• 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
Henrin said:
I don't really care for your excuse personally. What I want to know is how can the victim of abortion NOT be innocent.
Click to expand...
Ask that jeebus fellah!!
It were him wot first spoke about original sin weren't it??
 
Henrin said:
So it is always dangerous or harmful?

And care to explain the physical or moral injury?

Sorry. but that is an excuse.
Click to expand...

who said ALWAYS?
and if you deny there most certainly could be physical and or moral injury you are just being dishonest.

Sorry but your OPINION doesnt matter to the FACTS lmao
 
Objective-J said:
who said ALWAYS?
Click to expand...

Actually I changed the first part after a bit more thought and found out the entire premise was bunk.


and if you deny there most certainly could be physical and or moral injury you are just being dishonest.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, about how does that have anything to do with the fetus and not the woman?
 
Last edited:
007 said:
Ask that jeebus fellah!!
It were him wot first spoke about original sin weren't it??
Click to expand...

Could you try that again in English?
 
Henrin said:
Actually I changed the first part after a bit more thought and found out the entire premise was bunk.




I'm sorry, about how does that have anything to do with the fetus and not the woman?
Click to expand...

because by the very definition of the word you cant be innocent if you cause physical or moral injury. LOL

No matter what type of word games you try to get me to play it has nothing to do with MY opinion. Im using the actual definition of the word and the fact is, I could say its not innocent and that isnt going to change because you disagree or dont like me using a different definition then you prefer :shrug:
 
Bob Blaylock said:
The victims of abortion—what crimes did they commit? How are they not innocent?
Click to expand...


Because it is the biological weapon and DNA of the rapist.

The organism of a biological weapon also is "innocent" by your definition. Raping the women of the enemy to make her/them pregnant was a form of biological and genetic warfare throughout history.

In addition, the right to self defense from assault or ongoing assault is not conditioned on the innocence of the assailant. Nor is the fetus innocent because it is physically attacking the woman.
 
Objective-J said:
because by the very definition of the word you cant be innocent if you cause physical or moral injury. LOL
Click to expand...

If you stop being a asshole for a second you would realize I'm not playing word games, but trying to get you to be honest. Maybe you can answer the question now and STOP running around it? How is it responsible or aware of any harm?
 
Henrin said:
If you stop being a asshole for a second you would realize I'm not playing word games, but trying to get you to be honest. Maybe you can answer the question now and STOP running around it? How is it responsible or aware of any harm?
Click to expand...

LMAO not being an asshole at all, im being factual and wont play semantics with you, this bothers you and your anger shows that LMAO in fact the first one of use to act disrespectful in anyway was you by falsely claiming im making accuses and had a lack of argument, now that you have been further exposed and proved wrong somehow "IM" the asshole LMAO :laughat:

You would like to get me to talk circles with you but the THREE definitions are all the proof I need, you can ignore them if you wish but again the facts wont change. If you cant figure out common sense thats your issue not mine
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
If you stop being a asshole for a second you would realize I'm not playing word games, but trying to get you to be honest. Maybe you can answer the question now and STOP running around it? How is it responsible or aware of any harm?
Click to expand...

"Awareness of harm" is not necessary for a person to use force including deadly force to stop an ongoing assault. Since pregnancy does kill women at a 1200% higher rate than abortion, plus all the other extreme disabilities, pain, physical lose etc - justifies using force, including deadly force - to stop the assault.

If an insane person known to be insane is attempting to assault or kill you, you can stop that person including by deadly force if necessary - even if you are totally aware the other person does not know what they are doing or that it is wrong.

The motive of an assailant is irrelevant to your right to stop the assault or stop it from continuing. That is an absolute principle of civil and criminal law. Nothing else makes sense.
 
Objective-J said:
LMAO not being and asshole at all, im being factual and wont play semantics with you, this bothers you and your anger shows that LMAO in fact the first one of use to act disrespectful in anyway was you by falsely claiming im making accuses and had a lack of argument, now that you have been further exposed and proved wrong somehow "IM" the asshole LMAO :laughat:
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me with that? Fantasy talk is not being an asshole? Whatever dude. Care to tell me who provoked that? No, because you are always an asshole. You think I haven't looked back at your post history? You are a prick to everyone.

You would like to get me to talk circles with you but the THREE definitions are all the proof I need, you can ignore them if you wish but again the facts wont change. If you cant figure out common sense thats your issue not mine
Click to expand...


I'm not ignoring them. You just refuse to back up your conclusions.
 
Henrin said:
Are you kidding me with that? Fantasy talk is not being an asshole? Whatever dude. Care to tell me who provoked that? No, because you are always an asshole. You think I haven't looked back at your post history? You are a prick to everyone.




I'm not ignoring them. You just refuse to back up your conclusions.
Click to expand...

LMAO your opinion has no impact on me nor is it true, Im not a prick at all nor have I said one thing fantasy only said facts and that hurts your wittle fweelings for some reason LOL

they are not my CONCLUSIONS no matter how much you pretend they are they are facts represented by three definitions from three dictionaries.

My conclusions or opinions have NO BARRING hear LOL talk about fantasy. Why do facts anger you so much?:lamo
 
joko104 said:
"Awareness of harm" is not necessary for a person to use force including deadly force to stop an ongoing assault. Since pregnancy does kill women at a 1200% higher rate than abortion, plus all the other extreme disabilities, pain, physical lose etc - justifies using force, including deadly force - to stop the assault.

If an insane person known to be insane is attempting to assault or kill you, you can stop that person including by deadly force if necessary - even if you are totally aware the other person does not know what they are doing or that it is wrong.

The motive of an assailant is irrelevant to your right to stop the assault or stop it from continuing. That is an absolute principle of civil and criminal law. Nothing else makes sense.
Click to expand...
So have you handed yourself into the police yet for that assault you made on your mother in being conceived and born?
 
Objective-J said:
LMAO your opinion has no impact on me nor is it true, Im not a prick at all nor have I said one thang fantasy only said facts and that hurts your wittle fweelings for some reason LOL

they are not my CONCLUSIONS no matter how much you pretend they are they are facts represented by three definitions from three dictionaries.

My conclusions or opinions have NO BARRING hear LOL talk about fantasy. Why do facts anger you so much?:lamo
Click to expand...

I'm not even mad. If you can't or won't back yourself up there is nothing else to say. Good day.

And if you won't see yourself for who you are that is your problem. I hope you grow up at some point in your life.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I'm not even mad. If you can't or won't back yourself up there is nothing else to say. Good day.
Click to expand...

Oh so you often cuss and attack when you are not angry? makes sense.

And I already did with the three definitions you are ignoring, thanks, when you can dispute those you let me know.
 
Objective-J said:
Oh so you often cuss and attack when you are not angry? makes sense.
Click to expand...

I was describing you for what you are, an asshole and a prick. I was NOT mad. I also didn't attack you until you attacked.

And I already did with the three definitions you are ignoring, thanks, when you can dispute those you let me know.
Click to expand...

You need to back up your reasoning behind why you think they qualify. You can't just post them and think you are done. That is not how it is done and its hardly convincing.

I will not respond to you again until you actually do explain your reasoning.
 
Henrin said:
I was describing you for what you are, an asshole and a prick. I was NOT mad. I also didn't attack you until you attacked.



You need to back up your reasoning behind why you think they qualify. You can't just post them and think you are done. That is not how it is done and its hardly convincing.

I will not respond to you again until you actually do explain your reasoning.
Click to expand...

yes that makes perfect sense, you in fact did attack and lash out FIRST, its was funny and cute

and again you asked HOW and I gave you three definition from three different dictionaries! what more factual evidence do you need than that LMAO the definition IS the reasoning, not mine just facts in general.

again not my fault you choose to ignore those facts, if you don't want to respond and dispute those facts thats your issue, not mine, because tomorrow the facts will remain the same with or without your approval. :shrug:
 
DONE!

Have fun in your life. And I did attack you first, but you DID attack first regardless. I can't say I care if you attack me or someone else first as I will attack you back for it. Get used to it.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
DONE!

Have fun in your life. And I did attack you first, but you DID attack first regardless. I can't say I care if you attack me or someone else first as I will attack you back for it. Get used to it.
Click to expand...

whooooooooooa ok internet tough guy LMAO

Wait? I thought YOU said that YOU weren't going to respond anymore??????

Anyway you do as you wish because your "attacks" are very humorous, Ive never seen someone get so mad over facts :shrug:
 
Yes. A rape victim SHOULD be able to take the morning after pill...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes. A rape victim SHOULD be able to take the morning after pill...
Click to expand...

agreed I cant even believe anybody would be against this, 7 people voted otherwise, I dont know who they are and I always make my polls public for better accuracy but I asked who and to please explain and got no answer. :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
who said they have to "commit a crime" to not be innocent?
Click to expand...

Most people understand that to be the very definition of innocence—to have never done anything wrong.

Under nearly all other circumstances, most people believe that in order for it to be justified to kill someone, that person must either have committed, or be in an imminent position of threatening to commit, a fairly serious criminal act.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Most people understand that to be the very definition of innocence—to have never done anything wrong.

Under nearly all other circumstances, most people believe that in order for it to be justified to kill someone, that person must either have committed, or be in an imminent position of threatening to commit, a fairly serious criminal act.
Click to expand...

thanks for that opinion but the facts disagree
 
Wessexman said:
So have you handed yourself into the police yet for that assault you made on your mother in being conceived and born?
Click to expand...

Yours is not a thoughtout response on many levels.

I suppose I should complain on your asserting as fact that my mother was raped given what this thread is about. I would have no way of knowing either way, would I?

But you still don't grasp law, or maybe its different in Australia? A person can use force, including deadly force if necessary, to stop an assault regardless of the assailant's motive.
HOWEVER, the motive of the assailant determines culpability (or guilty potential). So you logic is just "off."
 
joko104 said:
Yours is not a thoughtout response on many levels.

I suppose I should complain on your asserting as fact that my mother was raped given what this thread is about. I would have no way of knowing either way, would I?

But you still don't grasp law, or maybe its different in Australia? A person can use force, including deadly force if necessary, to stop an assault regardless of the assailant's motive.
HOWEVER, the motive of the assailant determines culpability (or guilty potential). So you logic is just "off."
Click to expand...
You didn't mention rape in your post.
 
Objective-J said:
agreed I cant even believe anybody would be against this, 7 people voted otherwise, I dont know who they are and I always make my polls public for better accuracy but I asked who and to please explain and got no answer. :shrug:
Click to expand...
There is at least equal, academic opinion and evidence for the morning after pill being an abortifacient. If you are pro-life and hold the usual pro-life philosophy then there is really no excuse then for accepting the morning after pill, even in situations of rape. It would simply be punishing the child for its father being a rapist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom