rights, physically alters, financially ruined, denied having her own children, crippled, caused great levels of pain across months and even killed - as long as who or what is doing doesn't have bad motive in doing so.

However, they also believe this exception and denial of the otherwise universally accepted right to self-defense only applies to women.

All these ideologies and slogans originate in religious dogmas that were a collection of obscene degradations of women.

Anyone who argues they oppose abortion on the basis of preventing human life who isn't having as many children as absolutely possible is a 100%, absolute total liar if giving as reason protecting human life. Rather, they are prejudiced sicko control freaks and ideological zealots at the root of all great evils of humans against humans in human history. Having such petty little lives themselves, they advance their limited mental capacity to God-status demanding total control of others.

They don't give a damn about children. They just want to control other people. So deperate to do so, they cheeringly join forces with rapists even to cause more rapes so they can exercise more control

Any person demanding a raped woman have the rapist grow inside her tormenting and bear all the children he can manage is 1000 times more evil than the rapist himself. She can at least fight the rapist and hope after to prosecute. They knowingly, willfully and deliberately want to use the full force of government - guns and prisons and all - to assault her thousands of times longer and more devastatingly for which they DEMAND she has NO right to defend herself nor any rights to justice against THEIR and the government's assault of her - SINGULARLY for their CONCOCTED personal religious/ideological beliefs they demand she comply with. In fact, if she does defend herself from the rapist's organism he injected into her violently they declare her a child-murderer - an offense punishable by death. That is the price for denying them ideological total control of her for the right to assault her enduringly and forever.

People who claim a women must have rapist's babies are pure evil people. Unfortunately the laws and government they want to use to most foully possible assault and violate women protects them, although I did throw one down a stairs one time in a highly self-contrained reaction without being prosecuted. Oh yeah, also physically dragged a minister away from his podium about it one time.

IT also is KNOWN deliberate economic bigotry and selective rights granted to all but the poor. It is 100% known that all but poor girls and women would simple travel to have an abortion, so REALLY the goal is to only such horrifically assault poor women and girls, given a obvious pass to middle and upper class women and their children. Yet on other threads I bet you fnd most raging against poor teenage welfare mothers and teenage pregnancy. At the core, its about hating and degrading women with themselves as morally judgmental zealot control freaks.[/ .

fredmertz said:

If you take it, literally the morning after, you're most likely just preventing fertilization.

Click to expand...

This is an excellent point, which brings the "morning after pill" into the arena of contraceptives. Unless one believes preventing conception equates to terminating a pregnancy?

For some reason I suspect the anti-abortion people don't care. A couple decades ago, they were the same people making the same rationalization against birth control. But we'll see as this thread develops.

joko104 said:

To some degree, all pregnancies put the mother's life in danger.As for complicity of the rapist's "zygote," despite the fact is it assaulting the woman's body, then it is your view that no parent can protect him or herself against her or anyone else's child until the child knows it intends to cause harm? So if I could convince a child that a gun really is just a toy and won't hurt anyone, then you have no right to stop that child from gunning you down because the child isn't "complicite?" In fact, the rapist's zygote is physically assaulting the woman every second during the pregnancy. The assault is preventing her (and her man/husband) from having their own child. The ongoing rapist's assault by his 'zygote" he forcibly injected into her can end up leaving her sterile unable to have another child. The rapist's ongoing assault likely will cost her employment time that may cause her evicted, to lose her job, etc. The rapist's zygote is going ultimately rip open her vagina more than the rape or require her stomach be slit open. The rapist's forcibly injected zygote - if not stopped - is going to cause the woman more physical pain in labor than any man can imagine. The growing foreign body of the rapist will permanently alter her body. The rapist's injected zygote may indeed kill her and with no warning. DNA testing would confirm that the zygote IS the rapist doing the ongoing and worsening every-second of the woman's life assault.What other rights to continuously assault the woman would you grant to rapist-men over women?

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I don't see what your first sentence addresses. Your second segment is a little obscure to me. The developing life is innocent. I also don't see your comparison between an innocent and developing life, and a child with its own conscience. The same goes for your third segment, because a developing life within the womb is innocent, and has no conscience. Why kill a life for what the father did? I cannot agree with your claim that developing within a womb is physical assault. You may as well say that all lives developing withi the womb is physical assault. As I've said before, the focus is on the innocent life, and not the guilty rapist. The life is innocent, and it is morally reprehensible to snuff out the innocent life because of hatred for the guilty. It is a mistake to equate pregnancy and birth to physical assault and rape, because then you[general] would have to declare that for all or be seen as an emotional and biased hypocrite.

joko104 said:

People who claim a women must have rapist's babies are pure evil people. At the core, its about hating and degrading women with themselves as morally judgmental zealot control freaks.[/ .

Click to expand...

People aren't evil so much as ignorant it's their deeds that become harmful. Judgmental control freaks I'll buy. Been accused of that one myself :doh

I think women as a rule are not treated equal by a male dominated society but they make up for it by being shrewder. Who gets into more trouble, goes to jail more often and dies in Wars, dumb men. Who gets sweetheart gifts, expensive jewelry and control over the nest and checkbook, smart women.

joko104 said:

For some reason I suspect the anti-abortion people don't care. A couple decades ago, they were the same people making the same rationalization against birth control. But we'll see as this thread develops.

Click to expand...

As a pro-life person, I do care. I care about the innocent life, and I sympathize with the woman as well. I despise the rapist, but I don't take it to the point of killing an innocent life.

Lets change the age of the victim and add a little real world drama.

An eleven year old girl is in her room doing her homework while watching TV. There are pictures of Justin Bieber hanging on her wall and several dolls on her dresser. Thoughts of sex haven't entered her radar screen yet and she's happy just playing with friends. Late one night an intruder snatches her from her room and takes her to a wooded area where over the course of the next several hours, she is repeatedly tortured and raped. No one hears her cries and screams during the ordeal but when it's finally over and the intruder looks for a rock to crush her skull, she manages to free herself and escapes.

A short time later her parents show up at the hospital where they see how badly their little girl was beaten. A pediatric doctor informs them that the rape was not only brutal but there was evidence of strangulation and although that and her other physical wounds will heal, her emotional scars will take much longer. But...there's something else. There's evidence that she's reached puberty and since egg fertilization can occur in as little as one hour they advise an emergency contraception.

Since this eleven year old girl was stolen, raped, beaten, and strangled, would any of you force her to get pregnant too?

Bee

evanescence said:

I believe the rape victim should have 100% control over her own body, and should be able to end the pregnancy at will. She has already lost control of her body because of the rape. Putting her through more is cruel.

Click to expand...

And you would sacrifice a child for that? I do not believe that women who are pregnant should have total control over the child. It is just an appeal to a slogan to say they should have such control and ignore the other person involved, a person who is weak and vulnerable and cannot survive without them. It is bad enough when you don't use your property to help those who are weak and vulnerable, when a mother does it it is unconscionable.

Plus what Misterman said.

Wake said:

Respectfully, I don't see what your first sentence addresses. Your second segment is a little obscure to me. The developing life is innocent. I also don't see your comparison between an innocent and developing life, and a child with its own conscience. The same goes for your third segment, because a developing life within the womb is innocent, and has no conscience. Why kill a life for what the father did? I cannot agree with your claim that developing within a womb is physical assault. You may as well say that all lives developing withi the womb is physical assault. As I've said before, the focus is on the innocent life, and not the guilty rapist. The life is innocent, and it is morally reprehensible to snuff out the innocent life because of hatred for the guilty. It is a mistake to equate pregnancy and birth to physical assault and rape, because then you[general] would have to declare that for all or be seen as an emotional and biased hypocrite.

Click to expand...

Wake, don't reply to the nonsense, seriously you will probably loose braincells.

fredmertz said:

I'm not going to read all 26 pages of this to see if anyone has introduced REALITY to this question, so I'll just insert it here just in case no one else has:

The Morning after pill can either 1) If taken early enough, stop the sperm from fertilizing the egg or 2) prevent the fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus.

How Does it Work? - Morning After Pill

That being said, even those against the pill due to it 'aborting' a pregnancy that has already started, please acknowledge that it's not necessarily true. It can take up to 3 days for the egg to be fertilized after sex. If you take it, literally the morning after, you're most likely just preventing fertilization.

Click to expand...

Very well put.
Nothing needs to be added.

The sperm of a rapist growing in a woman he violently injected into her is NOT innocent. It is an violent assailant of unthinkable and ongoing moment by moment escalating assault. The ONLY innocent one is the woman and she may use ANY means to stop that violent assault continuing. DNA will confirm the assaulting organism is the rapist as a mindless symboltic division of himself continuing and increasingly physically and violently assaulting the woman - and in early stage with less self awareness or mentality than if he had injected a growing leach into her.

I understand your extreme belief in all rapists 'rights - thus all men's right - to procreate thru as many women as he possibly can by as many rapes of as many women as he can manage to do - and that you fully approve to the point of making it a legal right that no woman may attempt to prevent him from succeeding.

The organism of his DNA he injected into her is NOT innocent. It is a living and growing weapon and assailant of his against her that is in fact still the rapist - not with your blessing but even more with your desired legal protection.

We are on opposite extremes. You as PRO-RAPIST RIGHTS as is possible. I am as ANTI-RAPIST RIGHTS as possible.

Here is both absolute correct logic and scientific fact:
1. Any man who declares that the force of law should require any and all women to bear the child of a rapist is in fact arguing for him to have the protected option to create prodigy in as many women as he can successful rape until and unless he is stopped.
2. The only possible manner to stop such a man from ever exercising the option to procreate by raping women other than imprisoning or execution such a man is to castrate him.
3. Thus, as a scientific fact, the certain way to assure men that want the option to procreate by rape - which procreation as a scientific fact is a biological complusion - is all such men being castrated prior to possibly exercising the option they want to have.
4. Therefore, as a logical and scientific fact, all men who want to in any manner protect procreation by rape should be castrated to avoid the issue of whether or not such an infectious violently assaultive fetus may be aborted.
SUMMARY: As an perfectly logical and scientific fact, all men who believe a woman made pregnant by rape should be banned from abortion should be castrated.

Wessexman said:

And you would sacrifice a child for that? I do not believe that women who are pregnant should have total control over the child. It is just an appeal to a slogan to say they should have such control and ignore the other person involved, a person who is weak and vulnerable and cannot survive without them. It is bad enough when you don't use your property to help those who are weak and vulnerable, when a mother does it it is unconscionable.

Plus what Misterman said.

Click to expand...

The woman's life is more valuable than the zef. I wonder if you and those who think like you could force a rape victim to continue a resulting pregnancy.

evanescence said:

The woman's life is more valuable than the zef. I wonder if you and those who think like you could force a rape victim to continue a resulting pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Respectfully, I believe the developing life is innocent and doesn't deserve to be killed due to the woman's feelings of hatred and rage. Lock the rapist up for life, but let the innocent life live, because it has done no wrong. No one is weighing the woman's life to the developing human's life, regarding death. As for making laws about it, I don't know. The morality of protecting the developing life is not only contained to Christianity and other religions, but secularism as well. To be honest, I don't know what proceedings actions/laws should be made, if any. Someone must protect the innocent.

evanescence said:

The woman's life is more valuable than the zef. I wonder if you and those who think like you could force a rape victim to continue a resulting pregnancy.

Click to expand...

Why is the woman's life more valuable? The fetus is a separate human life form. It therefore has a human nature and, at least potentially, within it all of the full development of a human person. If you get to decide that it is too potential and not actual enough of a human person to be expendable, this seems very arbitrary. Why would such decisions have to stop at the womb?

joko104 said:

The sperm of a rapist growing in a woman he violently injected into her is NOT innocent.

Click to expand...

So presumably if somehow the woman did give birth to the child then, when it comes of age, it should be arrested for rape?

It is an violent assailant of unthinkable and ongoing moment by moment escalating assault. The ONLY innocent one is the woman and she may use ANY means to stop that violent assault continuing. DNA will confirm the assaulting organism is the rapist as a mindless symboltic division of himself continuing and increasingly physically and violently assaulting the woman - and in early stage with less self awareness or mentality than if he had injected a growing leach into her.

I understand your extreme belief in all rapists 'rights - thus all men's right - to procreate thru as many women as he possibly can by as many rapes of as many women as he can manage to do - and that you fully approve to the point of making it a legal right that no woman may attempt to prevent him from succeeding.

The organism of his DNA he injected into her is NOT innocent. It is a living and growing weapon and assailant of his against her that is in fact still the rapist - not with your blessing but even more with your desired legal protection.

We are on opposite extremes. You as PRO-RAPIST RIGHTS as is possible. I am as ANTI-RAPIST RIGHTS as possible.

Here is both absolute correct logic and scientific fact:
1. Any man who declares that the force of law should require any and all women to bear the child of a rapist is in fact arguing for him to have the protected option to create prodigy in as many women as he can successful rape until and unless he is stopped.
2. The only possible manner to stop such a man from ever exercising the option to procreate by raping women other than imprisoning or execution such a man is to castrate him.
3. Thus, as a scientific fact, the certain way to assure men that want the option to procreate by rape - which procreation as a scientific fact is a biological complusion - is all such men being castrated prior to possibly exercising the option they want to have.
4. Therefore, as a logical and scientific fact, all men who want to in any manner protect procreation by rape should be castrated to avoid the issue of whether or not such an infectious violently assaultive fetus may be aborted.
SUMMARY: As an perfectly logical and scientific fact, all men who believe a woman made pregnant by rape should be banned from abortion should be castrated.

Click to expand...

I think you should be banned from you using your keyboard before you have some kind of seizure.

Wessexman said:

Wake, don't reply to the nonsense, seriously you will probably loose braincells.

Click to expand...

I agree. His comments, some of them, are incredibly radical. So much so it's hard to take seriously. Pro-rapist? Men, [because, duh, no women share our views], should be castrated for wanting to protect the innocent life? Ludicrous.

Wake said:

I agree. His comments, some of them, are incredibly radical. So much so it's hard to take seriously. Pro-rapist? Men, [because, duh, no women share our views], should be castrated for wanting to protect the innocent life? Ludicrous.

Click to expand...

I don't mind the radical so much, I mind the syphilitic nut-case comments... the 9/11 truther stuff, most of his foreign policy, though I do like some of his views on the economy, currency manipulation, trade, and his views that freedom doesn't stop just when it becomes uncomfortable. The more I know about Ron Paul, the less I can see him as President...

Wake said:

Respectfully, I believe the developing life is innocent and doesn't deserve to be killed due to the woman's feelings of hatred and rage. Lock the rapist up for life, but let the innocent life live, because it has done no wrong. No one is weighing the woman's life to the developing human's life, regarding death. As for making laws about it, I don't know. The morality of protecting the developing life is not only contained to Christianity and other religions, but secularism as well. To be honest, I don't know what proceedings actions/laws should be made, if any. Someone must protect the innocent.

Click to expand...

The biological symbolitic infestation the rapist violently injected into the woman is not innocent. It is an ongoing increasingly assaultive organism of the rapist. Nor is "innocence" a justifiable defense to assaulting someone for which that person may not defend herself from the assault continued.

A person has an absolute right to stop a violent assault against her or him - regardless of the "guilt" of the assailant.

Obviously you have no regard for protecting the only 100% innocent one, the woman. You believe she may assaulted and harmed in every possible way, including extreme and growing pain, permanent disfigurement, denial of the right to have her own child, vagina ripped apart or stomach sliced open and even potentially crippled, sterilized, killed - with you claiming it is NOT her that is innocent, but it is his self-dna biological infestation the rapist violently thrust into her is.

But, then, men claiming a woman is someone not innocent in a rape such as you do is timeless. No reason to protect the guilty woman, only protect the procreation rights of rapists.

Despicable sense of "protecting the innocent" in my opinion.

So, what offense do you claim the woman committed for which she is not innocent? Oh, wait, you claim the ONLY effects of a rapist impregnating a woman and requiring her to carry it to term is - what'd you write? "Feelings of hatred and rage."

Doctors should be instructed to change to informing pregnant women that the ONLY concerns she should have or address in pregnancy is possible "feelings of hatred and rage." There actually are no physical effects or concerns whatsoever. Pregnancy, labor and childbirth is only an emotional thing, there is no physical element to it. Women really on scream in labor because of anger and the stretch marks and vomitting are only caused by rage. C-sections slicing her open are really just psychological therapy. Really, its all just in her head. I think that is what you just wrote.

That would have been reassuring to the now as young as 5 year old impregnated by her daily rapist father. The little slut, protect that father's innocent zygote! That is not your words or emotions for sure. But it is your moral compass in reality effect.

I believe that exactly everything of a rapist should be totally destroyed and erased in every possible manner - only limited by the woman's decisions - and rapists have exactly no, none, nada right to procreate by rape. EVER. No moral ideological circumvents that RAPISTS SHOULD ALWAYS LOSE EVERYTHING and certain procreation rights via the raping of women. Call it what you want, but your morality is that the rapist should win his goal of procreation by rape.

Why do YOU think rapists don't wear a condom 99.9% of the time? What do you think that means? What do you think the effect is if law comes to guarantee women must give birth to a child produced by rape?

joko104 said:

The biological symbolitic infestation the rapist violently injected into the woman is not innocent. It is an ongoing increasingly assaultive organism of the rapist. Nor is "innocence" a justifiable defense to assaulting someone for which that person may not defend herself from the assault continued.

A person has an absolute right to stop a violent assault against her or him - regardless of the "guilt" of the assailant.

Obviously you have no regard for protecting the only 100% innocent one, the woman. You believe she may assaulted and harmed in every possible way, including extreme and growing pain, permanent disfigurement, denial of the right to have her own child, vagina ripped apart or stomach sliced open and even potentially crippled, sterilized, killed - with you claiming it is NOT her that is innocent, but it is his self-dna biological infestation the rapist violently thrust into her is.

But, then, men claiming a woman is someone not innocent in a rape such as you do is timeless. No reason to protect the guilty woman, only protect the procreation rights of rapists.

Despicable sense of "protecting the innocent" in my opinion.

So, what offense do you claim the woman committed for which she is not innocent? Oh, wait, you claim the ONLY effects of a rapist impregnating a woman and requiring her to carry it to term is - what'd you write? "Feelings of hatred and rage."

Doctors should be instructed to change to informing pregnant women that the ONLY concerns she should have or address in pregnancy is possible "feelings of hatred and rage." There actually are no physical effects or concerns whatsoever. Pregnancy and childbirth is only an emotional thing, there is no physical element to it. Really, its all just in her head. I think that is what you just wrote.

That would have been reassuring to the now as young as 5 year old impregnated by her daily rapist father. The little slut, protect that father's innocent zygote! That is not your words or emotions for sure. But it is your moral compass in reality effect.

I believe that exactly everything of a rapist should be totally destroyed and erased in every possible manner - only limited by the woman's decisions - and rapists have exactly no, none, nada right to procreate by rape. EVER. No moral ideological circumvents that RAPISTS SHOULD ALWAYS LOSE EVERYTHING and certain procreation rights. Call it what you want, but your morality is that the rapist should win his goal of procreation by rape.

Click to expand...

While I think the morning after should be available regardless of rape, I think your view of that developing organism as a disgusting piece of property of the rapist and nothing else wholly reprehensible in itself.

This question couldn't have lead to nothing but Roe v. Wade again. Man, if we could only muster this kind of passion in fixing our own problems.

Ben K. said:

While I think the morning after should be available regardless of rape, I think your view of that developing organism as a disgusting piece of property of the rapist and nothing else wholly reprehensible in itself.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this.

It has whatever meaning the woman assigns it. If that's how she sees it, then that's how it is. If she seems it as something innocent and positive, then that's how it is.

Don't presume to tell people how they should feel about their own experiences and situations.

While psychological counseling should certainly be a part of treating any woman who's been raped, especially if they've become pregnant, telling her that what's in her is evil is just another form of coercion. As someone who is pro-choice, I am against all forms of psychological and physical coercion of women in regards to their reproductive choice. Don't you dare tell her how she should feel about it.