• 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
Denial of sexism is a form of sexism.

What's that supposed to mean?

Don't be sexist.

Besides, truly pro-choice men are going to tend to agree with me, because it's not gonna bruise their egos to do so.

What about true Scotsmen?

I am not here to defend my ego, I am here to oppose sexism. You don't get a pass on that.
 
It's like if Godwin's Law and creationism got together and had a retarded incest baby.

Wow, really starting to get inappropriate, especially in a thread about reproduction. (And I'm pro-choice too).
 
Last edited:
1) To say that my taxpayer dollars don't fund elective abortions because (with sarcastic tone) "The gov't says it won't happen" or "people at Planned Parenthood say it won't" is so naive it isn't even funny.

Incredibly lame response. You just deny it. Great.

So what do you want? It's already illegal. Do you want it to be double-secret illegal?
 
Oh really? Then tell me, if abortion becomes illegal, how are they gonna enforce against all the back-alley abortions? Police staffs are already overworked as is.
Through the law. I'm not sure how you are answering my point. If abortion is considered murder then it is obviously quite different to who one sleeps with in private or even marries. So talk about conservative big gov't is obviously misplaced.
 
Last edited:
Incredibly lame response. You just deny it. Great.

So what do you want? It's already illegal. Do you want it to be double-secret illegal?
Nope, I want the Federal gov't to stop funding the murder of babies. Simple enough for you?
 
Nope, I want the Federal gov't to stop funding the murder of babies. Simple enough for you?

So what you're saying is you want the government to make it ilegal to use federal funds for abortion? Is that it? Because I want to be clear on this. Maybe Congress could call that, say, the "Hyde amendment" in honor of former congressman Henry Hyde. You think he'd like that?
 
So what you're saying is you want the government to make it ilegal to use federal funds for abortion? Is that it? Because I want to be clear on this. Maybe Congress could call that, say, the "Hyde amendment" in honor of former congressman Henry Hyde. You think he'd like that?
OH MY GOSH!!! Do you read? I said, I do not want Federal funds paying FOR ANY ABORTION, NO MATTER THE CAUSE!!!! . The current version of the Hyde Amendment allows abortion for rape, incest, or health of the mother. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
 
I'm seriously not posting in this thread anymore merely for your presence in it. Wow.
 
I don't get it. Why shouldn't a rape victim be allowed to take a pill to end something growing in her that was FORCEFULLY implanted????
 
I don't get it. Why shouldn't a rape victim be allowed to take a pill to end something growing in her that was FORCEFULLY implanted????

Because women who are raped deserve it, don't you know?

Abortion wasn't "murder" until women started to have control over their own bodies, and men lost that control. The patriarchy doesn't like women who don't know their place. Our civilization has made major progress in moving beyond that mentality, but the groups who still support it will use any tactic to stretch it out, which includes inventing a new murder clause around abortion to completely bypass the women's rights issue. Some pro-lifers know that this is exactly what it's about, while others are naive and think they are fighting a just cause.

What I wish the pro-life would address - instead of the repetitious and substanceless personhood argument - is that if abortion becomes murder, then a pregnant woman loses a significant number of her rights. Her body comes under the purview of the State. How do they plan to violate, among other things, the 1st and 4th Amendments of the Constitution, along with freedom of movement, in enforcing pregnancies? As of right now, it is - legally speaking - none of the government's business whether or not you are pregnant at all.

You could be in your home for your entire pregnancy and no one would have to know. The State only concerns itself once the baby is born, because then it has legal protections. If a fetus has the right to life and pesonhood, then that means the government necessarily must become a lot more involved in a woman's pregnancy, and thus her bodily concerns. That will never happen - too many people would fight it.

Because of this, even if abortion is made illegal there will be no way for the government to track pregnancies that doesn't violate the Constitution; and therefore, abortion, like pregnancy, still remains a de facto private matter, as it is now due to Roe v Wade. The only important distinction is safe access to abortion, and punishment for getting one. No life is saved, and in many instances where abortion is illegal, women will actually die.

This is why the religious right (the main proponents of pro-life) will not get what they want. The majority is already against them, and so is the Constitution. They argue for life but they don't realize that criminalizing abortion does not save life, it just creates punishment. It punishes women, specifically, which is the whole point. Women got their civil rights, now they should pay for them too, right?
 
I wuv you Temporal.
 
I remember back in the 90s reading some anti-abortion literature that said a woman should bear the child of her rapist. One of their arguments was that a woman could still stop the pregnancy if she went to the ER and got a pill that would still prevent the pregnancy. It seems now they're even against that pill that will prevent her from having to get an abortion later on.

I think it's ridiculous to regard a zygote as a human child. It has no heart beat, no brain waves, no ability to feel or think. It has human DNA, but so do sperm cells and egg cells. The difference is religious superstition. The right-wing fanatics believe that God has implanted this magic thing called a "soul" into the zygote, which they cannot prove exists and is supposedly the essence of the person. That's rubbish.

Terminating a zygote is no more murder than killing an ovum or a sperm cell. A rape victim should be able to take that plan b pill to terminate the zygote that was forced upon her. To deny her that right because an imaginary playmate named God put a magic thing called a soul into a zygote is just absurd.
 
I don't get it. Why shouldn't a rape victim be allowed to take a pill to end something growing in her that was FORCEFULLY implanted????

Is the woman justified in killing the baby once the baby is born? If you can't justify it outside of the womb, then you can't justify it inside of the womb.
 
Is the woman justified in killing the baby once the baby is born? If you can't justify it outside of the womb, then you can't justify it inside of the womb.

There is quite a lot of difference between a born baby and a so-called "unborn baby", especially at the embryo stage when most abortions are done.
 
Is the woman justified in killing the baby once the baby is born? If you can't justify it outside of the womb, then you can't justify it inside of the womb.
If a woman has an egg available and she doesn’t get a sperm for it she has killed her baby, his too. It is not hard to understand this. You are making a mistake when you arbitrarily define when a baby is created. Where do those like you get that so obviously incorrect perception? Note that even some religions have decided this since coupling with birth control is forbidden.
 
It's simply pathetic that as we approach the year 2012, this is even an issue.
 
I don't get it. Why shouldn't a rape victim be allowed to take a pill to end something growing in her that was FORCEFULLY implanted????
Because that pill can sometimes cause abortions. One could reverse your simplistic statement and put it from a pro-life position;

Why should a child be punished, indeed killed, because its father was a rapist?

This would obviously not convince the pro-abortion side, but it is the same sort of simplistic, rhetorical device you just tried.
 
You are making a mistake when you arbitrarily define when a baby is created.
How do you propose defining it? If you do it scientifically, a zygote is an organism.
 
Last edited:
A couple of things:

Thing one: The morning after pill is a contraception. IF all things are favorable for conception it, the morning after pill prevents conception. Further, it isn't easy to conceive. No matter, the morning after pill is a contraceptive option not an abortive one.

Thing two: My religion, and I suppose there are others, does not take an inflexible position on abortion. We probably don't all totally agree on when of if, but we do not condemn people for making the decision to have an abortion or not to have an abortion.

I fully understand that some religions may disagree. Some people and some faiths take a very rigid stand on contraception and abortion. I have no problem with that. I suggest that everyone live by their particular beliefs regarding contraception and abortion. I have done that and I will continue to.
 
A couple of things:

Thing one: The morning after pill is a contraception. IF all things are favorable for conception it, the morning after pill prevents conception. Further, it isn't easy to conceive. No matter, the morning after pill is a contraceptive option not an abortive one.

Thing two: My religion, and I suppose there are others, does not take an inflexible position on abortion. We probably don't all totally agree on when of if, but we do not condemn people for making the decision to have an abortion or not to have an abortion.

I fully understand that some religions may disagree. Some people and some faiths take a very rigid stand on contraception and abortion. I have no problem with that. I suggest that everyone live by their particular beliefs regarding contraception and abortion. I have done that and I will continue to.
It will only matter from a pro-life perspective, but there is genuine conflicting academic opinion and evidence on whether the 'Morning After Pill' can act as an abortifacient in some cases and this seems enough to make it illegitimate to pro-life folks.
 
OH MY GOSH!!! Do you read? I said, I do not want Federal funds paying FOR ANY ABORTION, NO MATTER THE CAUSE!!!! . The current version of the Hyde Amendment allows abortion for rape, incest, or health of the mother. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

Holy crap. So it's okay that women who are raped or the victim of incest, or to whom pregnancy would cause irreparable harm, even death, to go ahead and die instead of having an abortion? Even reading that post makes my skin crawl.
 
For those who oppose the plan B pill, what if the rape victim is an 11 year old girl, perhaps a girl so small that pregnancy would be dangerous to her?

No-one should have the legal right to tell a woman what she can do with her own body, as it is not their body to decide.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom