PaleRider, I'm still wondering what your stance is on OCs.

I asked what OC's are and you never answered. So many initials are floating around today that simply naming a thing by initials is no certainty that the person you are speaking to knows what you are talking about.

I suppose you are speaking of over the counter birth control medications, but since I rarely assume anything, I would rather not answer until I know for sure what you are referring to.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Oral Contreceptives, yes. Sorry about not being clear.

No sweat. Personally, I would ban any contraceptive that has abortifacient effects. That is, methods whose primary mode of operation is to prevent fertilization, but have secondary effects that cause the death of an embryo if they fail in their primary mode.

Contraception prevents fertilization. After fertilization happens, it is abortion.

It is possible to make a pill that simply prevents a woman from ovulating but doesn't have abortifacient properties.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

What do you think about rape victims taking the "morning after pill"?

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

He's already answered that, PaleRider has remained logically consistent, and contends that as far as the state and society should be concerned, an individual human life begins at conception, period.

That in itself isn't the problem; the problem lies in his ridiculous pretension that this is somehow a scientific position, and in his use of fallacious arguments from definition. Also in his rudeness and insistence on insulting everyone who disagrees with him.

But the new question Mrs. M. asked is a specific application of a contraceptive method with abortifacient properties. Essentially what she's asking is, I think, not whether a morning-after pill is OK, but whether abortion in the case of a rape victim is OK (including by using a morning-after pill).

I agree with you that his answer is probably predictable, though.

We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot and I apologize for riding you so hard. I am interested in what you have to say.

I will answer your question about rape victims after you have presented a rational argument in defense of killing a child for the crime(s) of her father.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Very good!

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Maybe you would like to offer up a rational argument in defense of killing a child for the crime of her father.

By the way, perhaps you should review your own entry into the conversation before you start crying about being insulted. You entered a conversation and tried your damnedest to literally, and unilatarally redefine what is a human being. You went so far as to suggest that in conversation the term human being means something other than a member of species homo sapiens sapiens even though the common dictionary (as opposed to a scientific dictionary) states explicitly that you are wrong.

For example, The Oxford English defines human being as " a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens".

Further, I never said that this is a scientific argument as science doesn't make law. Science only provides information. I have said, however, that any argument that assumes that unborns are not living human beings is invalid as it constitutes a logical fallacy. That being, it begs the question and simply assumes that unborns are not living human beings. If you can prove your assumption to be true, then feel free to proceed with your line of thought. If you can't, then what is the point in continuing an argument that has already been proven flawed?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

This one is easy to answer. Like you, I believe that life begins at conception but I always look at all sides of the equation.
In the case of rape resulting in pregnancy, there are two victims, the mother and the unborn child. I've already stated that the mother's health is always the first priority with the child being second. Forcing a rape victim to carry the baby of a violent man, a baby that she didn't ask for nor was able to prevent (unless of course, you believe that all females should be on the pill "just in case") could be detrimental to her mental and/or physical health. There's a lot of factors involved here. First, rape is hard enough without being reminded of it daily for nine months if the woman gets pregnant. Second, if the rapist had an STD, this could force the woman to have a C-Section. If the victim is a young teen, even more problems could occur physically and psychologically. If she's in school, there's time she'll miss, there's the explanations to all of her friends and the rumors she'll have to deal with.
So, while the baby is definitely an innocent, so is the victim and I'd much rather that she was able to take a pill right after she's raped than to risk her physical and mental health. Again, this is the known v. the unknown and I'm all for saving the known if a choice must be made.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

You build your case on a lot of "if's". If the woman's life or long term health is in danger she has as much right to terminate a preganancy as she would have had to kill the rapist. If her life or long term health is not in danger, your argument doesn't present a rational justification for killing a child for the crimes of her father.

With regard to the child reminding the woman of the rape or rapist, name some other situation in which we are allowed to kill another individual who simply reminds us of a terrible or traumatic event in our lives?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Yes, I'm going on "if's" because I'd rather not wait until a woman is six months pregnant with her rapist's child and half-crazy or has an STD which won't show up right away. Rape victims need the option from the start and that's what the "morning after" pill gives them. To deny them that option is cruel punishment after they've been violated both physically and mentally. But for the record, thankfully, only around 5% of all reported rapes result in pregnancy.

No, we can't go around killing individual's who remind of a terrible or traumatic event. However, if aborting a baby immediately after the rape takes place means that the woman won't have to suffer a pregnancy on top of coming to terms with being raped in the first place, then again, they should have that option.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

[quote=Mrs. M;1300361]Yes, I'm going on "if's" because I'd rather not wait until a woman is six months pregnant with her rapist's child and half-crazy or has an STD which won't show up right away. Rape victims need the option from the start and that's what the "morning after" pill gives them. To deny them that option is cruel punishment after they've been violated both physically and mentally. But for the record, thankfully, only around 5% of all reported rapes result in pregnancy.

If she has an STD, she is going to have it whether she kills the child or not.

And still I ask, what rational reason do you give for killing a child for the crime of her father?

So should we be able to go about killing anyone who reminds us of traumatic events in our lives, or just the most defenseless who bring up bad memories? My bet is that you reserve this fate for only the most defenseless.

Face it, you are a staunch pro choicer. You make no arguments for killing unborns that you can apply to any post natal. The only difference between you and someone like TSGracchus is that your position is repugnant to you to the point that you attempt to deny it.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

[quote=PaleRider;1301499]Having an STD could necessitate a C-section which will leave her with a permanent abdominal scar and the surgery is without the possibility of complications.

If you can't understand the reasons I've given, then there is no use in me repeating them.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"