• 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 the morning after pill be allowed.

Should the morning after pill (Plan B) be allowed?


  • Total voters
    37
It takes a lot more than initial brain activity for an entity to qualify as more than an ordinary animal. Look up "persistent vegetative state", which in some ways is similar to brain death --there is ZERO chance of recovery-- but happens to include a great deal of brain activity.

ALSO, you might be suffering from the delusion that if not interrupted by something like defective DNA or worse, human brain development "inevitably" leads to a normal person-class mind. WRONG!!! The Natural Biological Default for human brain development only results in something known as "a feral child", basically a clever animal, like a chimpanzee or gorilla. It takes **more** than zero interruptions for a human --or even an orangutan or gorilla-- to develop a person-class mind. It takes Active External Help.

You can twist words, talk about gorillas, and shout "wrong!!" all you want. You'll never convince people that black is white. Using the morning after pill is not equivalent to abortion. You might want to focus more on actual pregnancy when forming an argument if you want to retain any future credibility, which at this point is looking pretty slim.
 
Then to be on the safe side,
ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL. Period. Even up to the point of just-before birth. Because the only entity targeted by that procedure is **provably** a mere animal, not a person that has rights --while the pregnant woman IS a person that has rights. Did you totally fail to understand all the facts I presented in that other post? On what basis should women be reduced in status to slaves serving mere animals, by banning abortion?
 
You can twist words, talk about gorillas, and shout "wrong!!" all you want.
THANK YOU. Because I will be sure to do that whenever it is factually appropriate!

You'll never convince people that black is white.
NO NEED. We only need to let people convince themselves that facts are facts, and therefore unborn humans are only and always mere-animal entities, of no more significance than any other animal, as far as the Universe is concerned. Do you have any data even suggesting the contrary?

Using the morning after pill is not equivalent to abortion.
DEPENDS ON THE PARTICULAR TYPE OF PILL. Some types prevent ovulation and therefore count as contraceptives. Other types work to prevent womb-implantation and thus indirectly cause the death of an unborn human entity, and therefore, like abortion (which directly causes the death of an unborn human entity), count as birth control.

You might want to focus more on actual pregnancy when forming an argument
THAT DEPENDS ON THE ARGUMENT. The message to which you responded was itself a response to a claim that the beginning of brain activity was, somehow, a hugely significant event --but it isn't, and I attempted to introduce the intended recipient of that message to the Big Picture about why it isn't.

if you want to retain any future credibility,
MY CREDIBILITY IS JUST FINE. I don't see you supporting your claims with linked data, the way I did.

which at this point is looking pretty slim.
HAW! HAW!! HAW!!!
 
Last edited:
Of course; it is quite equivalent to abortion, and one of the reasons abortion can be allowed is, it is a valid back-up plan, with respect to birth control, when ordinary contraception fails.

Yes, I saw below that you argued that in the cosmic view of things embryos are no more important than any animal. I thought that quite cute, if not at all original. In fact, the argument is wonderful and removes all ethical debate in one fell swoop. Or tries to, anyway.
 
Yes, I saw below that you argued that in the cosmic view of things embryos are no more important than any animal. I thought that quite cute, if not at all original. In fact, the argument is wonderful and removes all ethical debate in one fell swoop. Or tries to, anyway.
I DON'T SEE YOU OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. That is, to the contrary of what I wrote and what you commented about above. A lot of abortion opponents act like they are deluded, thinking that unborn humans are somehow special. But none can offer any evidence whatsoever that supports their delusion. So why should anyone else accept their delusion?

A major point is Objectivity (the Universal perspective) versus Subjectivity (the human perspective). Unborn humans can be important to humans, but that doesn't automatically mean every unborn is always important. Especially not in an Objectively Provable overpopulated-and-getting-worse world!
 
Last edited:
I DON'T SEE YOU OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. That is, to the contrary of what I wrote and what you commented about above. A lot of abortion opponents act like they are deluded, thinking that unborn humans are somehow special. But none can offer any evidence whatsoever that supports their delusion. So why should anyone else accept their delusion?

A major point is Objectivity (the Universal perspective) versus Subjectivity (the human perspective). Unborn humans can be important to humans, but that doesn't automatically mean every unborn is always important. Especially not in an Objectively Provable overpopulated-and-getting-worse world!

Not yet born humans are not much different than already born humans reduced to their place in the cosmos. Except for his having used an autocratic planing process, his activities of elimination by cosmic comparison were not much different than those of our abortionist culture produces. But what is his fragil planning compared with the Universe? So, humans may be important to humans, but that doesn't automatically mean that every human is always important? Is that, what you are saying?
 
ABORTION SHOULD BE LEGAL. Period.
Not if the state decides otherwise. In the words of Max Stirner, "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."

Even up to the point of just-before birth. Because the only entity targeted by that procedure is **provably** a mere animal, not a person that has rights --while the pregnant woman IS a person that has rights.
The only right from a utilitarian perspective is might, so all the state has to do is nuliffy those rights, and they cease to exist, whilst bestowing them upon the fetus, and then of course they exist from the moment of conception, superior to that of the mother if it so decides.

Did you totally fail to understand all the facts I presented in that other post? On what basis should women be reduced in status to slaves serving mere animals, by banning abortion?
On the basis that the guns of the state have the might to do so.

So if you digress, I suppose you'd better pray to whatever god you worship if you find this not to your liking, and hope your god fares better than the guns of the state.
 
Last edited:
I DON'T SEE YOU OFFERING ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. That is, to the contrary of what I wrote and what you commented about above. A lot of abortion opponents act like they are deluded, thinking that unborn humans are somehow special. But none can offer any evidence whatsoever that supports their delusion. So why should anyone else accept their delusion?
Because those who posses the power have the might to turn their delusion into reality, so it'd be in your own self-interest to accept it unless you're willing to succumb to the the guns of the state.

A major point is Objectivity (the Universal perspective) versus Subjectivity (the human perspective). Unborn humans can be important to humans, but that doesn't automatically mean every unborn is always important. Especially not in an Objectively Provable overpopulated-and-getting-worse world!
I don't think anyone, let alone those with any real power, could care about what your nonsensical John Stuart Mill utilitarian cult believes anymore than they would what the Moonies, Branch Davidians, or Scientologists believe. (Let alone a cult that uses blogspot articles as "objective facts", lol).
 
Last edited:
The argument on page one is silly.

A pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation.

A human being's lifespan begins at fertilization.

It's not less wrong to kill a human being in aggression before implantation than it is after. It's not less wrong to kill a human being in aggression prior to birth than after.
 
Not if the state decides otherwise. In the words of Max Stirner, "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."
Last time I looked we did not regress to totalitarianism. Not yet.
 
Not yet born humans are not much different than already born humans ....
FALSE. Unborn humans are **very** different, even just before birth, from recently-born humans. That's because the unborn have attached placentas as vital organs, while born humans don't. And the unborn use those placentas to steal nutrients from the bodies of their hostesses, dump toxic biowastes into the bodies of their hostesses, and infuse their hostesses with addictive and mind-altering substances. While born humans don't.

As far as the Universe is concerned, humans are no more important than the large now-extinct dinosaurs. As far as humans are concerned, humans can range in importance from very high (pick a leader of a major world power) to zero (pick a criminal facing the death penalty). Here Is A Universal Rule: "Too much of any good thing is always, always, a Bad Thing --NO EXCEPTIONS." Abortion opponents put far too much value on unborn human life, and therefore they are automatically wrong.
 
FALSE. Unborn humans are **very** different, even just before birth, from recently-born humans. That's because the unborn have attached placentas as vital organs, while born humans don't. And the unborn use those placentas to steal nutrients from the bodies of their hostesses, dump toxic biowastes into the bodies of their hostesses, and infuse their hostesses with addictive and mind-altering substances. While born humans don't.

As far as the Universe is concerned, humans are no more important than the large now-extinct dinosaurs. As far as humans are concerned, humans can range in importance from very high (pick a leader of a major world power) to zero (pick a criminal facing the death penalty). Here Is A Universal Rule: "Too much of any good thing is always, always, a Bad Thing --NO EXCEPTIONS." Abortion opponents put far too much value on unborn human life, and therefore they are automatically wrong.

The cosmic point of view would tend to think the difference was unimportant. Invited to take that view, it was the one I was commenting from.

As to the differences, the ones you make certainly do not convince me of anything but that they might represent your opinion.
 
Not if the state decides otherwise.
STATES HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE.

The only right from a utilitarian perspective is might,
A TEMPORARY THING. All the might of Nazi Germany didn't prevent some folks from saving Jews from persecution. All the might of the Soviet Union didn't prevent it from going bankrupt. All the might of the Roman Empire failed to keep it from collapsing, too. The more you think people can be squeezed, the more they will slip from your fingers.

so all the state has to do is nuliffy those rights, and they cease to exist, whilst bestowing them upon the fetus, and then of course they exist from the moment of conception, superior to that of the mother if it so decides.
FALSE. Because then women who don't want to experience such slavery will go elsewhere, or try DIY abortions, or even commit suicide.

On the basis that the guns of the state have the might to do so.
NOT AS MUCH AS YOU THINK. See above.

So if you digress, I suppose you'd better pray to whatever god you worship if you find this not to your liking, and hope your god fares better than the guns of the state.
THOSE WHO ABUSE POWER IN AMERICAN POLITICS TEND TO BE REPLACED. We don't have a perfect democracy, but what we do have tends to keep extremists from having power for a long time.

Perhaps you should learn this quotation:
Alcuin to Charlemagne in 798 said:
Vox populi, vox Dei
That translates as, "The voice of the people is the voice of God"
 
Because those who posses the power have the might to turn their delusion into reality,
FALSE. No amount of power or delusion can change the Measurable Fact that unborn humans are nothing more than mere-animal entities.

so it'd be in your own self-interest to accept it unless you're willing to succumb to the the guns of the state.
FALSE. THE STATE DOESN'T HAVE THAT POWER, with respect to the Overall Abortion Debate. Many Constitutional rulings have said so!

I don't think anyone, let alone those with any real power,
POWER CORRUPTS, REMEMBER? In the USA the corrupt tend to be replaced. It may take a while, but it almost always happens.
 
The argument on page one is silly.
YOUR MERE CLAIM IS, AS USUAL, WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. When will you accept the **facts** about unborn humans causing harm, and stop spouting the Stupid Lie that they don't?

A pregnancy doesn't begin until implantation.
I PERSONALLY AGREE. But others don't. As you would see if you read more than just the first post of this Thread.

A human being's lifespan begins at fertilization.
BUT A HUMAN'S "BEING-NESS" DOES NOT. Personhood begins well after birth, as the mind develops powers that ordinary animals cannot match.

It's not less wrong to kill a human being in aggression before implantation than it is after.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE, since at the stage you are talking about, no unborn human entity qualifies for the label "human being"/person.

It's not less wrong to kill a human being in aggression prior to birth than after.
FALSE; IT IS STILL IMPOSSIBLE TO KILL A HUMAN BEING BEFORE BIRTH. Simply because no human entity before birth qualifies as a human BEING/person. It is "a human animal" only. Measurably so!

Perhaps you missed this next thing that I wrote about in another message some days ago: YOU ACT LIKE YOU THINK HUMAN CORPSES ARE PERSONS WITH RIGHT-TO-LIFE. Here's the proof:
1. Any brain-dead human on full life-support consists of a living human body, except for the brain.
2. The Law allows a brain-dead human on full life-support to be declared Officially Dead, with a death certificate filled out.
3. Any young unborn human entity, for even a week after implantation, has no brain at all, much less a functioning brain. Therefore to YOU (and other abortion opponents), the existence of a functioning brain is irrelevant to declaring that a living human body is a person that has right-to-life.
4. A brain-dead human on full life-support qualifies as a living human body that doesn't have a functioning brain. Therefore YOU must believe that that Official Corpse is actually a person deserving of right-to-life. Right?
 
The cosmic point of view would tend to think the difference was unimportant. Invited to take that view, it was the one I was commenting from.
IF YOU TAKE THAT VIEW, then the Logical Conclusion is that "human rights" is a delusion, and all claims regarding their existence are worthless. After all, the next giant asteroid that crashes into the Earth will happen with total disregard for what humans think about that event.

As to the differences, the ones you make certainly do not convince me of anything
FACTS ARE FACTS. You can ignore them if you like, but that doesn't mean others will also ignore them.

but that they might represent your opinion.
FACTS ARE FACTS, not opinions. I was wondering if I needed to provide the links you see in this message, in the last message, but I had just written a very similar message in another Thread with those links, so didn't do it in this Thread. Alas.
 
IF YOU TAKE THAT VIEW, then the Logical Conclusion is that "human rights" is a delusion, and all claims regarding their existence are worthless. After all, the next giant asteroid that crashes into the Earth will happen with total disregard for what humans think about that event.


FACTS ARE FACTS. You can ignore them if you like, but that doesn't mean others will also ignore them.


FACTS ARE FACTS, not opinions. I was wondering if I needed to provide the links you see in this message, in the last message, but I had just written a very similar message in another Thread with those links, so didn't do it in this Thread. Alas.

Facts are what they are. They are not necessarily relevant. And that is, what I said. You did not convince me that they are relevant in any ethical way and certainly they are not from the viewpoint you had proposed.
 
Facts are what they are. They are not necessarily relevant.
TRUE. However, in this case the facts I presented are very relevant to the Overall Abortion Debate, an aspect of humans interacting with humans. If you take the cosmic perspective, then you care nothing about either side of the Overall Abortion Debate.

And that is, what I said.
NOT IN THOSE WORDS IN ANY RECENT MESSAGE TO ME.

You did not convince me that they are relevant in any ethical way
THEN YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. The unborn commit **assault** upon their hostesses, four different ways. If YOU did any equivalent thing to another human, you could be arrested, exactly for assault. That would suffice to make YOU stop, right now, from committing the assault. But the only way to right-now stop the multiple assaults of an unwanted unborn human is to kill it.

and certainly they are not from the viewpoint you had proposed.
IRRELEVANT. From the cosmic perspective opponents of abortion are as ignore-able as anyone thinking women have the right to not be assaulted against their wills.
 
Back
Top Bottom