Replies

Moreover, it is an often DEADLY to the rape victim treatment

First, that is inconsequential from a moral standpoint. Because that would imply that if the treatment were to get better it would chance the morality of using it.

But I'm a little confused... I'm not talking RU-486 or something of that nature. I'm talking about the pills that just contain progestogen. These are available over the counter in many countries, and I've rarely heard of people dropping dead from them. Maybe! I don't know.

I don't like the idea of people taking them as a contraceptive for when they forgot to take the pill, or were too lazy to use a contraceptive, or just decided to have sex with a random individual on a whim. All of that is just sick.

But you are clearly stating that a rape victim should be forced to take the pregnancy to term. That is pretty harsh. Maybe I'm wrong here, but since this is before the embryo bonds to the uterine wall, I wouldn't think the women is yet experiencing any great physical changes? I would think it would be relatively safe, and I wouldn't fault a rape victim in the least for taking this pill. You would really call her a murderer?

But this is my whole point! Why focus on technicalities such as this when there is a bigger issue at hand. I will not agree with you on this point, but other than 72 hours after a rape, I'm as pro-life (per your terms) as you can get.

If the "morning after pill" ought to be legal, then all abortion ought to be. Murder is murder.

It almost sounds like you are basically telling me: "I don't need you as an ally, because you are compromised." Well, I'll bear in mind that my hands are as stained with blood of the innocents as the average abortion doctor; but in the mean time lets focus on the task at hand and work on abortions that take place in clinics post 72 hours. (I'm used to being accused of having innocent blood on my hands by the way; I, at times, work in a weapons lab ;-) )

-paridel