• 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
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.

Why do you keep labeling the zef as "innocent" as if that supports your argument?

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?

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.
 
Why do you keep labeling the zef as "innocent" as if that supports your argument?
Because it is innocent, and it does support my argument. Otherwise, if it's not innocent but guilty, as Wessexman said, and it's somehow born, are you going to arrest/punish it? No, you won't, because the child isn't guilty but innocent, and has done no wrong for merely existing.
 
Because it is innocent, and it does support my argument. Otherwise, if it's not innocent but guilty, as Wessexman said, and it's somehow born, are you going to arrest/punish it? No, you won't, because the child isn't guilty but innocent, and has done no wrong for merely existing.

It's not about "guilty" or "innocent." A ZEF can be neither. So this is a pointless argument.
 
It's not about "guilty" or "innocent." A ZEF can be neither. So this is a pointless argument.
Respectfully, we see things differently. You see it as a "ZEF," a lump of flesh. My view is not so simple. The zygote is a developing human life, and an innocent one at that. Simply because the developing life is small and dependent on his/her mother does not subtract from the fact that it is a developing human life. So no, Evanescence, this is not a pointless argument. This is a very serious and deep issue. Things are never so simple.
 
I can't believe this has gone on this long. You should be more morally concerned with killing a fly than killing something that has 6 cells. A fly has over a million...
 
Should a rape victim be able to take the morning after pill?

Absolutely. A woman should have the option to take the pill or not take the pill and for underage girls who have been raped this is the perfect answer to a forced potential pregnancy. Why wait and put a child through the traumatic experience of an abortion when the pill is available? Rape and abortion is terrible enough for a grown woman to have to deal with let a lone a child.
 
I can't believe this has gone on this long. You should be more morally concerned with killing a fly than killing something that has 6 cells. A fly has over a million...
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?
 
Respectfully, we see things differently. You see it as a "ZEF," a lump of flesh. My view is not so simple. The zygote is a developing human life, and an innocent one at that. Simply because the developing life is small and dependent on his/her mother does not subtract from the fact that it is a developing human life. So no, Evanescence, this is not a pointless argument. This is a very serious and deep issue. Things are never so simple.

What lump it's the size of a grape at 8 weeks and it's 2 inches at 12 weeks. Takes awhile before it resembles something vaguely with human potential.

This slide show Fetal Development Pictures Slideshow: Month by Month on MedicineNet.com is amazing.
 
There appears to be a major misconception that as soon as the male ejaculates into the female she is pregnant. Doesn't happen that way.

The sperms have to reach the egg and crack through it to ferilize that egg which then has to travel up the fallopian tube to implant itself into the uterine lining.
Taking the morning after pill is not abortion. Just as a condom is not abortion. It is simply prevening the joining of the sperm and eggs.

But regardless of how one feels, the percentage of pregnancies from rape is extremely low. The brutality and stress of the rape does provide the most welcoming environment to a fertilize egg thus the high number of miscarriages.
 
Respectfully, we see things differently. You see it as a "ZEF," a lump of flesh. My view is not so simple. The zygote is a developing human life, and an innocent one at that. Simply because the developing life is small and dependent on his/her mother does not subtract from the fact that it is a developing human life. So no, Evanescence, this is not a pointless argument. This is a very serious and deep issue. Things are never so simple.

Simply being human doesn't give life inherent value, nor should your moral convictions control someone else's personal decisions. Being raped is one of the worst experiences a person can have. But being bullied into being pregnant with the rapist's baby, giving birth, then dealing with either raising a child or adoption is cruel and unnecessary.
 
There appears to be a major misconception that as soon as the male ejaculates into the female she is pregnant. Doesn't happen that way.The sperms have to reach the egg and crack through it to ferilize that egg which then has to travel up the fallopian tube to implant itself into the uterine lining.Taking the morning after pill is not abortion. Just as a condom is not abortion. It is simply prevening the joining of the sperm and eggs.But regardless of how one feels, the percentage of pregnancies from rape is extremely low. The brutality and stress of the rape does provide the most welcoming environment to a fertilize egg thus the high number of miscarriages.
I was unsure the time period it takes for the zygote to manifest, but this helps. So long as it's before the zygote forms, and is indeed before, then I am for it 100%.
 
Simply being human doesn't give life inherent value, nor should your moral convictions control someone else's personal decisions. Being raped is one of the worst experiences a person can have. But being bullied into being pregnant with the rapist's baby, giving birth, then dealing with either raising a child or adoption is cruel and unnecessary.
Being human, I place value on human life. It is unethical, whether religious or not, to kill an innocent life for the actions of another. Indeed rape is terrible. I can't let my emotions justify the killing of innocent life, no matter how much I hate them.
 
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. :roll:
 
I was unsure the time period it takes for the zygote to manifest, but this helps. So long as it's before the zygote forms, and is indeed before, then I am for it 100%.

fredmertz posted some good information on page 26. You may have missed it so i'll post it again.

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.
 
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.
 
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. :roll:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom