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



Then your personal views are self-contradictory, even if your public policy views aren't.

Maybe mainstream... but people can also be pro-life, as he and I are but realize that stopping a woman from choosing is more harm than good even if we feel horrible about the abortion.
 
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.

My family doesn't go to church. It is not necessary to belong to a church to practice that religion.

Second, since the comment had to do with pregnancy, not taking the pill, then you aren't really making much of a point here. If the pill is taken within that 24 hours of having sex, and nothing else is going on with the woman, then she will likely not have conceived at all. However, it is possible that conception may happen if she waits over that 24 hours up to that 3 days. But even the website says that once a person is pregnant, Plan B is not effective at eliminating that pregnancy. That is why a woman should take it within the first 24 hours and has to take it within 3 days for it to do anything.

Provide your proof. Everything I have seen says that Plan B does not harm an actual pregnancy. Just saying the evidence is divided isn't proof.
 
My family doesn't go to church. It is not necessary to belong to a church to practice that religion.
I must of missed that in the Pope's most recent sermons.

Dignitas Personae: On Certain Bioethical Questions

New forms of interception and contragestation

'23. Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods,43 it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.

When there is a delay in menstruation, a contragestative is used,44 usually one or two weeks after the non-occurrence of the monthly period. The stated aim is to re-establish menstruation, but what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted.

As is known, abortion is "the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth".45 Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law.46 '

Second, since the comment had to do with pregnancy, not taking the pill, then you aren't really making much of a point here. If the pill is taken within that 24 hours of having sex, and nothing else is going on with the woman, then she will likely not have conceived at all. However, it is possible that conception may happen if she waits over that 24 hours up to that 3 days. But even the website says that once a person is pregnant, Plan B is not effective at eliminating that pregnancy. That is why a woman should take it within the first 24 hours and has to take it within 3 days for it to do anything.

Provide your proof. Everything I have seen says that Plan B does not harm an actual pregnancy. Just saying the evidence is divided isn't proof.
You are simply wrong. The academic evidence is equally split on whether the morning after pill can cause abortions.

Emergency contraception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
I must of missed that in the Pope's most recent sermons.

Dignitas Personae: On Certain Bioethical Questions

New forms of interception and contragestation

'23. Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted.

In order to promote wider use of interceptive methods,43 it is sometimes stated that the way in which they function is not sufficiently understood. It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse. It must be noted, however, that anyone who seeks to prevent the implantation of an embryo which may possibly have been conceived and who therefore either requests or prescribes such a pharmaceutical, generally intends abortion.

When there is a delay in menstruation, a contragestative is used,44 usually one or two weeks after the non-occurrence of the monthly period. The stated aim is to re-establish menstruation, but what takes place in reality is the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted.

As is known, abortion is "the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth".45 Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law.46 '

Since when do you get to decide what people believe, even if some of their beliefs contradict some things of their chosen religion? You have no say on what religion people claim to be, nor can you even really say that they are wrong for saying that they are part of that religion simply because they disagree with one or even two parts of that religion.

And really, the Pope doesn't get that say either, even if the person is claiming to be Catholic. He may be able to exclude people from participating in certain church activities or rites, but most churches, even Catholic ones, do not check attendees to mass against a master list of can't come to Catholic services. I know. I have never been through catechism, but have been to several Catholic masses throughout the years.

You are simply wrong. The academic evidence is equally split on whether the morning after pill can cause abortions.

Emergency contraception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, there really isn't a "split", as you call it, about what happens here. Most of those who are claiming that there is a chance that the egg could be fertilized, but just not allowed to implant, are extreme prolife groups. The other side basically just conceded that they really don't know whether it would do that or not, since they can't really observe what happens during that couple of days while sperm is making its way to the egg, and the egg is coming back down to implant.

However, since pregnancy is not official until implantation occurs (probably millions of fertilized eggs are naturally rejected by women's uteri every year), then it is not really an abortion drug, because in order to have a real abortion there must be a real pregnancy.
 
Since when do you get to decide what people believe, even if some of their beliefs contradict some things of their chosen religion? You have no say on what religion people claim to be, nor can you even really say that they are wrong for saying that they are part of that religion simply because they disagree with one or even two parts of that religion.

And really, the Pope doesn't get that say either, even if the person is claiming to be Catholic. He may be able to exclude people from participating in certain church activities or rites, but most churches, even Catholic ones, do not check attendees to mass against a master list of can't come to Catholic services. I know. I have never been through catechism, but have been to several Catholic masses throughout the years.
I don't think you understand Catholicism. I was only commenting on the Catholic teaching. If you have an abortion you will be dealt with severely by the Roman Catholic Church. It makes little sense to call yourself a Catholic and take positions completely contrary to the Church's belief and ethos.

But, there really isn't a "split", as you call it, about what happens here. Most of those who are claiming that there is a chance that the egg could be fertilized, but just not allowed to implant, are extreme prolife groups. The other side basically just conceded that they really don't know whether it would do that or not, since they can't really observe what happens during that couple of days while sperm is making its way to the egg, and the egg is coming back down to implant.
This is simply an inaccurate reading of what the wiki article says. It may be true, but I don't think so. The Catholic Church isn't extreme, or at least not marginal.
However, since pregnancy is not official until implantation occurs (probably millions of fertilized eggs are naturally rejected by women's uteri every year), then it is not really an abortion drug, because in order to have a real abortion there must be a real pregnancy.
This is untrue. Not only does it not matter if they die naturally, that is not our concern, but conception is when a new being is formed and the point where the usual pro-life philosophy says life and personhood believe.
 
.... It makes little sense to call yourself a Catholic and take positions completely contrary to the Church's belief and ethos...

In practice. Roman Catholicism is the stickiest religion known to man, There is no formal way to leave it short of excommunication. If one were to travel to Afghanistan and join the Taliban, one would merely be "a bad Catholic." Hitler was "a bad Catholic". In the real world many nominal Catholics do not cleave to the hardline doctrine on contraception within their daily lives.
 
In practice. Roman Catholicism is the stickiest religion known to man, There is no formal way to leave it short of excommunication. If one were to travel to Afghanistan and join the Taliban, one would merely be "a bad Catholic." Hitler was "a bad Catholic". In the real world many nominal Catholics do not cleave to the hardline doctrine on contraception within their daily lives.
So? They are completely inconsistent in their position though. It makes no sense for them, like Hitler, to call themselves Catholics. Hitler clearly realised this as he didn't consider himself a Catholic and his intimates, like Speer, Bohrmann and Goebbels testify to this. It makes no sense for a Catholic to consider themselves such and utterly disrespect the Magisterium of the Church and its traditions. You may dissent from the Magisterium under certain circumstances, but on this kind of thing there is no difference between such a position and the worst kind of Protestantism, it is simply not the Catholic, or even Orthodox, position to just set yourself against the Church.
 
Maybe mainstream... but people can also be pro-life, as he and I are but realize that stopping a woman from choosing is more harm than good even if we feel horrible about the abortion.

It's really misleading to use the term "pro-life" in a way most people don't. Your views will be misunderstood, and it will be your fault.
 
I don't think you understand Catholicism. I was only commenting on the Catholic teaching. If you have an abortion you will be dealt with severely by the Roman Catholic Church. It makes little sense to call yourself a Catholic and take positions completely contrary to the Church's belief and ethos.

This is simply an inaccurate reading of what the wiki article says. It may be true, but I don't think so. The Catholic Church isn't extreme, or at least not marginal.
This is untrue. Not only does it not matter if they die naturally, that is not our concern, but conception is when a new being is formed and the point where the usual pro-life philosophy says life and personhood believe.

Tell me, how does anyone prove that an abortion was caused when you can't even prove a pregnancy took place?
 
So? They are completely inconsistent in their position though. It makes no sense for them, like Hitler, to call themselves Catholics. Hitler clearly realised this as he didn't consider himself a Catholic and his intimates, like Speer, Bohrmann and Goebbels testify to this. It makes no sense for a Catholic to consider themselves such and utterly disrespect the Magisterium of the Church and its traditions. You may dissent from the Magisterium under certain circumstances, but on this kind of thing there is no difference between such a position and the worst kind of Protestantism, it is simply not the Catholic, or even Orthodox, position to just set yourself against the Church.

Sure there is. A medical doctor cannot even verify that a pregnancy ever took place or that an egg was ever fertilized, but then flushed out of a woman's body by Plan B. At this point in time, that is impossible for medical science to do. So how can any person in the Church prove that a person had an abortion?
 
Only a pure pacifist opposed to all wars, all soldiers and even defensive war can claim a woman aborting not to have a baby by a rapist is a murderer without being a total liar and hypocrite for their platitude of "innocence" of the rapist's ZEF defends it from being killed/destroyed.

A rapist impregnating his victim makes that pregnancy an ongoing physical and psychological assault likely often worse than the initial assault. A rape is an individual act of war against the girl or woman.

Soldiers are innocent. They are only doing what they are required to do. Therefore, under the "killing an innocent person is murder" means they can not be killed.

Civilians are innocent. Taking any stance, even defensive, on war kills innocent civilians. Therefore no country may militarily defend itself because doing so is murder.

I do not think "innocence" of the rapist's impregnation has any relevancy nor could it be relevant to anyone who isn't also a pure pacifist in all other regards.
 
Last edited:
It's really misleading to use the term "pro-life" in a way most people don't. Your views will be misunderstood, and it will be your fault.

Which of these definitions am I using in a misleading way?

pro–life adj \(ˌ)prō-ˈlīf\

Definition of PRO-LIFE

: opposed to abortion


Pro-life - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

pro-life
Definition
pro-life
ADJECTIVE
1. against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially, involved in campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos


define pro-life - Bing DICTIONARY

pro-life

— adj
(of an organization, pressure group, etc) supporting the right to life of the unborn; against abortion, experiments on embryos, etc


Pro-life | Define Pro-life at Dictionary.com

That being said I don't tell people that I am pro-life even though I am... why? People are too pigeon holed with their black and white notion of reality. People can be pro-life and not support the movement of zealots that scream and shout that abortion shoult be illegal.
 
Which of these definitions am I using in a misleading way?

pro–life adj \(ˌ)prō-ˈlīf\

Definition of PRO-LIFE

: opposed to abortion


Pro-life - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

pro-life
Definition
pro-life
ADJECTIVE
1. against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially, involved in campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos

The "against open access to abortion" part covers it. If you're against open access to abortion, it means you want to keep others from being able to have one.

That being said I don't tell people that I am pro-life even though I am... why? People are too pigeon holed with their black and white notion of reality. People can be pro-life and not support the movement of zealots that scream and shout that abortion shoult be illegal.

Sure, there's a difference between beliefs and tactics.

"
 
Tell me, how does anyone prove that an abortion was caused when you can't even prove a pregnancy took place?
That has it back to front. We know that there is a chance, this is enough from the usual pro-life position. That it more often than not doesn't cause abortion is irrelevant, that you may cause abortion, and I mean may in terms of legitimate, academic evidence, is enough.
 
That has it back to front. We know that there is a chance, this is enough from the usual pro-life position. That it more often than not doesn't cause abortion is irrelevant, that you may cause abortion, and I mean may in terms of legitimate, academic evidence, is enough.

And yet the Catholic church will not kick anyone out unless it can be proven that the person had an abortion. They have said so. Since it is impossible to prove that Plan B was even necessary, let alone that it prevented a fertilized egg from implanting (which isn't even technically an abortion, only against the Catholic mainstream), then there is no way that the church could without a doubt prove that an abortion (even their version of one) ever took place.
 
And yet the Catholic church will not kick anyone out unless it can be proven that the person had an abortion. They have said so. Since it is impossible to prove that Plan B was even necessary, let alone that it prevented a fertilized egg from implanting (which isn't even technically an abortion, only against the Catholic mainstream), then there is no way that the church could without a doubt prove that an abortion (even their version of one) ever took place.
Well that isn't the only thing we are discussing. But I quoted a recent document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was certainly disapproving of any use of these pills, indeed it is a sin in Catholic teaching to use contraceptives in general, and states 'Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral.'. But the main point is about what pro-lifers should think about the morning after pill. The chance, based on the academic evidence, of it causing abortion seems to rule it out to those pro-lifers not opposed to all contraceptives anyway.
 
Last edited:
Well that isn't the only thing we are discussing. But I quoted a recent document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was certainly disapproving of any use of these pills, indeed it is a sin in Catholic teaching to use contraceptives in general, and states 'Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral.'. But the main point is about what pro-lifers should think about the morning after pill. The chance, based on the academic evidence, of it causing abortion seems to rule it out to those pro-lifers not opposed to all contraceptives anyway.

That same Doctrine says that action would be taken only if an abortion could be proven. As I've repeatedly said, it cannot be proven with just the use of Plan B, so the entire thing is really just empty rhetoric.

I have at least one aunt who believes that any sex that isn't for the sole purpose of trying to conceive, is sinful. This isn't a view too far out from what has been a main belief of many Catholics not so long ago. We still have plenty of Catholics who believe birth control at all is a grave sin.
 
That same Doctrine says that action would be taken only if an abortion could be proven. As I've repeatedly said, it cannot be proven with just the use of Plan B, so the entire thing is really just empty rhetoric.
Actually it doesn't say that. It says if it is proven that abortion was intended then even more grave penalties ensure, I believe. It certainly suggests that using these pills is sinful in itself, indeed besides the fact that contraceptives are against canon law and considered a sin anyway.

I have at least one aunt who believes that any sex that isn't for the sole purpose of trying to conceive, is sinful. This isn't a view too far out from what has been a main belief of many Catholics not so long ago. We still have plenty of Catholics who believe birth control at all is a grave sin.
As a Catholic you do not get to disagree with doctrine on issues like this. The Church says birth control is a grave sin. If you simply disagree with this, and ignore it, then you are having trouble understanding what it is to be a Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Actually it doesn't say that. It says if it is proven that abortion was intended then even more grave penalties ensure, I believe. It certainly suggests that using these pills is sinful in itself, indeed besides the fact that contraceptives are against canon law and considered a sin anyway.

As a Catholic you do not get to disagree with doctrine on issues like this. The Church says birth control is a grave sin. If you simply disagree with this, and ignore it, then you are having trouble understanding what it is to be a Catholic.

^That is false.
 
Even the Iowa Caucus Republicans, over 50% hardcore pro-life evangelicals, put the two active candidates that declared they opposed abortion in the case of rape as the bottom two most rejected - Perry and Bachmann. To no surprise, normal Christians especially don't like rapists nor see them as rightly having ANY power over ANYONE or ANY rights whatsoever. Top of the list is they do not have procreation rights via rape.

Declaring a woman must have a rapist's baby is in fact the most extreme "pro-rapists rights" advocacy. Nearly all people disagree and believe rapists have NO rights and certainty not government protected procreation rights - which of course includes not only the right to pick mothers at their unilateral decision for conception of their children by rape, but then to also have no legal duties or obligations whatsoever to their children as people in prison don't pay child support or provide any other support of their children.

Those claiming men have a government-protected right to force women to have their children and with no obligations towards their children are absolutely taking a Pro-Rapists position.
 
Last edited:
Even the Iowa Caucus Republicans, over 50% hardcore pro-life evangelicals, put the two active candidates that declared they opposed abortion in the case of rape as the bottom two most rejected - Perry and Bachmann. To no surprise, normal Christians especially don't like rapists nor see them as rightly having ANY power over ANYONE or ANY rights whatsoever. Top of the list is they do not have procreation rights via rape.

Declaring a woman must have a rapist's baby is in fact the most extreme "pro-rapists rights" advocacy. Nearly all people disagree and believe rapists have NO rights and certainty not government protected procreation rights - which of course includes not only the right to pick mothers at their unilateral decision for conception of their children by rape, but then to also have no legal duties or obligations whatsoever to their children as people in prison don't pay child support or provide any other support of their children.

Those claiming men have a government-protected right to force women to have their children and with no obligations towards their children are absolutely taking a Pro-Rapists position.

Give it up already.
 
Actually it doesn't say that. It says if it is proven that abortion was intended then even more grave penalties ensure, I believe. It certainly suggests that using these pills is sinful in itself, indeed besides the fact that contraceptives are against canon law and considered a sin anyway.

As a Catholic you do not get to disagree with doctrine on issues like this. The Church says birth control is a grave sin. If you simply disagree with this, and ignore it, then you are having trouble understanding what it is to be a Catholic.

I'd say not all Catholics believe that Plan B causes abortions.

Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions | National Catholic Reporter

And, as I said, although taking Plan B may be considered a sin, punishment under canon law only comes when it can be proven that an abortion took place.

"Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law."

Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

I'm not Catholic, my family is.

And I'm pretty sure that I've already told you this. You do not get to decide what people decide their religion is. If you look at a person's beliefs and they most closely match with Catholicism, but they have a few issues where they disagree, then why would they not be Catholic? Catholic beliefs, for the most part, especially about heaven, saints, purgatory, angels, and hell, are pretty different from Protestant beliefs. Those are the main parts of the Catholic religion. Everything else is just extra.

How many Catholics want female priests? How many Catholics believe in evolution? How many Catholics use birth control? I'm willing to bet a large percentage of them, especially here in the US.
 
Yes, a rape victim should have the option to take the pill.
 
I'd say not all Catholics believe that Plan B causes abortions.

Catholic journal says Plan B does not cause abortions | National Catholic Reporter

And, as I said, although taking Plan B may be considered a sin, punishment under canon law only comes when it can be proven that an abortion took place.
Sin must be absolved, one way or another.

That article simply shows what is being said, the evidence is split. If it could be proved it cannot cause abortion, as defined as killing any zygote after conception, then I'd except its use in these circumstances. But the academic evidence is split right now.

Instruction Dignitas Personae on Certain Bioethical Questions, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

I'm not Catholic, my family is.

And I'm pretty sure that I've already told you this. You do not get to decide what people decide their religion is. If you look at a person's beliefs and they most closely match with Catholicism, but they have a few issues where they disagree, then why would they not be Catholic? Catholic beliefs, for the most part, especially about heaven, saints, purgatory, angels, and hell, are pretty different from Protestant beliefs. Those are the main parts of the Catholic religion. Everything else is just extra.

How many Catholics want female priests? How many Catholics believe in evolution? How many Catholics use birth control? I'm willing to bet a large percentage of them, especially here in the US.
I get to point out obvious aspects of the religion. If a Methodist says he prays to Mecca then I can point out he is confused somewhat about the basis of the Methodist branch of the Christian faith.

At the heart of Catholic belief is also Papal Supremacy, the importance of the Magisterium of the Church and the Sacred Tradition. You do not get to dissent from doctrines like these.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom