• 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
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.
What does that fetus become though? Obviously, generally, fully developed human being. The zygote is no longer simply part of the mother, is its own being. It has in it all it takes to develop its final cause and nature. It is as much a human being as the mother, it is simply more potential than actual, but the they share an equal human nature and personhood. All you are saying is you get to decide when a human being has developed enough of their potential humanity to not be expendable. Why stop at just fetuses?
 
Keep in mind that fertilization (the union of female ovum, or egg, and male sperm) occurs in the fallopian tube and that fertilization marks the beginning of a new human life - and the beginning of the pregnancy. The newly created child then travels down the fallopian tube to the uterus (womb) where he or she implants. Implantation is necessary for the new child to receive nourishment from the mother and continue developing.
Wow, even these people agree that a newly fertilized egg is a child.
 
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.

I agree. That was the point I was making.
 
I agree. That was the point I was making.

And, just taking a morning after pill does not mean that someone is pregnant, so there is no way to know at all if the person "aborted" a fertilized egg or not.

In fact, a person isn't officially pregnant until the egg is implanted. Some may believe that the fertilized egg means pregnancy, but, atm, we have no way to detect when an egg within the womb is fertilized. Even when we know there are fertilized eggs in a woman's womb, she is still not treated as being pregnant until they implant and tests come back to say she is.
 
No, I believe they are equally important, as human beings. Do you believe a rape victim is more important than a child?

I believe the rape victim should have 100% control over her own body, and should be able to end the pregnancy at will. She has already lost control of her body because of the rape. Putting her through more is cruel.
 
I believe the rape victim should have 100% control over her own body, and should be able to end the pregnancy at will. She has already lost control of her body because of the rape. Putting her through more is cruel.

If it's murder, it's murder always. If it's not, it's not. Nothing else matters.
 
It's not murder for one thing. Secondly, there are very few things so black and white in life as you present here.

This is though. Rape is not an excuse for murder, if it's murder. If it's not murder, every woman, not just rape victims, should have the right to abort, etc.

This point is in support of the pro-choice position. Letting anti-abortionists get away with a politically expedient, yet blatantly hypocritical rape exception makes it easier for them to get their way. Don't let them.
 
So says the Taliban.

This is what those who say women who are raped will have their rapist's babies actually mean:

1. Just from Bosnia it is known that men will rape women, including on a vast scale, specifically as a punishment and that punishment is to make her pregnant with the rapist's child, with abortion outlawed in Bosnia. Among other results was high levels of suicide among those women. It is also well known otherwise men will force women to sex (rape) and to get her pregnant.

2. Those who want to outlaw a rape victim from abortion are knowingly creating incentives to rapes that otherwise would not occur. They want laws they know will cause an incentive to rape women and will cause women raped specifically to force her to have the rapist's children. This would include a new class of serial rapists raping as many girls as possible to have dozens or hundreds of children as the ultimate power trip and in a procreation compulsion. The radical pro-lifers are 100% absolutely on the side of serial rapists.

3. After the rape of a woman to make her pregnant as the goal, they are 100% on the rapist's side and 100% against the woman to the most extreme degree possible. In their god-knowledge proclamations, the absolute worst possible crime any person can commit is a woman who refuses to have rapists babies.
Joining forces over the rape they caused to happen in the first place, they now continues as the ally of the rapist declaring if the 15 year old doesn't comply with the rapist's demand to bear him a child(ren), she will be a murderer - for which by law now the punishment is life in prison or execution.

4. In this, to the radical "pro-lifers" (excluding women's right to life) the true criminals are NOT rapists at all, but rather the women who resist their bodies being used by rapists as the rapist's baby factory.

And why do such people WANT to create motive to rape women to make them pregnant and want to use to full force and power of government to directly join with the rapist to guarentee he gets his prodigy and full punishment against the woman - or as many women as possible in the case of a serial rapist. Pro-lifers want a serial rapist to be able to have dozens and dozens of children because...

...they are so morally superior due to insights from God or their own totally superior intellect, that as the voice of God himself he wants God's power of life and death himself. It is the ultimate form of evil and the most common source of evil acts across world history. To them, serial rapists forcing dozens of women to have their children is the will of God and/or natural law.

REALLY SICKO PEOPLE!

That is the "MORALS" of such radical "pro-lifers" - who really are just PRO-RAPISTS. In their sick, twisted minds to create incentives for violent men to rape woman individually and to rape as many women as possible to impregnant women - and then to use the government, cops, courts, prisons and executions to absolutely guarentee in advance they are 100% on the rapists' side is the right thing to do.

They are the Taliban. They are proactive hateful religious ego-maniac control freaks. They are the greatest danger a society faces. Never discount the suffering they would cause - foremost always targeting women and children - if allowed any power. Giving full incentives and total legal support to rapists isn't the only way the would harm women and children if allowed to.
 
Last edited:
So says the Taliban.

This is what those who say women who are raped will have their rapist's babies actually mean:

1. Just from Bosnia it is known that men will rape women, including on a vast scale, specifically as a punishment and that punishment is to make her pregnant with the rapist's child, with abortion outlawed in Bosnia. Among other results was high levels of suicide among those women. It is also well known otherwise men will force women to sex (rape) and to get her pregnant.

2. Those who want to outlaw a rape victim from abortion are knowingly creating incentives to rapes that otherwise would not occur. So those such as misterman want to cause an incentive to rape women.

3. After the rape of a woman to make her pregnant as the goal, misterman is 100% on the rapist's side and 100% against the woman. In his view, the absolute worst possible crime any person can commit is a woman who refuses to have a rapist's baby. Joining forces over the rape misterman caused to happen in the first place, he now continues as the ally of the rapist declaring if the 15 year old doesn't comply with the rapist's demand to bear him a child(ren), she will be a murderer - for which by law now the punishment is life in prison or execution.

4. In this, to the radical "pro-lifers" (excluding women's right to life) the true criminals are NOT rapists at all, but rather the women who resist their bodies being used by rapists as the rapist's baby factory.

And why dosuch people WANT to create motive to rape women to make them pregnant and want to use to full force and power of government to directly join with the rapist to guarentee he gets his prodigy and full punishment against the woman - or women in the case of a serial rapist. Pro-lifers want a serial rapist to be able to have dozens and dozens of children.

The rational is that they are so morally superior due to insights from God or their own totally superior intellect, that as the voice of God himself he wants God's power of life and death himself. It is the ultimate form of evil and the most common source of evil acts across world history.

That is the "MORALS" of such radical "pro-lifers" - who really are just PRO-RAPISTS. In their sick, twisted minds to create incentives for violent men to rape woman individually and to rape as many women as possible to impregnant women - and then to use the government, cops, courts, prisons and executions to absolutely guarentee in advance they are 100% on the rapists' side is the right thing to do.

They are the Taliban. They are proactive hateful religious ego-maniac control freaks. They are the greatest danger a society faces. Never discount the suffering they would cause - foremost always targeting women and children - if allowed any power. Giving full incentives and total legal support to rapists isn't the only way the would harm women and children if allowed to.

Give it a rest already.

Either abortion is murder - in which case, all of the above is a load of emotional crap you're using to justify murdering babies - or abortion is not murder, in which case women should be able to abort for any reason, from rape to simple convenience, and all of what you wrote is true, but a bit overblown.
 
joko104 said:
2. Those who want to outlaw a rape victim from abortion are knowingly creating incentives to rapes that otherwise would not occur. So those such as misterman want to cause an incentive to rape women.

How does it incentive rape?
 
(EDIT... misterman I understand your point of not letting them slip around with inclusions and exceptions, but I do not accept they can make the issue as simple as their slogan. I misread your message initially, so some below may be wrongly seemingly directed at you. No time left to fully rewrite...)

It is not the simplicity you declare at all. It is not different than to declare killing someone is "murder" or it is not.

In your logic, therefore there is no difference between a criminal who kills someone, a person who does so in self defense, or a soldier in war. Either killing someone is murder or it is not - no exception - so either ALL killings are illegal OR all killings are murder. By your reasoning, there should not even be discussion otherwise because it is fact that killing is "murder" - period.

Then having asserted that, you claim there is no discussion because murder is always wrong. So either we disband the military, police and all people - or not - as an absolute one way or the other.

NONSENSE!

THAT is your simplistic logic/ethics. You absolutely draw no distinction between "destroying," "killing" and "murder." All are "murder" to you. OR all are not. Few other people lack the ability to make the distinction between those "deaths" nor see them all as "murder.

Pro-lifers absolutely never want any reality outside their slogans and definitions to be considered - finding ways to declare reality irrelevant in face of their beliefs and idelogy.

It is religion, whether theocratic or not. The reasoning that if something is the will of God, or inherently moral or immoral just because it is - then any and all considerations of reality of the dictates and demands are therefore always irrelevant.

This leads to your argument of "if a person BELIEVES abortion is murder" - so then absolutely all rational discussion in terms of reality must stop. Rather,only whas is allowed is debating the abstractions of "belief" and doing so on slogans and terminology terms only - with reality strictly forbidden. To determine power over others based on "belief" and "faith."

The reason I so focus on reality - not just the "it's murder or not" debate - is because reality is the true enemy of religious and idelogical zealotry being imposed on others.

Reality is what can bring other people to their senses by pointing out this is what they REALLY want to do TO PEOPLE with their slogans and beliefs they want to forcibly impose on everyone.
 
Last edited:
Sorry misterman, the forum is loading SO slowly I ran out of time editting the above to take focus off you fully for my initial misreading.

My disagreement with you is that we should not allow this to be debated only on abstract religious or moral slogans and platitudes. Rather, UNLESS just a religious discussion to no implimentation ends - it must be discussed primarily in terms of REALITY and REAL EFFECT, not beliefs, prejudices and personal divine insights.
I guess that's my point and why I keep pointing out real effects of their ideology/religion they want to use the government to force upon everyone - or rather upon every girl and woman.

Their belief that leads them to declare 40+ million American women are "murderers" of their own children and the other realities can not irrelevancies at all.
 
Give it a rest already.

Either abortion is murder - in which case, all of the above is a load of emotional crap you're using to justify murdering babies - or abortion is not murder, in which case women should be able to abort for any reason, from rape to simple convenience, and all of what you wrote is true, but a bit overblown.

What about the Commandment: "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? It does not distinguish at what point thou shalt not kill, don't swipe a bug away, don't step on a roach, don't kill animals for food, don't kill in defense of your person, family or country, don't execute (kill) criminals, don't keep a terminal patient existing in agony with technology? Where do you draw the line at murder and killing? The question isn't "does life begin at conception" rather who determines what's right for the individual and society as a whole.
 
Not so much 'who', but rather 'what'.
The reason I note ‘what’ is that as our knowledge generally increases a previous decision on what reality is may have to change.
 
Last edited:
immoral [ɪˈmɒrəl]
adj
1. transgressing accepted moral rules; corrupt
2. sexually dissolute; profligate or promiscuous
3. unscrupulous or unethical immoral trading
4. tending to corrupt or resulting from corruption an immoral film immoral earnings
immorally adv


immoral - definition of immoral by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Isn't saying that "I killed your son" transgressing accepted moral rules?

Candidly, generally I use "unethical" rather than "immoral," but in discussion with religious people I use "moral/immoral" because they tend not to understand what I mean by "unethical." Or I just use "right" and "wrong."

Saying - for hurtful reason - "I killed your son" is wrong because of the motive in doing so. But it is circumstantial too.

If a man raped a girl or woman (including if his wife) declaring he was going to make her pregnant and force her to be pregnant and have a child for him, it may be justified if the woman aborted and then told him "I killed your son!", whether she saw the aborted fetus as a child or not.

Or it could be said lamentingly, in the sense a woman did something careless causing a miscarriage, so stated in a lamenting and remorseful way accepting guilt to the consentual bio-father.

Its not the words that are moral or ethical compass for that statement. It is the circumstances and intention that is.
 
Is killing a rapist in the act of rape murder or self-defense?

Self defense.

This is though. Rape is not an excuse for murder, if it's murder. If it's not murder, every woman, not just rape victims, should have the right to abort, etc.

This point is in support of the pro-choice position. Letting anti-abortionists get away with a politically expedient, yet blatantly hypocritical rape exception makes it easier for them to get their way. Don't let them.

I do not consider abortion to be murder.
 
LMAO

are there actually 7 people that answered no, the pill is unethical? are they around, can I talk to them please Id like to here why?
 
I'm not sure what I think on this. If the zygote is indeed a developing human life, which it is, then, through my personal beliefs, I am not for the pill being used. However, since we are not a theocracy, I won't stop people from using the pill. Though, according to my personal beliefs, I definitely view abortion as murder and will vote against abortion unless it puts the mother's life in danger. Guess I put more importance on a developing baby than a developing zygote.
 
The relevant aspect of that question is whether preventing a rapist from succeeding in his goal of violently forcing a woman to carry and give birth to his children - that a continuation of his assault against her - is "murder" or "self-defense?" A forced pregnancy and labor is an ongoing physical assault by the rapist. By rights and law, any person can use force including deadly force to stop a physical assault from continuing. This would include against anyone assisting the rapist in doing so.

IF the "fetus" is a "person," then it is a person acting with the rapist to physically assault that woman continuously and increasingly for month after month - or at least that's what such pro-lifers want to happen. The rapist injected himself physically into the woman planting a physical part of him in her as a foreign organism (his sperm), which then that element of the rapist's body will increasingly continue the physical assault against woman every second for 9 months as an ongoing assault - including with permanent injury or death of the woman potentials - by the rapist's physical self, ie his growing sperm.

That woman certainly can destroy that physical-element of the rapist assaulting her body if she wants to. A person kill an assailant if that is the only way to end the assault. The growing rapist's sperm is an ongoing rape-assault by the rapist and if the fetus a "person" then that person is a physical assailant against her - an assault she can forcibly stop including with deadly force.

Killing an assailant necessary to stop the physical assault is not murder.
 
Last edited:
The relevant aspect of that question is whether preventing a rapist from succeeding in his goal of violently forcing a woman to carry and give birth to his children "murder" or "self-defense?" A forced pregnancy and labor is an ongoing physical assault by the rapist. By rights and law, any person can use force including deadly force to stop a physical assault from continuing. This would include against anyone assisting the rapist in doing so. IF the "fetus" is a "person," then it is a person acting with the rapist to physically assault that woman continuously and increasingly for month after month - or at least that's what such pro-lifers want to happen. The rapist injected himself physically into the woman planting a part of him in her as a foreign organism (his sperm), which then will increasingly physically assault the woman every second for 9 months as an ongoing assault by the rapist's physical self. That woman certainly can destroy that assaulting foreign attacker if she wants to.
I see it differently, and I'll explain why. What we know is that the rapist was wrong for his actions. However, your premise is that the zygote was complicit in the rape, and willfully partook in the attack. I view the zygote as a developing human. The developing life, by all rights, is innocent. It is its own life; not the rapist's. The developing life is not a continuation of the rapist's physical assault. I feel you're dehumanizing the innocent life by deeming the as just the rapist's "evil appendage." The innocent life is innocent. Thus, you cannot call it an "assaulting foreign attacker."
 
Back
Top Bottom