• 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

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should a rape victim be able to take the morning after pill?
 
Oops, took me a bit writing the response on the other thread.

I personally feel Plan B is different than abortion since it denies conception in the first place and I'd have to go with it being fine. I'd be much fuzzier with them having an abortion.
 
Yes, though I don't think Plan B should be limited only to rape victims. Anyone should be able to take it with a prescription.
 
Yes, though I don't think Plan B should be limited only to rape victims. Anyone should be able to take it with a prescription.

I almost wouldn't even mind a pharmacist control here. But I feel we have too strict policies on drugs in general. I do not want to see it with condoms mostly because it has the chance of making someone very sick.
 
The morning after pill should be available to women for whatever reason. No one has a right to decide what a woman of legal age does with her own body.
 
Since the topic is specific to rape victims I'll keep my answer specific to that scenario. In a word: yes.

Further, I think for any rape victim that seeks medical attention following the rape the pill should be offered during the exam, along with whatever anti-biotics/anti-virals they offer to protect the victim from STDs.
 
Since the topic is specific to rape victims I'll keep my answer specific to that scenario. In a word: yes.

Further, I think for any rape victim that seeks medical attention following the rape the pill should be offered during the exam, along with whatever anti-biotics/anti-virals they offer to protect the victim from STDs.

I think plan b is offered some places where treatment is given. I wouldn't mind it being standard for that care. Rape is a horrible thing and treatment needs to be quick and as thorough as possible.

(I'm also trying to keep my answers specific)
 
Yes, this is a specific case where I think it should be made available. It should be standard procedure to offer the medication for someone who has been raped.
 
This will probably shock some people, but I would be in favor of allowing this particular use of Plan B.

HOWEVER.... It should only be allowed AFTER the woman has filed the proper police reports and been seen by a medical professional to collect whatever evidence is available. Additionally, getting the pill should be contingent on her agreement to testify in court against her attacker if/when he is caught.
 
This will probably shock some people, but I would be in favor of allowing this particular use of Plan B.

HOWEVER.... It should only be allowed AFTER the woman has filed the proper police reports and been seen by a medical professional to collect whatever evidence is available. Additionally, getting the pill should be contingent on her agreement to testify in court against her attacker if/when he is caught.

While is often seems your goal is to try to find something shocking to write, that isn't a shocking view from anyone who opposed abortions.

Don't you think hospitals should deny all medical treatments from all victims of any crime until after the person has filed police reports and agreed to testify?

A real plus of this is that the victim could die before this could be done, saving all the medical costs. A real plus of what you wrote from your anti-abortion perspective is that the window period for the morning after pill to work may pass before the woman is revived to consciousness, thus forcing the pregnancy as obviously you otherwise oppose abortions.
 
This will probably shock some people, but I would be in favor of allowing this particular use of Plan B.

HOWEVER.... It should only be allowed AFTER the woman has filed the proper police reports and been seen by a medical professional to collect whatever evidence is available. Additionally, getting the pill should be contingent on her agreement to testify in court against her attacker if/when he is caught.

No rape victim should be obligated to report the crime or to testify in order to receive the medical treatment she needs. I personally would like to see every single rapist caught and convicted, and I hope that rape victims cooperate to make that happen. However, we have no right to force them. Rape is the most humiliating crime that can be committed. Some women might prefer to not report it and to simply try to heal via counseling. That's her right.
 
While is often seems your goal is to try to find something shocking to write, that isn't a shocking view from anyone who opposed abortions.

My goal is not to shock anyone. It's simply to state my opinion as I see it.

Don't you think hospitals should deny all medical treatments from all victims of any crime until after the person has filed police reports and agreed to testify?

That would depend on the particular injury. If we're talking gunshot wounds and the like, where there is an immediate risk of death, then (so long as the individual has provided surity of payment) they should be treated for the potentially mortal wounds before being required to report the crime. A broken arm in a fight, they should be reporting the crime first.

A real plus of this is that the victim could die before this could be done, saving all the medical costs. A real plus of what you wrote from your anti-abortion perspective is that the window period for the morning after pill to work may pass before the woman is revived to consciousness, thus forcing the pregnancy as obviously you otherwise oppose abortions.

Rape is one of only two instances where I find the idea of abortion to be acceptable; so you're pretty much 100% wrong in your entire suggestion, joko. I would also be interested to know how many of these women are actually sustaining life-threatening injuries during their assaults. I would guess it's probably a fairly low percentage. As I stated above, save their lives but until they've filed the proper reports don't do anything more than that.
 
No rape victim should be obligated to report the crime or to testify in order to receive the medical treatment she needs. I personally would like to see every single rapist caught and convicted, and I hope that rape victims cooperate to make that happen. However, we have no right to force them. Rape is the most humiliating crime that can be committed. Some women might prefer to not report it and to simply try to heal via counseling. That's her right.

I understand the sentiment, Luna. I truly do. If this woman is going to claim that her impregnation was not consentual, then she needs to be willing to provide proof of that in my mind. Rape is one of only two circumstances where I believe the premature termination of a pregnancy is acceptable. However, I think that even YOU can see the potential slippery slope for "Damn, I got drunk and slept with that guy last night. I better go to CVS and claim I was raped so I can get the Plan B Pill just in case he got me pregnant." If it really was not consentual then she should be willing to report it. Otherwise, there's too much of a potential for error inmy mind.
 
Why on earth would you do that?

How about because some of us believe that consenting to sexual intercourse includes consent to potentially becoming a parent.
 
Rape is one of only two instances where I find the idea of abortion to be acceptable;

Pure nonsense.

If abortion is considered murder, it should be murder regardless of how the victim happened to be conceived. A child of rape innocent.

If abortion is not murder, it should be the woman's right, in all cases.

No squishy, politically-palatable middle ground possible.
 
How about because some of us believe that consenting to sexual intercourse includes consent to potentially becoming a parent.

You don't "consent" to be a parent. You decide. And that decision can come after sex too.
 
Oops, took me a bit writing the response on the other thread.

I personally feel Plan B is different than abortion since it denies conception in the first place and I'd have to go with it being fine. I'd be much fuzzier with them having an abortion.
You're defining "conception" differently than most people, then. The sperm has already fertilized the egg and has created a human embryo. Conception has already taken place. The morning after pill is considered an abortifacient for precisely this reason, it is aborting an already-begun pregnancy, an already-begun human life. Plan B acts to prevent the human embryo from moving down the fallopian tube and attaching itself to the uterine wall, where it is nourished and grows for the next nine months of gestation before it is ready to leave the womb. In other words, it is equivalent to preventing a newborn infant from attaching itself to its mother's breast to feed. The life already exists. The abortifacient does not prevent conception, it prevents the growth, nourishment and development of an already conceived human child. Preventing conception in the first place is quite a different thing. Plan B is a chemical abortion.

As for rape victims, while I cannot imagine how horrible a daily reminder of rape must be along with all the normal pain and inconvenience pregnancy brings, killing an innocent human life is not an acceptable way to alleviate suffering. Adoption is a humane alternative to an unwanted pregnancy, murder is not. A human life begins at conception and deserves the full protection of the law from that point on.
 
The morning after pill should be available to women for whatever reason. No one has a right to decide what a woman of legal age does with her own body.
She's not just doing it with her own body, she's doing it with someone else's body, no matter what stage of development that body is in. We have a duty to protect the rights of someone incapable of protecting their own in this country. I'm pretty sure a human being in the fetus stage of its life qualifies. As much as politicians and left wing groups rail for personal rights I love the way they forget the personal rights of a person that is legitimately a victim if someone chooses to abort them, children. I understand that a rape victim is traumatized by having to bare the child of someone they did not willingly have sex with. I'm not heartless and realize that it may be one of the toughest things a human being, of either sex, could do. However, the child does not know it was a product of a rape. There is a purpose for that child and it should be given the chance to fulfill it. A mother is perfectly able to give up that child for adoption and I'm sure no one would have anything negative to say about that.
As far as women who want to have an abortion out of convinience, you should have thought of that before you slept with a man that was not your husband. That's the whole purpose behind monogamy and marriage. If you wait until you're married and stay faithful to your husband, and he to you, this problem doesn't arise. I am not preaching, just stating facts for the masses.
 
You're defining "conception" differently than most people, then. The sperm has already fertilized the egg and has created a human embryo. Conception has already taken place. The morning after pill is considered an abortifacient for precisely this reason, it is aborting an already-begun pregnancy, an already-begun human life. Plan B acts to prevent the human embryo from moving down the fallopian tube and attaching itself to the uterine wall, where it is nourished and grows for the next nine months of gestation before it is ready to leave the womb. In other words, it is equivalent to preventing a newborn infant from attaching itself to its mother's breast to feed. The life already exists. The abortifacient does not prevent conception, it prevents the growth, nourishment and development of an already conceived human child. Preventing conception in the first place is quite a different thing. Plan B is a chemical abortion.

As for rape victims, while I cannot imagine how horrible a daily reminder of rape must be along with all the normal pain and inconvenience pregnancy brings, killing an innocent human life is not an acceptable way to alleviate suffering. Adoption is a humane alternative to an unwanted pregnancy, murder is not. A human life begins at conception and deserves the full protection of the law from that point on.

I guess this is why abortion is a fuzzy topic for me. It's so hard to draw reasonable lines.
 
I guess this is why abortion is a fuzzy topic for me. It's so hard to draw reasonable lines.
I understand what you mean, but I define "reasonable" as something less than ending a human life. I strongly suggest you read this article on the Morning After pill if you care about the value of human life and want to make reasonable distinctions.
 
Pure nonsense. If abortion is considered murder, it should be murder regardless of how the victim happened to be conceived. A child of rape innocent. If abortion is not murder, it should be the woman's right, in all cases. No squishy, politically-palatable middle ground possible.

I disagree 100%. It's not about Murder. I don't believe you've ever seen me use that word in any of my postings on the topic. It's about Personal Responsibility in my mind. One should not be held liable for acts which they did not consent to. One should most definitely be held liable for acts that they did consent to.


You don't "consent" to be a parent. You decide. And that decision can come after sex too.

Consent/decide.... kind of splitting hairs there aren't you? Ok fine.... When you engage in sexual intercourse you make a decision that you are willing to potentially be a parent. That's how I see it, and how I always will see it.
 
I understand what you mean, but I define "reasonable" as something less than ending a human life. I strongly suggest you read this article on the Morning After pill if you care about the value of human life and want to make reasonable distinctions.

I appreciate the link and had a quick read. For the moment, I'm still just gonna go with fuzzy. I also have concerns about the worst day of a woman's life lasting 9 months.
 
I disagree 100%. It's not about Murder. I don't believe you've ever seen me use that word in any of my postings on the topic. It's about Personal Responsibility in my mind. One should not be held liable for acts which they did not consent to. One should most definitely be held liable for acts that they did consent to.

So for you, it's simply about punishing women for having sex.

When you engage in sexual intercourse you make a decision that you are willing to potentially be a parent.

No you don't. Not if you have abortion or Plan B available to you. In other words, you're making a circular argument.
 
So for you, it's simply about punishing women for having sex.

For me it's about punishing BOTH parties involved for not thinking through their decision before making it. If one chooses to jump off a bridge without first checking to see what's underneath, should we really feel sorry for them when they break their spine on the rocks below?
 
Back
Top Bottom