• 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
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.

No, I am presenting the factually known effects as what they are - facts.

Your statement that the only topic of the abortion debate is the religious/ideological beliefs of pro-lifers is ludicrous. Really. To claim FACTS are irrelevant and we must only consider ideology/religion devoid of facts is nonsense.

It also would be pointless debate - no different than a Protestant and a Catholic arguing of which of them is right. Belief is just that, belief. It changes when they both want their religion to be required by law.

I have no problem them believing whatever they want to. Really. If they believe abortion is wrong so be it. When it becomes a matter of legally forcing their religion? THEN WE TALK ABOUT FACTS, not religion.
 
Last edited:
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.
I disagree. WIth regard to the abortion debate there truly is just one question....are you full of **** or do you actually care about human life? To break that down...are you just advocating in defense of or against the practice of abortion or do you really care about the life of the pregnant person and the unborn? most people dont think beyond the debate topic/cause. If people that are opposed to abortion TRULY took a stand they would be the greates ADVOCATE for CHOICE by pooling their time and resources and OFFERING real choice. Instead of taking a stand that people cannot or must not have abortions they would provide real alternatives. They would love the pregnant woman truly like a sister or daughter and support her through her choices, even though they may disagree with her choice. Likewise, if people really care about the pregnant woman they would offer her education, truth, and yes...also choices and alternatives.

If people invested as much time effort and money on the human element as they do on the 'cause' we would have a lot fewer abortions and a much closer and more healthy community. Instead...its the battle over the prenatal death penalty.
 
No, I am presenting the factually known effects as what they are - facts.

But this isn't about just facts.

It also would be pointless debate - no different than a Protestant and a Catholic arguing of which of them is right. Belief is just that, belief. It changes when they both want their religion to be required by law.

Sure, but presuming that your side is right is just as pointless then.

I have no problem them believing whatever they want to. Really. If they believe abortion is wrong so be it. When it becomes a matter of legally forcing their religion? THEN WE TALK ABOUT FACTS, not religion.

Murder is illegal. Is that imposing religion? Should you be able to kill your born child simply because your religious beliefs say you can?

This is not just a religious issue.
 
I disagree. WIth regard to the abortion debate there truly is just one question....are you full of **** or do you actually care about human life? To break that down...are you just advocating in defense of or against the practice of abortion or do you really care about the life of the pregnant person and the unborn? most people dont think beyond the debate topic/cause. If people that are opposed to abortion TRULY took a stand they would be the greates ADVOCATE for CHOICE by pooling their time and resources and OFFERING real choice. Instead of taking a stand that people cannot or must not have abortions they would provide real alternatives. They would love the pregnant woman truly like a sister or daughter and support her through her choices, even though they may disagree with her choice. Likewise, if people really care about the pregnant woman they would offer her education, truth, and yes...also choices and alternatives.

If people invested as much time effort and money on the human element as they do on the 'cause' we would have a lot fewer abortions and a much closer and more healthy community. Instead...its the battle over the prenatal death penalty.

Sorry, but that's a copout. The fact that people are assholes after a kid is born doesn't change the fact of whether it's a "person" or not before it's born. It's a simple metaphysical issue - at some point, you become a human with value and with the right not to be killed. The question is simply when does that happen. Nothing else matters.
 
Where I draw a battleline so-to-speak is when a person wants to impose their "beliefs" on others as law.

"Belief" in moral terms is used to justify horrific impositions, such as seen in radical religious theocracies. For example, "moral belief" can justify murdering gays and horrific denial of rights to women.

If it agreed this only a religious/philosophical discussion, that is a different matter because it is restricted. If in legislative terms, then the known factual results become most relevant.

A person can go to hell having violated no laws and earn a noble place in heaven having broken vast numbers of laws. Thus I do not accept a moral code equates to justifying government restrictions. Women will abort unwanted pregnancies - laws or not. So it becomes only punishment for moral violation of religious/ideology codes, not a preventative. It is criminalizing violation of religious/ideology codes of others only.

But, as an ideological debate? No, I do not belief the human self beings at the moment a sperm and egg unite. I intensely oppose supporting, protecting and enhancing evil. Rather, I believe the results of evil should be miminized. I particularly dislike rapists and believe they have NO right to have prodigy and even to the point they should be minimally sterilized. If an aggravated rape, I believe they should be executed.

The concept that a rapist can deliberately force a woman to create, make and bear a child for him is as repulsive a moral perspective as I can imagine. Truly, completely sickening to me.

I do believe women bear a great responsibility for her children, great power in that regards, and accordingly a woman has an absolute right to pick the genetics of her child. She can NOT be compelled to raise the child of a mentally retarded rapist, the birth defected child of a rapist father, or any other man she didn't select. Stealing that right from a woman violently and then demanding she accept such parentage duty - or even delayed from having a child of a man she selects as she endures a pregnancy then given that child away - is more moral evil than I can tolerate.

Declaring YOUR religious belief requires such horrific degradation, trivialization and denial of THE most fundamental parentage rights of a woman is truly disgusting to me. I do NOT respect people who have such views and view them no different than religious zealots who declare homosexuals should be imprisoned or killed.

But, back on the religion/philosophy of it only, I see NO difference in declaring a single cell zygote is life than declaring a single cell human egg or sperm is human life. Its just completely bizarre to me. Certainly not anywhere in the Bible, and has no moral value whatsoever. It is just a way to come up with the most creepy, degrading ways to view women and mothering. It is wanting to join into a conspiracy with the rapist against that woman in the most literal sense. In some ways, a person trying to force her to have a rapist's baby is more an assailant against that woman that the rapist himself.

Thus, I do not see such extreme "pro-life" people as good, but as very evil people. It is a very different moral question that opposing abortion as general birth control or partial-birth abortions.

Human history is of ways of demeaning and trivializing women, some women then going along with it as conditioned religous beliefs. It never ends the ways "religion" is used to enslave and control women.

The practical extensions of it then also lead to other "laws." Since 1 in 4 women - mostly young girls - will be raped, such 'life begins at conception" then could justify manditory birth control for all girls once they reach puberty knowing that laws or not, women abort unwanted pregnancies. This can then also include virginity examines to determine if a woman is sexually active to imprison her or impose mandatory birth control.

As a legal matter, if legally "life begins at conception, then the only punishment possible for a 15 year old girl who had an abortion is the death penalty or life imprison for 1st degree capital murder. So lets be straight the "logic" of imposing that belief into criminal law. So far, about 50 million girls and women in the USA should have been put to death or imprisoned for life under that "religious belief."

I have no problem is a person's belief is that abortion is murder. Only if they want to impose that belief on others.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but that's a copout. The fact that people are assholes after a kid is born doesn't change the fact of whether it's a "person" or not before it's born. It's a simple metaphysical issue - at some point, you become a human with value and with the right not to be killed. The question is simply when does that happen. Nothing else matters.
Thats like fighting against the death sentence but not giving a **** that the prisoner rots in a cell for the rest of his life.

You cant stop abortions, regardless of whether or not you believe they are right or wrong. Wealthy folks will have their private doctors do it and poor folks will go back to coat hangers and back alleys. People will define life and conception based on their political position...talk about a cop-out. The abortion issue is nothing more than a political football...people pretend to really really really care about the cause but do nothing about it.
 
Should a rape victim be able to take the morning after pill?

A rape victim should be able to rip that fetus out, at any stage, and throw it in the trashcan next to Applebee's.
 
Where I draw a battleline so-to-speak is when a person wants to impose their "beliefs" on others as law.

...

I have no problem is a person's belief is that abortion is murder. Only if they want to impose that belief on others.

So do you oppose current laws against murder? Do you think you have a right to kill anyone you want? I doubt it.
 
Thats like fighting against the death sentence but not giving a **** that the prisoner rots in a cell for the rest of his life.

That's true. But that doesn't make the death penalty okay, does it?

It's a totally different issue.

]You cant stop abortions, regardless of whether or not you believe they are right or wrong.

You can't stop murder or child abuse, regardless of whether or not you believe they are right or wrong. Does that mean we should just give up and let it happen?
 
So do you oppose current laws against murder? Do you think you have a right to kill anyone you want? I doubt it.

Under your reasoning you favor murder unless you also oppose birth control and don't want women to have as many children as possible starting with murder, because that stops human life from becoming independently viable too. There is no difference other than you have a belief only upon a religious or philosophical slogan.

Declaring - as a matter of law - that abortion is "murder" - in fact is then premeditated murder with a deadly weapon. So, in you "morality," what you REALLY want is for a 15 year old who had abortion after being raped by her father to be either imprisoned for life without a possibility of parole OR executed - the ONLY sentences possible for Capital Murder in most states.

That is, unless you claim capital murder of a child is a lesser offense than murder of an adult? Do you?

What I am doing is pointing out the legal effects of what the "pro-lifers' who want "life begins at conception" AND "women will have rapist's babies" as a matter of law results in - and therefore what you WANT. You WANT girls who have abortions to be executed or put in prison for life. PERIOD. YOU ARE THE TALIBAN. Exactly no different when it comes to women.

We also know the effects of outlawing abortion from both the USA and Bosnia, where Muslim women were raped by Caucasions specifically to impregnant them. In the USA, women with any monetary resources had abortions anyway and certainly the ability to travel anyway. We know from Bosnia, where abortion illegal, what raped pregnant girls and women did. They committed suicide or infancide or both. That, too, is something you WANT in real effects.

I hate abortions and I despise people who declare "because of my sense of religion/ethics about X, YOU will do X or I will have you physically and violently punished and your freedom taken away."

That actually is your view IF you are adocating your belief to be made a belief forced upon others. You have an ideology that you want to assert is fact to impose on others. That is no different - exactly none - than imposing the belief that gays should be killed or birth control outlawed upon others. It makes you the Taliban. Exactly.

IF it is JUST your own belief as a belief? Believe whatever you want to. I don't participate on the religion board. People can believe whatever they want. You can hate, curse, condemn, declare they are going to hell - anything you want as a belief - against women having an abortion. When you want to use the laws, armed police, prisons and electric chairs to force others to yield to your belief, then you become the Taliban and more evil in real terms than even the rapist himself.

Believe what you want. BUT if you advocate outlawing abortion to rape victims, I believe the law should require YOU to take and fully raise with all legal duties all ophaned and abandoned children as many as every dollar you have can afford and every spare minute you have - and if not you should be put in prison or executed. You should then be required to bare the punishment you want to impose on others for your belief. No one then more than you should bear the duties and obligations of YOUR "beliefs."

All the unwanted and abandoned severely birth defected children should be brought to you to raise, and it a Capital offense if you don't.

So should your husband or significant other if you have one, and your parents too whether they agree with you or not.

Be required to bear your own forced parenting obligation for love of children. Fair, no?


So we know where you REALLY stand on unwanted children, tell us how many adopted and foster children are you caring for?
 
Radical pro-lifers furiously oppose discussing the real effects of what they WANT in real terms, and are offended if challenged to show what, if anything, they themselves do for unwanted and abandoned children. They just want to impose their religious beliefs on others without any responsibility for the consequences of doing so. And they do target women - always.

IN ALL these pro-life messages, you only read what they want imposed on women. You won't find a message claiming the woman's husband, father or significant other also has legal obligation to raise, pay for, give his life to and provide for a rapist's child. Just dump on women. Religous people, even religous women, ALWAYS dump on women. Very hatefully so in effect.

Since the LEGAL effect of declaring life begins at conception including for rape victims is IN FACT to declare wanting those women executed or put in prison for life without parole - the only sentences possible for premeditated murder of a child with a deadly weapon.

Accordingly, there is exactly NO condemnation I could write about those ultra-radical "pro-lifers" that is as extreme as those they declare against a teenager pregnant by daily rape by her step-father.
 
Last edited:
My "belief" is that rapists have exactly no rights whatsoever - and the right they least possession is the ability to procreate by their rape. You absolutely, 100%, disagree with that.

Not to personalize, I've been to court on that matter and the court did agree. A rapist has no rights, including no genetic rights, of any kind whatsoever in relation to a woman he raped, any child that may result, or anyone in relation to that woman. That she could destroy the fetus without consequence as the victims-of-crime fund would pay the costs. That she could do so and that she had even been pregnant sealed from public record. If she has a child, that as a matter of law he is barred from any consideration of possibly being the genetic father as a matter of record if a child born. That the assailant is bared from expressing any knowledge of that woman not even to mention her name, may make no reference to her, the child if there is one or any she ever has, the assault, anyone who has any relationship to the woman or anything else about her. That in every literally and ethical sense possible, that he, the assault and any effects of it are erased. Rather, that every reality and every effect is singularly defined by the woman, including any sealing of any police records, evidence and trial transcripts and papers.

Thus, in addition to 2 life sentences to run consecutively, the sentence also provided that if he so much as ever mentioned the assault, the woman, any child the woman may ever have, and anyone related to the woman, he was to serve his sentence thereafter in total isolation solitary denied communication with anyone but rare occasion with his lawyer, also enjoined under a gage order in such regards. While potentially he could challenge that as unreasonable punishment, the prison did inform him that they had a continuous microphone in his cell and if he breathed one word in violation they would put him in an isolation cell for the rest of his life as the court had ruled.

As for who has the legal and all other rights and duties including as the biological father? The judge simply determined any and all men that might possibly be. Once that determined, the judge merely asked her which one, if any, she wants him to be? She answered and the judge declared in a written decree that man is the biological father.

Guess what? It wasn't the rapist she picked an the man's name to appear on the birth cerificate as the biological father, that man agreeing. And possibly accurately so.

Now there's a good judge.

Had the court not been willing to quickly make such rulings, had not quick scans and testing determined the fetus showed no indications of birth defect, with it very possibly the rapist was not the bio-father, and the rapist and the man she selected having similar appearance, and her otherwise wanting a child and by that man, she was going to abort and quickly.

Now that's a good mother.

That's a woman that takes being a mother very seriously and not willing to be the victim of cruel fate of an evil, hateful god conspiring with a violent rapist maniac against her personal and parental-choice rights as those pro-lifers claim should be in total control of her.

The woman, a very devoit Christian, had a simple response to other Christians who explained to her "god's will" and all the right to life crap. She replied, "your god of hate doesn't exist," and that she was a Christian so their religion - not Christianity - had no relationship to her whatsoever.

BTW, exactly NOTHING in the Bible prohibits abortion and rather that all rights begin and are determined at birth and human life begins with first breathe.
 
Last edited:
Under your reasoning you favor murder unless you also oppose birth control and don't want women to have as many children as possible starting with murder, because that stops human life from becoming independently viable too. There is no difference other than you have a belief only upon a religious or philosophical slogan.

I don't even begin to understand that.

Believe what you want. BUT if you advocate outlawing abortion to rape victims, I believe the law should require YOU to take and fully raise with all legal duties all ophaned and abandoned children as many as every dollar you have can afford and every spare minute you have - and if not you should be put in prison or executed. You should then be required to bare the punishment you want to impose on others for your belief. No one then more than you should bear the duties and obligations of YOUR "beliefs."

You're still doing it.

Either you can kill a fetus, or you can't.
Be required to bear your own forced parenting obligation for love of children. Fair, no?

Let's try this again.

There are orphans out there now. Does the fact that the state must bear some responsibility for raising them justify killing them? Of course not.

If abortion is murder - and I'm not saying it is - then it's murder. Period. Nothing else matters.

So we know where you REALLY stand on unwanted children, tell us how many adopted and foster children are you caring for?

I am not here making a stand on abortion. I said from the outset that I'm pro-choice. But since you asked, I am taking care of a kid with birth defects that the vast majority of people choose to abort over instead of having, and we did know before the child was born.
 
A fetus may be destroyed by the host woman with no immorality in doing so. However, it is not my moral judgment anyway. "Immoral" and "illegal" are not the same at all.

I see no more rationality in claiming a one-cell zygote is a human life with all legal rights is any different from a single cell egg or single cell sperm. None of the 3 have any possible future independent of the host body at that point. Other than some religion-based ideological slogan, there is no difference.

I could accept banning destroying a fetus upon it reaching a stage of being capable of independent external life as a legal restriction if that was a majority view. At that point is in a homo sapien life, but in my "belief" is it not yet human because it is unknown to the world and the world unknown to it independently, nor has it drawn its first breath.

I'm not claiming the state bears the consequences and responsibility of such children - because also is declaring that I BEAR responsibility. I don't. I'm claiming that YOU are if you also are one who advocated and required such unwanted births as a matter of law. It was your decision, not mine. You - not us or them - bear responsibility for your decisions that you would impose.

By "you" I don't mean you literally since you stated that you are pro-choice. MANY people oppose abortion - but also oppose outlawing it. Morality often is a choice for which legality isn't and shouldn't be a factor. Just as just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.

You can call it murder if anyone wants to. Anyone can believe what they believe. I don't even particularly care unless they got in my face about it. Codifying it another matter.

I congratulate your decision concerning your child or child you are raising. Sincerely, very good of you.

For example, of Republicans now tripping over themselves seeking the religious right vote on abortion, the only one I find acceptable doing so is maybe Bachman for the foster children she cared for over a 7 year period. At least for a while she walked her talk.

Because of the child you are raising, I can temper my criticism in your regards because it is a topic where I see you as having hero status otherwise in regards to children.
 
Last edited:
That's true. But that doesn't make the death penalty okay, does it?
It's a totally different issue.
You can't stop murder or child abuse, regardless of whether or not you believe they are right or wrong. Does that mean we should just give up and let it happen?
Well...it depends, right? Many people see capital punishment as an acceptable punishment for a crime. Its another theoretical construct (and one where if you take the muckiness of religious ideology. 'morality' whatever that means, and feelings out, becomes actually very acceptable). However...unlike the death penalty...if more effort had been placed into truly providing choice over the last 30 years instead of protesting as a form of politics there is no telling how many lives could have actually been saved AND been given real and legitimate opportunities. You either actually DO care about the lives of the woman and child or pretend to for political expediency. Which is it?
 
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.

But you don't believe that a woman should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, especially one resulting from rape, correct?
 
A fetus may be destroyed by the host woman with no immorality in doing so. However, it is not my moral judgment anyway. "Immoral" and "illegal" are not the same at all.

You're saying they never intersect?

Why is murder illegal? If someone decided it wasn't immoral, could they claim the right to do it simply because they believed it was okay?

I could accept banning destroying a fetus upon it reaching a stage of being capable of independent external life as a legal restriction if that was a majority view.

Huh? Now it's just a majority thing?

I'm not claiming the state bears the consequences and responsibility of such children, I'm claiming that you personally are if you also are one who advocated and required such unwanted births as a matter of law.

And I say that's silly. The state may be obligated to care for a child, but that has nothing to do with whether the state declares killing the child to be murder or not.

I congratulate your decision concerning your child or child you are raising. Sincerely, very good of you.

I hate when people say that. I didn't do it because I thought it was good, I did it because I actually wanted the child. But I get your point.

For example, of Republicans now tripping over themselves seeking the religious right vote on abortion, the only one I find acceptable doing so is maybe Bachman for the foster children she cared for over a 7 year period. At least for a while she walked her talk.

But why are you now talking about what you approve of? Is that your concern?

Because of the child you are raising, I can temper my criticism in your regards because it is a topic where I see you as having hero status otherwise in regards to children.

False. I have no such hero status. Those I know of (and I know many) who are busy saving unwanted children by adopting them or getting them out of horrible conditions are the heroes. We just had a kid. Nothing heroic about that. Nobody is a hero just for wanting their own kid. No child is perfect.

Please understand - I am as disgusted as you are with the disregard for life after birth by pro-life types. I see that up close and personal. But it's not part of the debate over abortion.
 
Last edited:
A fetus may be destroyed by the host woman with no immorality in doing so. However, it is not my moral judgment anyway. "Immoral" and "illegal" are not the same at all.

I see no more rationality in claiming a one-cell zygote is a human life with all legal rights is any different from a single cell egg or single cell sperm. None of the 3 have any possible future independent of the host body at that point. Other than some religion-based ideological slogan, there is no difference.

I could accept banning destroying a fetus upon it reaching a stage of being capable of independent external life as a legal restriction if that was a majority view. At that point is in a homo sapien life, but in my "belief" is it not yet human because it is unknown to the world and the world unknown to it independently, nor has it drawn its first breath.

I'm not claiming the state bears the consequences and responsibility of such children - because also is declaring that I BEAR responsibility. I don't. I'm claiming that YOU are if you also are one who advocated and required such unwanted births as a matter of law. It was your decision, not mine. You - not us or them - bear responsibility for your decisions that you would impose.

By "you" I don't mean you literally since you stated that you are pro-choice. MANY people oppose abortion - but also oppose outlawing it. Morality often is a choice for which legality isn't and shouldn't be a factor. Just as just because something is legal doesn't make it moral.

You can call it murder if anyone wants to. Anyone can believe what they believe. I don't even particularly care unless they got in my face about it. Codifying it another matter.

I congratulate your decision concerning your child or child you are raising. Sincerely, very good of you.

For example, of Republicans now tripping over themselves seeking the religious right vote on abortion, the only one I find acceptable doing so is maybe Bachman for the foster children she cared for over a 7 year period. At least for a while she walked her talk.

Because of the child you are raising, I can temper my criticism in your regards because it is a topic where I see you as having hero status otherwise in regards to children.

Good post. I just noticed this.
 
Good post. I just noticed this.

Nice sig line you have:

“As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities.” ~Voltaire
 
But you don't believe that a woman should be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy, especially one resulting from rape, correct?

I do not believe a woman is ever required to continue an unwanted pregnancy. However, because there are a different set of ethical questions, I would not be troubled by law prohibiting an abortion in a manner that destroys the fetus if the fetus is life-viable outside the woman. That enters some when-is-the-deadline gray areas that become complex.

The justification given for paritial birth abortion ban was some horrific accounts of very late term abortion in which breathing babies were born - limbs cut off attempting abortion by a doctor - who then smoother or other terminate the life of the now born baby. That is unthinkably horrific and simply too savage to accept. I do think society can set a deadline around when a woman can abort upon independent-life viability to prevent such nightmare scenes ever happening again.

So my answer is absolutely and regardless of why. In some situations it might be immoral, but not my moral decision to enforce.

An example might be a woman who becomes pregnant deliberately with a man - both wanting a child - and then as a pissy mood revenge against the bio-father aborted to declare to him hurtfully "I killed you son, how do you like that you asshole?!" Very immoral conduct. Not illegal though. There are powers and inabilities both genders have in parentage as simple reality.

Exceptions? I think society may prohibit abortion if it wishes too, but only when the host mother's body is no longer a necessity for life - again acknowledging there are complicated gray areas. For example, should a woman be allowed a C-section abortion in the 6th month, resulting in a severe living premie? I could accept a "no" to that. I'd have to think more about those type issues as they are quite different.
 
Last edited:
An example might be a woman who becomes pregnant deliberately with a man - both wanting a child - and then as a pissy mood revenge against the bio-father aborted to declare to him hurtfully "I killed you son, how do you like that you asshole?!" Very immoral conduct. Not illegal though.

Why is that immoral?
 
Just my opinion. Generally, justifying morality is all around each person's beliefs, which is subjective.

I suppose if I had to explain it the reason is because her goal was to emotionally harm him in a way that seems quite wrong. Since parentage is also highly emotions to most men, it could be particularly harmful. Then again, if they scrimped and saved to buy a car, and in a pissy mood he came home to a smashed up car with a sledge hammer she's holding raging, "I smashed the car, you do you like that you asshole!?" also is immoral. Probably less because it less hurtful emotionally. Not illegal if she had a legal right to do as she pleased to the car or it marital community property.

If two people agree to have a child that is an agreement, then breaking it - in some situations - is wrong in an ethical or moral sense. People do all sorts of immoral and unethical things in relationship fueds and fights. Rarely are any illegal nor should be.

If your trying to prove it's immoral to me because it was "a child," didn't work. Yet in no manner is "having a child" not a very significant if not the most significant decision a couple can make.

Since women do have total control - like it or not - men should be extra nice to women they impregnant, particularly if the man wants to be father of the child. This also is reason why a man should give a great deal of thought to doing so in the first place and, if so, who that woman will be. Before having a child, both the woman and man should consider the essentially lifelong mine field they are walking into - and who they walk into it with.
 
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?

Unless the measure is being done because there is no chance of saving either of them without killing the child, the doctor is most likely going to work to save the child at 8 1/2 months, especially since the mother would not be able to consent to an abortion in a coma. Even if a pregnant woman that far along was dying and basically brain dead, but they thought they could save the child, doctors would most of the time try to save the baby.

I have no idea what you are talking about. If someone, anyone knows there's a living baby in there, then it is most definitely abortion. Not really very hard to figure out here.
 
Back
Top Bottom