• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Yes, it protects her from bearing the rapist's child

    Votes: 82 92.1%

  • No, that pill is unethical

    Votes: 7 7.9%
  • Total voters
    89
Wessexman said:
No offense Bodhi but you are trying to critique the position itself, which is different from whether it should imply all abortion is murder, logically. One reason they'd take such a stance is that the fetus is a new human being, this is the time when a new being is formed, no other time between conception and death is when a new being, as opposed to new trait like consciousness, can be seen to be formed. Now from the pro-life perspective consciousness is just that a trait, but the being is one united individual human nature and person of which consciousness is just a property that develops, albeit an important one. Therefore it makes perfect sense to consider full humanity to begin at conception. Otherwise you end up with dualistic understandings where the body and soul or consciousness are less one being in our corporeal level of existence, than the body a place which the soul enters as an after thought.
Click to expand...

As I was writing it I was realizing that I was sprinkling personal opinion on a tad heavy but I felt it was a good time since I want to end this part of the debate with respect for everybody's views while at the same time leaving with those few questions for people to think about... if they do at all. All good. :)
 
Wessexman said:
Yes, but that is because your family is misunderstanding them. Do they no there is at least equal academic opinion and evidence they can cause abortion?
Click to expand...

My mother is a nurse. I'm pretty sure she knows what the morning after pill is. My family is very much for birth control, despite a heavy Catholic background. And they are all smart enough to realize that a person normally doesn't get pregnant until at least a day, if not two or three, after having sex. And they consider life beginning at implantation, not conception.

If life begins at conception, what about those eggs that get fertilized for invitro and stored? Many of them just go bad. Yet, very few are crying about those "dead babies".
 
roguenuke said:
If life begins at conception, what about those eggs that get fertilized for invitro and stored? Many of them just go bad. Yet, very few are crying about those "dead babies".
Click to expand...

Some do. There are people who "adopt" them even. Google "embryo adoption" and see.

So far, no bombs or protests at fertility clinics though. I keep asking pro-lifers why they don't blockade women going in to fertility clinics, but I get no answer.
 
misterman said:
Some do. There are people who "adopt" them even. Google "embryo adoption" and see.

So far, no bombs or protests at fertility clinics though. I keep asking pro-lifers why they don't blockade women going in to fertility clinics, but I get no answer.
Click to expand...

Not nearly the number who are pro-life though. I'm pro-life, but I consider myself a practical pro-lifer. I would much rather have women taking morning after pills (although taking precautions before sex is much more preferred) than her having to wait to find out she is pregnant and getting an abortion. The morning after pills just eliminates a bunch of cells that are developing into more (even if it is acting as an abortion pill), while full out abortion is likely stopping a heartbeat and possibly even happening when a child could feel the pain (I am completely against partial birth abortions unless it was absolutely the last thing available to save a woman's life).
 
roguenuke said:
Not nearly the number who are pro-life though. I'm pro-life, but I consider myself a practical pro-lifer. I would much rather have women taking morning after pills (although taking precautions before sex is much more preferred) than her having to wait to find out she is pregnant and getting an abortion. The morning after pills just eliminates a bunch of cells that are developing into more (even if it is acting as an abortion pill), while full out abortion is likely stopping a heartbeat and possibly even happening when a child could feel the pain (I am completely against partial birth abortions unless it was absolutely the last thing available to save a woman's life).
Click to expand...

I'm curious about how you can believe that "life begins" (or whatever you want to say) at implantation. Can you explain? Or is that not your view? Is it the beating heart?
 
misterman said:
I'm curious about how you can believe that "life begins" (or whatever you want to say) at implantation. Can you explain? Or is that not your view? Is it the beating heart?
Click to expand...

Mine's basically the beating heart. Considering a baby's heart starts beating between the 1st and 2nd month of the pregnancy though, and most women won't find out they're pregnant until after the 1st month, it is really early in the pregnancy and essentially eliminates many abortions from being acceptable to me.

However, that being said, I think it is impractical to make abortion illegal right now because it would cause a multitude of problems. At the moment, I think limiting them to prior to viability is the best way to go (with the only exception being for mother's life). I would not personally approve of having an abortion for anything but mother's life and rape (although this one still makes me weary, I definitely understand the choice for this). I might also include if it is almost certain that the baby would live a horrible, pain filled life if born but this would be exceptionally hard to diagnose during a pregnancy. I do not include incest because either it is rape, which would fall in with those who are raped, or both consented (and were legally of age to do so) and it would fall in with those just aborting because they didn't want the baby.
 
roguenuke said:
Mine's basically the beating heart. Considering a baby's heart starts beating between the 1st and 2nd month of the pregnancy though, and most women won't find out they're pregnant until after the 1st month, it is really early in the pregnancy and essentially eliminates many abortions from being acceptable to me.

However, that being said, I think it is impractical to make abortion illegal right now because it would cause a multitude of problems. At the moment, I think limiting them to prior to viability is the best way to go (with the only exception being for mother's life). I would not personally approve of having an abortion for anything but mother's life and rape (although this one still makes me weary, I definitely understand the choice for this). I might also include if it is almost certain that the baby would live a horrible, pain filled life if born but this would be exceptionally hard to diagnose during a pregnancy. I do not include incest because either it is rape, which would fall in with those who are raped, or both consented (and were legally of age to do so) and it would fall in with those just aborting because they didn't want the baby.
Click to expand...

Okay, let me challenge your logic (forcefully, but for a purpose): So it's okay to kill a baby with a beating heart if its "practical" or if it happened to be the product of rape?
 
misterman said:
Okay, let me challenge your logic (forcefully, but for a purpose): So it's okay to kill a baby with a beating heart if its "practical" or if it happened to be the product of rape?
Click to expand...

It's not okay, but to make it illegal, at this point in time, would cause much more suffering than it's worth. I can't imagine abortion being made illegal without a provision for being raped. That would likely lead to at least some women falsely claiming rape just to get an abortion. Plus, we would probably get a lot more women trying to induce their own abortions, botching it, and causing horrible pain/damage to either themselves, the baby, or both.

To me, things are legal are not necessarily okay, and things that are illegal are not necessarily bad, but it still could be necessary to maintain them where they are, at least for the current time, to avoid other, much worse problems.
 
roguenuke said:
Not nearly the number who are pro-life though. I'm pro-life, but I consider myself a practical pro-lifer. I would much rather have women taking morning after pills (although taking precautions before sex is much more preferred) than her having to wait to find out she is pregnant and getting an abortion. The morning after pills just eliminates a bunch of cells that are developing into more (even if it is acting as an abortion pill), while full out abortion is likely stopping a heartbeat and possibly even happening when a child could feel the pain (I am completely against partial birth abortions unless it was absolutely the last thing available to save a woman's life).
Click to expand...

Well... sort of. Not a heart like what you or I have, in the sense that it doesn't have a full chamber system. But sort of.

As far as pain response, that doesn't develop until the end of the second trimester at the soonest (depending on what you count as a pain response). Elective abortions at this point are pretty much non-existent, even if they're legal. 98% of abortions happen in the first trimester. All abortions - elective or otherwise.

But I'm wondering what makes this the cut-off point for you. What's particularly special about this point in development? You say Plan B is just eliminating a bunch of cells, but that's largely true of an early ZEF as well.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well... sort of. Not a heart like what you or I have, in the sense that it doesn't have a full chamber system. But sort of.

As far as pain response, that doesn't develop until the end of the second trimester at the soonest (depending on what you count as a pain response). Elective abortions at this point are pretty much non-existent, even if they're legal. 98% of abortions happen in the first trimester. All abortions - elective or otherwise.

But I'm wondering what makes this the cut-off point for you. What's particularly special about this point in development? You say Plan B is just eliminating a bunch of cells, but that's largely true of an early ZEF as well.
Click to expand...

I heard my son's heart beat at around 2 months. I know that at that point, there is most certainly a child in there. A separate life from my own.

I have problems killing bugs, so killing a human with a heart beat that can be saved by just waiting a few more months, with very little risk to the person they are relying on, is just deplorable.

Honestly, I would prefer no abortions at all, besides saving the mother, even before the heart beats, just because the person feels inconvenienced about being pregnant. The heartbeat is basically just where, to me, there is no question about whether or not there is actually a life in there. That is going to be one of the first signs that we, as people, can actually detect of life when it comes to a fetus.

And, Plan B mostly acts just as a contraceptive. Even if it is causing an abortion, there is no way really for anyone to even know that a pregnancy would have happened.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need Plan B or abortions ever. Even in a near perfect world, this would be true. But since we don't live in a perfect or near perfect world, then I prioritize what is best for as many people as I can think of and how I feel about the thought of doing something or someone else doing something, especially when it involves harm to another living thing. I try to take into account what good comes from that harm as well.
 
roguenuke said:
To me, things are legal are not necessarily okay, and things that are illegal are not necessarily bad, but it still could be necessary to maintain them where they are, at least for the current time, to avoid other, much worse problems.
Click to expand...

What could be any worse than killing babies? None of the reasons you've given seem like good enough excuses for killing a baby.
 
roguenuke said:
I heard my son's heart beat at around 2 months. I know that at that point, there is most certainly a child in there. A separate life from my own.

I have problems killing bugs, so killing a human with a heart beat that can be saved by just waiting a few more months, with very little risk to the person they are relying on, is just deplorable.

Honestly, I would prefer no abortions at all, besides saving the mother, even before the heart beats, just because the person feels inconvenienced about being pregnant. The heartbeat is basically just where, to me, there is no question about whether or not there is actually a life in there. That is going to be one of the first signs that we, as people, can actually detect of life when it comes to a fetus.

And, Plan B mostly acts just as a contraceptive. Even if it is causing an abortion, there is no way really for anyone to even know that a pregnancy would have happened.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need Plan B or abortions ever. Even in a near perfect world, this would be true. But since we don't live in a perfect or near perfect world, then I prioritize what is best for as many people as I can think of and how I feel about the thought of doing something or someone else doing something, especially when it involves harm to another living thing. I try to take into account what good comes from that harm as well.
Click to expand...

You can hear it even before that sometimes, if I'm not mistaken. But it's still not really a developed heart. I'm just making the point that it's distinctly different.

I guess it depends on how you're looking at it. None of my organs individually make up a life. Since most of the organs either aren't there or aren't hooked up in a ZEF, even when the fetal heart beat starts... I don't really consider that a life. I consider it alive, though, but so is my kidney. It's just not a life.

Pregnancy can not only be inconvenient (even if you want a child), but dangerous, and it comes with a near-guaranteed cost to your health - physically, psychologically, and also socially and financially. And that's a normal pregnancy, not a dangerous one. I think it's disingenuous to imply that women are so flippant about getting abortions. The cost of pregnancy is serious, and you're downplaying that.

We aren't really sure how Plan B acts. It is quite likely that it acts in what some consider to be an "abortive" fashion in some cases. Is that ok simply because you'd never know about it? That seems inconsistent to me.

I'd love to see that perfect world too. Hopefully in my lifetime, but not now.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
You can hear it even before that sometimes, if I'm not mistaken. But it's still not really a developed heart. I'm just making the point that it's distinctly different.

I guess it depends on how you're looking at it. None of my organs individually make up a life. Since most of the organs either aren't there or aren't hooked up in a ZEF, even when the fetal heart beat starts... I don't really consider that a life. I consider it alive, though, but so is my kidney. It's just not a life.

Pregnancy can not only be inconvenient (even if you want a child), but dangerous, and it comes with a near-guaranteed cost to your health - physically, psychologically, and also socially and financially. And that's a normal pregnancy, not a dangerous one. I think it's disingenuous to imply that women are so flippant about getting abortions. The cost of pregnancy is serious, and you're downplaying that.

We aren't really sure how Plan B acts. It is quite likely that it acts in what some consider to be an "abortive" fashion in some cases. Is that ok simply because you'd never know about it? That seems inconsistent to me.

I'd love to see that perfect world too. Hopefully in my lifetime, but not now.
Click to expand...

I've been pregnant twice and come from a family full of women who have had many, many children. You will not convince me that being pregnant, for most women, is that dangerous or causes serious issues. Most pregnancies are completely safe and actually provide more benefits to a woman than having an abortion, as far as future health goes.

As I've said, it's about priorities. The priority for me is to have fewer pregnancies, but not at the expense of children that could have been saved just for the convenience of the mother. If the mother's life is in danger, then it is doubtful that the baby would really be likely to live anyway.

And there are at least some women who are flippant about getting abortions. There are women who use abortion as birth control instead of actually just practicing preventative birth control. Most women have abortions to avoid the inconvenience of a pregnancy, whether it's because they are unmarried and don't want to raise a child on their own or whether they can't afford the pregnancy/child. There are couples waiting years to adopt babies. Now many do want healthy babies, but I'm pretty sure that most abortions have little to do with the expected health of the baby. In fact, considering people are willing to pay surrogates extra money to have babies, I bet at least some of those women who would plan to get an abortion just for the cost could easily get that extra money from making the arrangement to give their baby to one of those waiting couples.
 
misterman said:
What could be any worse than killing babies? None of the reasons you've given seem like good enough excuses for killing a baby.
Click to expand...

Those babies being born with huge or extremely painful health issues because their mother tried to terminate the pregnancy and failed but caused problems. Men being sent to jail for rape, wrongly, because some woman accused him of it just to get an abortion. And there are more.

You may not consider them good enough, but from a practical standpoint, comparing abortion to killing a living child or even a viable child, is like comparing killing in self defense to killing for some sick pleasure or killing for justice. All of those things come with different reasons, consequences and issues that need to be addressed and/or taken into consideration.
 
roguenuke said:
I've been pregnant twice and come from a family full of women who have had many, many children. You will not convince me that being pregnant, for most women, is that dangerous or causes serious issues. Most pregnancies are completely safe and actually provide more benefits to a woman than having an abortion, as far as future health goes.

As I've said, it's about priorities. The priority for me is to have fewer pregnancies, but not at the expense of children that could have been saved just for the convenience of the mother. If the mother's life is in danger, then it is doubtful that the baby would really be likely to live anyway.

And there are at least some women who are flippant about getting abortions. There are women who use abortion as birth control instead of actually just practicing preventative birth control. Most women have abortions to avoid the inconvenience of a pregnancy, whether it's because they are unmarried and don't want to raise a child on their own or whether they can't afford the pregnancy/child. There are couples waiting years to adopt babies. Now many do want healthy babies, but I'm pretty sure that most abortions have little to do with the expected health of the baby. In fact, considering people are willing to pay surrogates extra money to have babies, I bet at least some of those women who would plan to get an abortion just for the cost could easily get that extra money from making the arrangement to give their baby to one of those waiting couples.
Click to expand...

I have not seen any studies providing real evidence that abortion causes any long-term harm to the woman. And the death and injury rate is significantly lower than it is for giving birth (when I say "significantly," I mean somewhere in the order of ten times less). The later a woman has an abortion the more risky it is, but the time frame in which women are having abortions is moving earlier and earlier. That's a good thing.

Most pregnancies resulting in birth cause significant changes to the woman's life and body. Even the completely textbook ones. That is something worth considering. And that is quite a cost to pay when you don't want to bring another life into the world.

I have a hard time buying the argument that you can save something which never expressed any desire to be alive in the first place. What you're actually doing is expressing your own desire to create more life. Nothing else. That's a selfish desire, not an altruistic one. Mind you, selfishness is not always inherently bad. But that's the truth of the matter.

I'm sure there are. There are people who are flippant about all kinds of things. Doesn't mean it's common enough to apply it as a blanket statement. Who on earth would want to go through an abortion? If nothing else, it's expensive and physically unpleasant. For most women it's also emotionally draining, for a whole host of reasons (including the social flack and isolation they may encounter). Demonizing women who have abortions is just a way of avoiding the reality of the situation.
 
roguenuke said:
Those babies being born with huge or extremely painful health issues because their mother tried to terminate the pregnancy and failed but caused problems.
Click to expand...

We should allow perfectly healthy babies to be killed instead?

Men being sent to jail for rape, wrongly, because some woman accused him of it just to get an abortion.
Click to expand...

We should allow babies to be killled instead?

You may not consider them good enough, but from a practical standpoint, comparing abortion to killing a living child or even a viable child, is like comparing killing in self defense to killing for some sick pleasure or killing for justice. All of those things come with different reasons, consequences and issues that need to be addressed and/or taken into consideration.
Click to expand...

No, they're not good enough. It's really hard to find any good reason to justify killing a baby. If you think it's that easy, you shouldn't be in this debate - or you should rethink your views on abortion.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I have not seen any studies providing real evidence that abortion causes any long-term harm to the woman. And the death and injury rate is significantly lower than it is for giving birth (when I say "significantly," I mean somewhere in the order of ten times less). The later a woman has an abortion the more risky it is, but the time frame in which women are having abortions is moving earlier and earlier. That's a good thing.

Most pregnancies resulting in birth cause significant changes to the woman's life and body. Even the completely textbook ones. That is something worth considering. And that is quite a cost to pay when you don't want to bring another life into the world.

I have a hard time buying the argument that you can save something which never expressed any desire to be alive in the first place. What you're actually doing is expressing your own desire to create more life. Nothing else. That's a selfish desire, not an altruistic one. Mind you, selfishness is not always inherently bad. But that's the truth of the matter.

I'm sure there are. There are people who are flippant about all kinds of things. Doesn't mean it's common enough to apply it as a blanket statement. Who on earth would want to go through an abortion? If nothing else, it's expensive and physically unpleasant. For most women it's also emotionally draining, for a whole host of reasons (including the social flack and isolation they may encounter). Demonizing women who have abortions is just a way of avoiding the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

Giving birth and doing things like breast feeding come with benefits that a woman does not get if she has an abortion, including increased metabolism, increased blood flow, and decreased risk of breast cancer, to name a few. I have given these things before. Not every woman gets these benefits, but most women do get some benefits from having a child. And few women, as a percentage of how many give birth (in the US), experience negative consequences, especially long-lasting ones, from giving birth.

Who have a demonized? Saying that they are having an abortion because the pregnancy is an inconvenience to the woman is not the same as demonizing women. You are the one equating those two things. Some women find going to work inconvenient to them, just as other women find staying home fully to raise their children inconvenient, and still others find going to school inconvenient to them, especially for particular times in their lives. Saying these things in no way demonizes any particular woman who makes these decisions. However, depending on their reasons for those decisions and how it affects others, especially children they may have or other loved ones, I will judge those women each on a personal basis if I know them or hear about them. Just as I judge women for having abortions depending on their reasons for having them on individual cases and circumstances. Most of the time, I am going to think negatively of a woman who has an abortion just to avoid being inconvenienced by a pregnancy, especially if she was not trying to prevent the pregnancy in other ways. I still could feel sympathy for her situation, but I don't have to agree or approve of her choice, nor do I have to treat every case the same.
Having an abortion doesn't mean that I will ridicule the woman or even talk about the abortion with her (at least I won't bring it up), but it also doesn't mean that I have to agree or accept her decision and it could affect my relationship with the person. It would be very little different from me disagreeing with someone about how they discipline their children, especially in front of me, or how they treat other people.

Now, obviously, this is on a personal level. I have already said that abortion should be legal, at least for now, up til viability. Doesn't change how I am going to treat women I know who have an abortion.
 
misterman said:
We should allow perfectly healthy babies to be killed instead?

We should allow babies to be killled instead?

No, they're not good enough. It's really hard to find any good reason to justify killing a baby. If you think it's that easy, you shouldn't be in this debate - or you should rethink your views on abortion.
Click to expand...

Why should I have to rethink anything about my views? I'm am perfectly fine with my views on abortion. I see no reason to view issues as black or white. I prefer to look at many aspects of issues and base my opinion on those. I will share my views as I see fit within the rules of this forum. Being involved in this debate does not require that I either stand completely on one side or completely on the other. That is just absurd, since few people agree completely on either side.
 
roguenuke said:
Giving birth and doing things like breast feeding come with benefits that a woman does not get if she has an abortion, including increased metabolism, increased blood flow, and decreased risk of breast cancer, to name a few. I have given these things before. Not every woman gets these benefits, but most women do get some benefits from having a child. And few women, as a percentage of how many give birth (in the US), experience negative consequences, especially long-lasting ones, from giving birth.

Who have a demonized? Saying that they are having an abortion because the pregnancy is an inconvenience to the woman is not the same as demonizing women. You are the one equating those two things. Some women find going to work inconvenient to them, just as other women find staying home fully to raise their children inconvenient, and still others find going to school inconvenient to them, especially for particular times in their lives. Saying these things in no way demonizes any particular woman who makes these decisions. However, depending on their reasons for those decisions and how it affects others, especially children they may have or other loved ones, I will judge those women each on a personal basis if I know them or hear about them. Just as I judge women for having abortions depending on their reasons for having them on individual cases and circumstances. Most of the time, I am going to think negatively of a woman who has an abortion just to avoid being inconvenienced by a pregnancy, especially if she was not trying to prevent the pregnancy in other ways. I still could feel sympathy for her situation, but I don't have to agree or approve of her choice, nor do I have to treat every case the same.
Having an abortion doesn't mean that I will ridicule the woman or even talk about the abortion with her (at least I won't bring it up), but it also doesn't mean that I have to agree or accept her decision and it could affect my relationship with the person. It would be very little different from me disagreeing with someone about how they discipline their children, especially in front of me, or how they treat other people.

Now, obviously, this is on a personal level. I have already said that abortion should be legal, at least for now, up til viability. Doesn't change how I am going to treat women I know who have an abortion.
Click to expand...

Sure. But it comes with downsides too. Nulliparous women (whether they've never been pregnant, or have had an abortion) have a higher risk of breast cancer, and women who've had children have a higher risk of ovarian cancer, as one example. Ovarian cancer, by the way, is far more likely to kill you. There are benefits and downsides to being on either side of the childbearing line.

With the prevalence of ignorance on contraception and fallacious beliefs about how one becomes pregnant, mostly a result of a lack of sex education, I suspend judgment even of women who weren't practicing contraception well or at all. I have encountered some gobsmackingly ignorant beliefs about human reproduction, even in sexually active adults.

I appreciate your practicality. And I assume the two of us could at least agree on the fact that we're not doing anywhere near enough to make abortion rare.
 
roguenuke said:
Why should I have to rethink anything about my views?
Click to expand...

Because they are self-contradictory.

You justify denying a woman the right to control her own body by claiming that killing a beating heart is morally wrong. But then you make exceptions that don't stand up to scrutiny. How can you possibly argue that it is okay to kill a baby (I'm using presumptive language here, I know - sorry if you wouldn't use those terms) in order to prevent men from being falsely accused of rape? The value of a human life clearly exceeds that.

In short, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either abortion is wrong, or it's not, in which case it is subject to a right of a woman's privacy. Not much middle ground there.
 
misterman said:
Because they are self-contradictory.

You justify denying a woman the right to control her own body by claiming that killing a beating heart is morally wrong. But then you make exceptions that don't stand up to scrutiny. How can you possibly argue that it is okay to kill a baby (I'm using presumptive language here, I know - sorry if you wouldn't use those terms) in order to prevent men from being falsely accused of rape? The value of a human life clearly exceeds that.

In short, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either abortion is wrong, or it's not, in which case it is subject to a right of a woman's privacy. Not much middle ground there.
Click to expand...

OK, what?

Have I not said several times on this thread that I would not deny a woman, at this time, an abortion, up to viability (gives her plenty of time to get one) if it is an elective abortion?

Doesn't mean I have to approve of women having abortions. Abortion is wrong. Just like I believe adultery is wrong and I believe sleeping around is wrong, doesn't mean that I would make it illegal for people to do so because that is just as wrong and probably would leave to bigger problems. If the world is a different place though, I would not oppose changing laws on these things. As it is right now, I go with what I feel is best for the whole.
 
roguenuke said:
Have I not said several times on this thread that I would not deny a woman, at this time, an abortion, up to viability (gives her plenty of time to get one) if it is an elective abortion?
Click to expand...

Okay, never mind. Sorry, I didn't catch that part. Kind of important.

It was calling yourself "pro-life" that threw me. You're pro-choice.
 
misterman said:
Okay, never mind. Sorry, I didn't catch that part. Kind of important.

It was calling yourself "pro-life" that threw me. You're pro-choice.
Click to expand...

I'm pro-life, because if I could prevent those abortions, I would. And I don't hold that position because I think women should have complete control over their bodies to make the choice. I hold it because it is what I see as most practical.
 
roguenuke said:
I'm pro-life, because if I could prevent those abortions, I would.
Click to expand...

Pro-life, in the sense of the word we all use, means you would use the power of the law to prevent them.

And I don't hold that position because I think women should have complete control over their bodies to make the choice. I hold it because it is what I see as most practical.
Click to expand...

Then your personal views are self-contradictory, even if your public policy views aren't.
 
roguenuke said:
My mother is a nurse. I'm pretty sure she knows what the morning after pill is. My family is very much for birth control, despite a heavy Catholic background. And they are all smart enough to realize that a person normally doesn't get pregnant until at least a day, if not two or three, after having sex. And they consider life beginning at implantation, not conception.

If life begins at conception, what about those eggs that get fertilized for invitro and stored? Many of them just go bad. Yet, very few are crying about those "dead babies".
Click to expand...
If I were your family I wouldn't tell my priest how they feel. That zygotes and fetuses die means little. People die at all times of life, that is not our problem, in terms of blame, or excuses us killing the innocent. When else can life begin? When else can a new life form be formed but at conception? This is when it all comes together. At no other point between conception and death does this happen.

The smart enough comment is ironic, because the academic evidence is equally split on the issue, but one side does suggest this pill can cause abortion, so that comment is silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom