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

phattonez said:

Plan B does not prevent more abortion as it IS abortion.

Click to expand...

Bull****. How do you know the woman is pregnant?

DiAnna said:

...not directed to you or your post(s). There's a reason for that. You speak much and say nothing. Nothing actually said, nothing to actually respond to. Bye now.

Click to expand...

I see you have realised where your comments lead. When you talk about viability you are talking about the viability or potentiality of a human person and nature. Otherwise viability would make no sense. This means you are picking and choosing when a human person is expendable and when they are not. I know which position, yours or the pro-life position, which I find more disgusting, despite all your heated rhetoric. Rhetoric you often rely on, and certainly have in this thread where you have periodically weighed in to make extremely provocative and totally emotional screeds against the pro-life position.

Phys251 said:

Way to completely dodge my point. Answer it first if you want me to even consider answering yours.

Click to expand...

I'm answering your contention by trying to get you to respond to this question.

I gave you one and you didn't like it. The goal of antiabortionists is to take control over women's reproductive freedom, period. It's so funny that the same side of the aisle that claims to be for liberty and freedom is all in favor of its destruction on this issue.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm also for taking away murdering freedom. How horrible of me.

Risky Thicket said:

Bull****. How do you know the woman is pregnant?

Click to expand...

If she was not impregnated then it doesn't do much. It she was impregnated then it kills the fetus.

DiAnna said:

Viability.

Click to expand...

What defining moment establishes viability? Furthermore, what is viable now was not necessarily viable 20 years ago. Is what has dignity today different than what had dignity 20 years ago? Do you see a problem in that your definition for when dignity is gained is necessarily dependent on medical technology? A metaphysical concept should be unrelated to practical considerations.

phattonez said:

If she was not impregnated then it doesn't do much. It she was impregnated then it kills the fetus.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So you would advocate for legal control of women's bodies on the off chance that they might have conceived?

Risky Thicket said:

Exactly. So you would advocate for legal control of women's bodies on the off chance that they might have conceived?

Click to expand...

It is only "legal control of women's bodies" to the extent that we take control of a murderer's body. Yet no one would call laws against murders legal control against murderer's bodies.

phattonez said:

If she was not impregnated then it doesn't do much. It she was impregnated then it kills the fetus.

Click to expand...

You're totally confused. Plan B doesn't do anything if the woman is impregnated, that is meaning the zygote implanted in the uterus. The first action of Plan B is to prevent ovulation. There is some speculation by scientists, no certainty, that Plan B maybe possibly would prevent implantation if it fails to prevent ovulation, and that is what SOME people consider an abortion.

OKgrannie said:

You're totally confused. Plan B doesn't do anything if the woman is impregnated, that is meaning the zygote implanted in the uterus. The first action of Plan B is to prevent ovulation. There is some speculation by scientists, no certainty, that Plan B maybe possibly would prevent implantation if it fails to prevent ovulation, and that is what SOME people consider an abortion.

Click to expand...

What you are calling speculation is rather a legitimate and unsettled divide amongst the evidence and experts. It is about 50/50, which is strong enough odds for pro-lifers to object, as far as I can see. As far as I know what it may do is considered abortion from the general pro-life perspective.

MarineTpartier said:

On this issue, yes we do prefer big gov't. A) Because Planned Parenthood is a Federal program B) Because murder shouldn't be okay in any state. There's some things that no state should be allowed to institute and this is one of them.

Click to expand...

You are brave -kudos
With age, I have gained some wisdom; at one time, I too, thought abortion, of any kind, was "murder".
And, of course, Planned Parenthood is NOT a federal program, does Rush(or some other microphone-myoptic ) say that it is ????

Wessexman said:

What you are calling speculation is rather a legitimate and unsettled divide amongst the evidence and experts. It is about 50/50, which is strong enough odds for pro-lifers to object, as far as I can see. As far as I know what it may do is considered abortion from the general pro-life perspective.

Click to expand...

That depends on the pro-lifer in question.

I consider myself pro-life, but I don't consider it abortion until a woman knows she is pregnant. And there is absolutely no way to know you are pregnant (as of right now) until after implantation.

roguenuke said:

That depends on the pro-lifer in question.

I consider myself pro-life, but I don't consider it abortion until a woman knows she is pregnant. And there is absolutely no way to know you are pregnant (as of right now) until after implantation.

Click to expand...

So if a woman was in a coma, and a doctor took the fetus out at 8 1/2 months, that wouldn't be abortion because she didn't know about it?

Desiring to award full legal, civil and constitutionally protected rights to a rapist's sperm seems a rather sick sense of morality.

joko104 said:

Desiring to award full legal, civil and constitutionally protected rights to a rapist's sperm seems a rather sick sense of morality.

Click to expand...

Desiring to take away the rights of a rapists child seems a rather sick sense of morality.

Wessexman said:

Desiring to take away the rights of a rapists child seems a rather sick sense of morality.

Click to expand...

Because you apparently believe rapists have superior genetics you want his sperm to become a child.
Because the woman resisted becoming pregnant thus you see her as anti-life, so believe she should be further physically and psychologically assaulted by forcing her to endure pregnancy and labor.
Because the rapist has created life unilaterally, where for others it takes two wanting to do so, you see the rapist as the most pro-life of all, for which he should be rewarded with a child and the government should pay all expenses of that child as reward for his services of creating life.
Rapists are so pro-life superior to others, you believe he should be awarded genetic immortality.
In short, you want the rapist to succeed to the extent you want him to succeed forever.

These are among the reasons why the most extreme "pro-life" - meaning pro-rapist - advocates are quite immoral. They literally are wannabe accomplishes to rape and what to join in to radically increase the suffering and harm to the woman as much as possible. You want to maximize the rapist's success potential in degrading, controlling and dominating the woman because rapists are the most pro-life of all.

How many children have you adopted or provide foster care for with your supposedly being so concerned about children? Or is that not your reason but only a rationality and rather it is you're pro-rapist unilateral parenting rights?

Or, to talk like a sensible person with a modicum of common sense for a second; there is at least equal, academic opinion and evidence the morning after pill is an abortifacient. Therefore, according to the common pro-life position it may kill an unborn child or person. It is abhorrent to blame this unborn child for its father being a rapist and killing it. If you agree a child may be killed, why is its okay to kill it because its father was a rapist? It doesn't make any sense at all.

You may disagree with certain parts of this reasoning, but that is no excuse to abandon all common sense and decency in favour of the kind of nonsensical screed you have just served up.

joko104 said:

These are among the reasons why the most extreme "pro-life" - meaning pro-rapist - advocates are quite immoral. They literally are wannabe accomplishes to rape and what to join in to radically increase the suffering and harm to the woman as much as possible. You want to maximize the rapist's success potential in degrading, controlling and dominating the woman because rapists are the most pro-life of all.

Click to expand...

I am pro-choice. But this is pathetic.

Someone who is pro-life simply believes the fetus is just like a person, and to abort is to murder. Making up this inflammatory strawman doesn't help resolve the debate.

I disagree with your selective morality explanation.

A person can be morally/ethically judged by the KNOWN results of what they advocate.
EVERYTHING I WROTE is a KNOWN result of requiring a woman to bear a rapist's child. ALL OF IT.
A person can not make an advocacy and then just discard the known effects that they don't like. They morally buy all of it. ALL results.

Those who claim "life begins at conception" and therefore a man can rape a woman to force her to have his child is not a result such "pro-life" people can just ignore their moral responsibility for. It IS WHAT THEY ADVOCATE. So I call it what it is.

Morality is NOT based on a person's slogans, it is based upon the known final effects. Thus, if they advocate something leading to a known result, they WANT that known result.

There is no denying that wanting to require a woman to have rapist's babies is just that - wanting women to have rapist babies. To claim their morality or "intention" exempts them from the consequences they would cause is NOT a free pass they get to have.

They ARE morally responsible for the KNOWN results they promote, and because they promote those results it is 100% accurate to state they want those results.

THEY DO NOT GET A FREE MORAL PASS ON THE RESULTS THEY DEMAND HAPPEN.

That also is the standard of civil and criminal liability. You are ALWAYS responsible for ALL KNOWN effects of your actions - not just those you want considered and not those results you want to exclude.

In fact, they WANT women to have rapist's babies and all that comes from it. I am 100% accurate in stating so. They can claim they are saving a baby in their view, but they also are morally responsible for the rest of it too. They can't selectively pick and exclude the consequences in being evaluated for their morality - rather than their insistance of only they morally judge others only in categories they select, themselves exempt from moral judgement of all consequences they want to cause.

They can claim what they see as moral good, but they can not declare moral evil also resulting doesn't count so they are exempt from moral judgement of it.

joko104 said:

I disagree with your selective morality explanation.

A person can be morally/ethically judged by the KNOWN results of what they advocate.
EVERYTHING I WROTE is a KNOWN result of requiring a woman to bear a rapist's child. ALL OF IT.

Click to expand...

But what matters is what you left out.

If you believe that a fetus is a baby, then that easily trumps all the other things you brought up. To a person who believes that, abortion is the same as killing a baby after it is born. You wouldn't say that a baby conceived of rape can be killed. Nor would you say that to not let the mother kill it would be "controlling" her or all that stuff. Even if you did, you wouldn't claim that the interests of a mother outweigh the life of a baby simply because the mother didn't want the baby.

misterman said:

But what matters is what you left out.

If you believe that a fetus is a baby, then that easily trumps all the other things you brought up. To a person who believes that, abortion is the same as killing a baby after it is born. You wouldn't say that a baby conceived of rape can be killed. Nor would you say that to not let the mother kill it would be "controlling" her or all that stuff. Even if you did, you wouldn't claim that the interests of a mother outweigh the life of a baby simply because the mother didn't want the baby.

Click to expand...

My answer is so what? I do not have to accept THEIR perspective as my own and then debate from THEIR perspective - which is only suppositions based upon their beliefs. By that EXACT logic, they can claim gays should be executed because that is their BELIEF - then rage when pointing out the fact doing so is murder.

"I believe" justifies NOTHING to anyone but him/herself.

What I am pointing out is that even in their bizarre BELIEF of a single cell constitutes a human life and all civil and human rights involved comes at the expense of massive levels of enduring evil that is NOT based on ideology and religion. Rather, the evils I point to are absolutes. Those aren't debatable. They are facts.

Their same arguements were used for centuries to outlaw birth control too. Afterall, birth control caused eggs and sperm - "life in the making" - also single cells - to die.

I don't have to respect their religious or philosophical BELIEFS in my presenting the FACTUALLY KNOWN results they insist - therefore want - to happen.

What I am doing? I'm pointing out the known, undisputable great evils what they WANT to happen are - they wanting those to happen because of their ideology/religion based solely on their personal "beliefs" they want to use government to force the consequences on everyone else.

My direct response? Notice the great consternation at my pointing out the results they promote, therefore want? HOW DARE I POINT OUT FACTS! to challenge the morality of their ideology? They DO NOT WANT FACTS in the debate. They want to argue only over slogans and only those they select.

Doesn't work that way.

And the operative word on their side? You wrote it: "believe." Their view is based on "their belief." My presentation is not on my personal "beliefs." It is based upon absolute facts of the effects and realities of requiring a woman to have a rapist's baby.

I do not have to give respect to their beliefs as legitimate anymore than I have to give respect to as legitimate to a satan-worshipper. To be offended by my pointing out absolute certain facts of what results from what they advocate isn't off point or rude. It is the core of the issue. I point out the FACTS of what they want to force upon others based upon their own personal "beliefs."

Sure, they don't like FACTS, they only want to debate THEIR beliefs. They are offended by FACTS. FACTS are entirely against their beliefs.

joko104 said:

My answer is so what? I do not have to accept THEIR perspective as my own and then debate from THEIR perspective - which is only suppositions based upon their beliefs.

Click to expand...

Of course you don't.

But you're busy demanding that they debate from YOUR perspective.

Which means it's the perspective that must be debated, not the conclusions based on two completely different perspectives.

Wessexman said:

Or, to talk like a sensible person with a modicum of common sense for a second; there is at least equal, academic opinion and evidence the morning after pill is an abortifacient. Therefore, according to the common pro-life position it may kill an unborn child or person. It is abhorrent to blame this unborn child for its father being a rapist and killing it. If you agree a child may be killed, why is its okay to kill it because its father was a rapist? It doesn't make any sense at all.

You may disagree with certain parts of this reasoning, but that is no excuse to abandon all common sense and decency in favour of the kind of nonsensical screed you have just served up.

Click to expand...

Do you believe the fetus is more important than the rape victim?

I understand your point, but I am not demanding they debate.

There is no debate with someone who claims their opinion is based upon "belief." That is a nonsensical debate. They can believe anything they want to for whatever reason they do.

Some Hindus believe all life is sacred. If I, accordingly advocate criminalizing killing any life, it entirely reasonable for others to point out the effects of my attempting to impose my belief on other's results in - disease, starvation, a ravaged environment...

There are no words to "debate" the truth of such a Hindu view. That is a belief system.

I'm posting about facts and known reality - univerally known to all.

What I am doing is presenting my view of the FACTS - the KNOWN results of what they want to happen based solely upon their beliefs that they want to use the full force of government to impose on everyone else.

Therefore, it is most relevant of all to keep in mind exactly what - in fact - they do want to force on others for their own personal beliefs.

evanescence said:

Do you believe the fetus is more important than the rape victim?

Click to expand...

No, I do not "believe" that. Nor do I think my "belief" is relevant. Its not my fetus and I'm not the victim.

If they wanted to pass some law that a woman has to give her aborted fetus to the government to try to save or otherwise do with as it pleases? I could go along with that maybe.

Since you keep talking about babies, a woman can give away a baby for adoption. Since a fetus and baby are identical according to them, then the woman should be able to give the fetus up too. THis includes at birth. Therefore, requiring the woman to give up the fetus in an abortion no different. Requiring her let the hospital keep to fetus is ok with me.

Afterall, they claim they are the same as any other baby.

joko104 said:

I understand your point, but I am not demanding they debate.

Click to expand...

Exactly. You're just presuming that your view is right.

There is only one issue in the abortion debate - when does a person become a person? Everything else flows from that. Assuming one or the other and then arguing from that is pointless. If the fetus is just a thing, the woman has an absolute right to control her own body. If it's a person, then she has no such rights because they don't outweigh the right of a baby (fetus) not to be murdered. No middle ground, and no point to debating anything else.