View Poll Results: Should a rape victim be able to take the morning after pill?

Voters
114. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it protects her from bearing the rapist's child

    106 92.98%
  • No, that pill is unethical

    8 7.02%
Page 30 of 56 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 552

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

  1. #291
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    That is interesting, but I don't think it refuted any of my argument. Time, size, etc... it does not matter. It is a developing human life and is innocent of any wrongdoing.
    It was actually to put things in context and give your argument a different view. I agree that life is sacred and ending any existence should be done with great consideration. But ultimately the host of the fetus has to be willing. At some point of development the termination shouldn't be allowed for any reason other than life saving measures, so there is time. And there's always extenuating circumstances, even the law make such allowances. Definitely a rape victim should be allowed the morning after pill, because it only prevents the egg from becoming fertilized therefore not ending anything.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  2. #292
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    But a zygote is literally one cell. Why would that be equal to or of greater value than a woman? I guess if we're living in a society where women are second class citizens, this lunacy would apply.
    One cell or trillions, size matters not. We all began from something, and that something is a zygote. The very beginning. You mistake me; both lives are valuable, but I never said I'd kill the woman over the zygote. I don't recall if that's called a red-herring or not, but I never said that. Based on that, another red-herring I'm seeing is your stating that women are "second class citizens." Nowhere did I say or argue that. Evanescence, there are many women who share my view. If there was anyone who claimed that women are forced/goaded by men to think that, I say they're wrong. This is no lunacy, either.

  3. #293
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

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

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post



    Although the definition of person has a subjective quality to it, it is reasonable to assume that a person is more than simply genetically human. What other attributes should an actual person have, in your opinion?

    First of all, it should be independent and able to support its own existence. That is basic. If an organism cannot even breathe on its own, but instead must obtain oxygen and nutrients from a "host," said host is in control. She makes the decision whether or not to allow the ZEF to live.
    I define a human according to what has an individual human nature. A fetus is no longer part of the mother. It is a living human being. It has all the potential to be a fully developed one in general. All the development is but the playing out of this potential, but the potential comes from having a shared human nature. The properties like consciousness might help us to define what a fully developed human is better, but I don't think that they have to be present all the time in a living human for it to stay a living human with all the nature or form, even if it isn't completely manifest and is partially only potential (as it always is in just about any living person), of a human being. In this case there is really no difference between any innocent human being, from a few seconds after it becomes a separate being to any elderly age. To kill it is to decide for ourselves that beings equally human in nature must develop enough of their potential otherwise we might decide they are expendable.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  4. #294
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    immoral [ɪˈmɒrəl]
    adj
    1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt
    2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous
    3. unscrupulous or unethical immoral trading
    4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption an immoral film immoral earnings
    immorally adv


    immoral - definition of immoral by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    Isn't saying that "I killed your son" transgressing accepted moral rules?
    Not at all. Watch: I killed your son! Just said it. Nothing happened.

    Saying it isn't the same thing as doing it.
    "Yes I read the 9th [amendment]. It doesn't say **** about abortion." -Jamesrage

  5. #295
    Guru
    Jryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-12-16 @ 09:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,987
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    A fly is not a developing human life. An elephant has far more cells than your average human. By your regarding the number of cells, is the elephant more important?
    No because at that point they are both living things...
    I'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
    -Jryan

  6. #296
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    One cell or trillions, size matters not. We all began from something, and that something is a zygote. The very beginning. You mistake me; both lives are valuable, but I never said I'd kill the woman over the zygote. I don't recall if that's called a red-herring or not, but I never said that. Based on that, another red-herring I'm seeing is your stating that women are "second class citizens." Nowhere did I say or argue that. Evanescence, there are many women who share my view. If there was anyone who claimed that women are forced/goaded by men to think that, I say they're wrong. This is no lunacy, either.
    Not size, but functionality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    I define a human according to what has an individual human nature. A fetus is no longer part of the mother. It is a living human being. It has all the potential to be a fully developed one in general. All the development is but the playing out of this potential, but the potential comes from having a shared human nature. The properties like consciousness might help us to define what a fully developed human is better, but I don't think that they have to be present all the time in a living human for it to stay a living human with all the nature or form, even if it isn't completely manifest and is partially only potential (as it always is in just about any living person), of a human being. In this case there is really no difference between any innocent human being, from a few seconds after it becomes a separate being to any elderly age. To kill it is to decide for ourselves that beings equally human in nature must develop enough of their potential otherwise we might decide they are expendable.
    A single cell may contain human DNA, but a cell or a clump of cells does not have a personality. Nor does it think or perceive. Later during the pregnancy (2nd.3rd trimester) you might have a point.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  7. #297
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

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

    A morula can be split into two viable zygotes. So according to several on this thread a morula is two humans. The fact that the only place we can get this two for one is via in vitro methodology. But, one that thinks a zygote is a human, that position also has to have a viable rational position on the second human that is available in a morula. So, what is it?

  8. #298
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Those who advocate rapists' rights to procreate by rape will absolutely refuse to discuss or even acknowledge the horrors and risks that WANT imposed on the victim. To the extent they even acknowledge the girl is a victim, they will only briefly trivialize her to next to nothing declaring only effect on women being violently forced to have children for rapists is that the woman doesn't like it - a fully acceptable price women pay to in exchange for granting full and legally protected rights to men to have as many dozens or hundreds of children they can have by rape.

    It does need to be recognized as pro-rapists-rights because they claim rapist men have an absolute right to force women to give them prodigy. They call that doing the right thing.

    ALL ideologue zelots who declare working horrific torture, pain, multilation, disfigurement, denial of any right to have any say on childbearing, sterilization, and death on women and even girls now as young as 5-years-old by violent assault - do so because they claim their personal philosophy leading such offenses against little girls and women by violent men must be imposed on women - because those ideologues self-declare they are so morally and intellectually superiot to everyone else the their personal philosophy should be inflicted on everyone by punitive law against everyone else.

    They ARE the Taliban. They are the Spanish Inquisition. They are the medieval Catholic Cardinals. They are the foremost evil in world history. THEY ARE THE ENEMY OF FREEDOM AND CIVIL RIGHTS. They are the religous and ideology zealots.

    I think law should have such people sterilized or castated to protect both women and children from them as my ideology and logic, facts and science more supports my position. As a safeguard, their children should be taken from them by CPS as they are clearly zealot sadists in my opinion. That is less harsh and against vastly less people than what they want done to people - against children, women and men. They want at least 40 million American women so far declared guilty of 1st Degree Capital Murder - thus the punishment against that offense - and they want to promote and encourage a radical increase in the number of rapists and serial rapists across the country with them providing both the motivation then legal protect for that motivation.

    Yes, there are men who want to force women to have their children. Yes, there are men who want women to suffer forced pregnancy. Yes, some men do DEMAND they have the optional right to procreate by rape and even some women join in - that being the demand of such so-called "pro-life" men, really meaning "pro-rapist-rights" men. Those are very sick people in my view and, worse, exceptionally dangerous people. The Bill of Rights exists to protect everyone in the event such religious and ideological control-freak zealots ever gain a majority.

    Explain again why you want the option of forcing any and all girls and women to have your children by violent rape? IN FACT, that is literally what you want and rational for - it's your PHILOSOPHY. Oh yes, that's right, you want the cops and courts to insure that if you exercise your procreation right by violent rape that you succeed and to protect your activated rape sperm and your ongoing biological attack against those women.

    Call it what it is: Wanting to have the option to have children by forced rape. Then, all that matters still is you - the rights of your "innocent" sperm.
    Last edited by joko104; 12-31-11 at 05:44 PM.

  9. #299
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Not size, but functionality.



    A single cell may contain human DNA, but a cell or a clump of cells does not have a personality. Nor does it think or perceive. Later during the pregnancy (2nd.3rd trimester) you might have a point.
    In relation to this topic, specifically the rapist's DNA.

  10. #300
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

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

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Not size, but functionality.



    A single cell may contain human DNA, but a cell or a clump of cells does not have a personality. Nor does it think or perceive. Later during the pregnancy (2nd.3rd trimester) you might have a point.
    What you mean by personality is just what we normally refer to as consciousness. What I mean is the full human nature or person. The fetus, being a separate human being, has as much of this human nature as any other living, human being. That they haven't developed all the potential doesn't change the nature that is in them and to try and decide which humans have developed enough of their potential is a dangerous precedent.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 30 of 56 FirstFirst ... 20282930313240 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •