• 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
Bodhisattva said:
Well, the first can be discussed within the parameters of the law as it pertains to a person. You can't murder a flew or a corpse.
Click to expand...

And, as always, it turns on when a person becomes a person...

The second, as far as I can tell, is NOT the usual view of pro-lifers... just the more extreme ones.
Click to expand...

Really? How do you get that? If most pro-lifers don't think abortion is murder, what do they base their opposition to abortion on, in your view?
 
misterman said:
]And, as always, it turns on when a person becomes a person...
Click to expand...

Once the term is defined then, I guess.

Really? How do you get that? If most pro-lifers don't think abortion is murder, what do they base their opposition to abortion on, in your view?
Click to expand...

In my view... that it is killing a developing human that has significant value... but is not murder due to development levels.
 
Bodhisattva said:
In my view... that it is killing a developing human that has significant value... but is not murder due to development levels.
Click to expand...

You got some evidence for that?
 
As a pro-lifer in terms of abortion, it's murder UNLESS it is either the life of the woman or the life of the unborn in the balance. I will remain consistent on this.
 
Wake said:
As a pro-lifer in terms of abortion, it's murder UNLESS it is either the life of the woman or the life of the unborn in the balance. I will remain consistent on this.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but aborting a 3-day old zygote is NOT murder.

such a view is totally irrational.
 
misterman said:
The first isn't a matter of proof. It involves value judgments.

The second is pretty obviously true and shouldn't require proof.
Click to expand...

1.) only if you want to ignore reality and the meaning of words
2.) actually its pretty obviously NOT true in my OPINION and does require proof. Id say 40% or the people I know are pro-life and NONE of them hold the false belief that its murder :shrug: In fact Ive never encountered anybody in person that falsely thinks its murder. So it most definitely requires proof. :)
 
Objective-J said:
1.) only if you want to ignore reality and the meaning of words
Click to expand...

Huh?

2.) actually its pretty obviously NOT true in my OPINION and does require proof. Id say 40% or the people I know are pro-life and NONE of them hold the false belief that its murder :shrug: In fact Ive never encountered anybody in person that falsely thinks its murder. So it most definitely requires proof. :)
Click to expand...

You're welcome to require proof. I posted some poll results earlier.
 
misterman said:
Huh?



You're welcome to require proof. I posted some poll results earlier.
Click to expand...

1.) murder is a defined word, you dont get to make up the definition
2.) ill have to look at your poll, either way ive never met anybody that shares this false opinion in person and probably around 40% of my friends are pro-life. They just have enough common sense to understand that its not murder unless they choose to make up a false definition of that word :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
1.) murder is a defined word, you dont get to make up the definition
Click to expand...

But we can change it. It's a legal definition. We write the laws.

2.) ill have to look at your poll, either way ive never met anybody that shares this false opinion in person and probably around 40% of my friends are pro-life. They just have enough common sense to understand that its not murder unless they choose to make up a false definition of that word :shrug:
Click to expand...

Your friends =/= randomly-selected, adequately-sized sample. (My poll does).
 
Wessexman said:
Well some might not understand that there is a real dispute over whether it causes abortion. But, unless they have an unusual pro-life philosophy, they are being inconsistent or lacking moral courage if they aren't against it. If the dispute is cleared up and it can be shown not to cause abortion then not all pro-lifers should be against it, but right now they should be, unless they have an unusual pro-life position.
Click to expand...

Well, my whole family and my husband's whole family are pro-life, and none of them have any issues with the morning after pill (not the immediate family anyway). The only ones who might would be my great-aunts who are Catholic and consider contraceptives and sex-without-the-intent-of-getting-pregnant wrong. To the rest of the family, MAPs are basically just "oops" contraceptives, not abortion pills.
 
misterman said:
But we can change it. It's a legal definition. We write the laws.



Your friends =/= randomly-selected, adequately-sized sample. (My poll does).
Click to expand...

1.) yes you could TRY but currently it is not so the fact remains it is NOT murder :shrug: LOL and its just a guess but Im gonna guess it never will be either thankfully
2.) uhm seems kinda sketchy to me, I googled some other polls and it seems typically 33-60% or pro-lifers think its murder so id say its inconclusive and you can NOT say thats the usual stance.

Id also say that since ive never seen anybody say something so dumb in person, people fully acknowledge that fact that it is not murder so that cant manage to say something so stupid in person, they only use this tactic on line or on a poll and know they would immediately be laughed at by logical people that deal with facts. BUT I admit thats just a guess.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) yes you could TRY but currently it is not so the fact remains it is NOT murder :shrug: LOL and its just a guess but Im gonna guess it never will be either thankfully
Click to expand...

The discussion is about whether it ought to be. The law can change.

2.) uhm seems kinda sketchy to me, I googled some other polls and it seems typically 33-60% or pro-lifers think its murder so id say its inconclusive and you can NOT say thats the usual stance.
Click to expand...

Please post your polls.

Id also say that since ive never seen anybody say something so dumb in person, people fully acknowledge that fact that it is not murder so that cant manage to say something so stupid in person, they only use this tactic on line or on a poll and know they would immediately be laughed at by logical people that deal with facts. BUT I admit thats just a guess.
Click to expand...

Saying other people are wrong because they are stupid or dumb is a really lame argument that doesn't make you get taken seriously.
 
Wake said:
As a pro-lifer in terms of abortion, it's murder UNLESS it is either the life of the woman or the life of the unborn in the balance. I will remain consistent on this.
Click to expand...

So let's explore what you BELIEVE in YOUR definitions.

You BELIEVE a mother may "MURDER" (your word) her own child to save her own life. So if facing starvation a mother could murder her own child to eat her child to save her life, to kill a child if the mother needs a teenage child's heart for a transplant and for a mother to use her own child as a human shield against bullets also to try to save her own life.

Your "morals" and "belief" as a pro-lifer is that abortion is "MURDER" same as murdering a born child - but that a mother may "murder" her child to save her own life - thus whether a 1 day old zygote or 17 year old daughter as you equate them as IDENTICAL. HOW DISGUSTING THAT YOU THINK A MOTHER COULD MURDER HER TEENAGE CHILD FOR SELF PRESERVATION!!!

Nearly all other people believe that a parent should give up his/her life to save his/her children. I do. So We are FAR more PRO-CHILD than you are BY YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
The discussion is about whether it ought to be. The law can change.



Please post your polls.



Saying other people are wrong because they are stupid or dumb is a really lame argument that doesn't make you get taken seriously.
Click to expand...

1.) NO that was not the discussion, the discussion that YOU quoted my post on was about the FACT that abortion is not murder, nice try :shrug:
2.) when I get home maybe I will, until then feel free to google "poll: is abortion murder" and look at the results lol
3.) I am in now way calling them stupid or dumb because i disagree or they are simply wrong LOL nice appeal to emotion but you are being dishonest, they would be stupid or dumb IF they ignore the FACTS and the fact is abortion is not murder.
 
joko104 said:
So let's explore what you BELIEVE in YOUR definitions.

You BELIEVE a mother may "MURDER" (your word) her own child to save her own life. So if facing starvation a mother could murder her own child to eat her child to save her life, to kill a child if the mother needs a teenage child's heart for a transplant and for a mother to use her own child as a human shield against bullets also to try to save her own life.

Your "morals" and "belief" as a pro-lifer is that abortion is "MURDER" same as murdering a born child - but that a mother may "murder" her child to save her own life - thus whether a 1 day old zygote or 17 year old daughter as you equate them as IDENTICAL. HOW DISGUSTING THAT YOU THINK A MOTHER COULD MURDER HER TEENAGE CHILD FOR SELF PRESERVATION!!!
Nearly all other people believe that a parent should give up his/her life to save his/her children. I do. So We are FAR more PRO-CHILD than you are BY YOUR OWN DEFINITIONS.
Click to expand...

Your post is ludicrous, hyperbolic, and ridiculous.

Congrats. You win.
 
roguenuke said:
Well, my whole family and my husband's whole family are pro-life, and none of them have any issues with the morning after pill (not the immediate family anyway). The only ones who might would be my great-aunts who are Catholic and consider contraceptives and sex-without-the-intent-of-getting-pregnant wrong. To the rest of the family, MAPs are basically just "oops" contraceptives, not abortion pills.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is because your family is misunderstanding them. Do they no there is at least equal academic opinion and evidence they can cause abortion?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I agree that there is that position at it's core... I just don't understand why. But just like being a Republican or Democrat not all the core values are accepted or adhered to by all or even most people within that party. I have read that 20-25% of the people think that life begins at conception but also that 55-60% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Why would people take a religious stance that life begins at conception (personhood, personality or consciousness) from a I assume god when the same god turns around and essentially sets up a system that will kill half of all humans ever concieved within a few months?
Click to expand...
No offense Bodhi but you are trying to critique the position itself, which is different from whether it should imply all abortion is murder, logically. One reason they'd take such a stance is that the fetus is a new human being, this is the time when a new being is formed, no other time between conception and death is when a new being, as opposed to new trait like consciousness, can be seen to be formed. Now from the pro-life perspective consciousness is just that a trait, but the being is one united individual human nature and person of which consciousness is just a property that develops, albeit an important one. Therefore it makes perfect sense to consider full humanity to begin at conception. Otherwise you end up with dualistic understandings where the body and soul or consciousness are less one being in our corporeal level of existence, than the body a place which the soul enters as an after thought.
 
Objective-J said:
1.) NO that was not the discussion, the discussion that YOU quoted my post on was about the FACT that abortion is not murder, nice try :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's not legally murder, but it might be in the moral sense, i.e. should be made murder legally. Stop confusing the two senses of the word.

2.) when I get home maybe I will
Click to expand...

Either do it, or withdraw your comment.

3.) I am in now way calling them stupid or dumb because i disagree or they are simply wrong LOL nice appeal to emotion but you are being dishonest, they would be stupid or dumb IF they ignore the FACTS and the fact is abortion is not murder.
Click to expand...

You act and talk like a child. Never mind, I'm not interested.
 
misterman said:
It's not legally murder, but it might be in the moral sense, i.e. should be made murder legally. Stop confusing the two senses of the word.



Either do it, or withdraw your comment.



You act and talk like a child. Never mind, I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

1.) there is only one sense of the word its DEFINITION lol anything else is simply MADE UP
fact: abortion is not MURDER

2.) ill get to it because I already have MY answer, I ask the question remember lol

3.) nope not at all, you just tried to twist my words around and failed. Now you are deflecting in attempt to save face, no problem by me, fact remains abortion is not murder.
 
I refuse to read 490+ posts...

Yes.



I dislike the abortion issue because I agree with/see the point in arguments on both sides, in some cases arguments which are directly opposed to each other. Which leaves me torn, to say the least…:?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom