Does the morning-after-pill count as abortion?

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
Wrong. There are prudes
Sir, the definition of "prude" is "A person who is easily shocked or claims to be easily shocked by things relating to sex and nudity."

I do not care who choses to have sex with who. I do not care what one or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes and bedrooms.

What I care about is abortion. When one chooses to have sex---and one does so with out considering the possible consequences, it is that IRRESPONSIBLE sex I have a problem with, not sex itself.

If someone wants to have sex all the time but does not want to get pregnant, the responsible thing to do is take steps to ensure a pregnancy will not result. An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure for abortion.
who think that sex is a problem, but generally speaking, if all parties are willing and of age, there's no such thing as immoral sex.
I disagree, but when it comes to consenting adults-----I get that not everyone believes as I do----and are free to choose for themselves. In other words---I care for my own behaviors what constitutes a moral use of my sexuality, but not for others.
In my opinion. The problem can be pregnancy, and it is fixable via abortion. I would rather be problem pregnancy was terminated than the alternative, which risks blighting at least two lifetimes. I genuinely don't consider the non-viable foetus as having any importance whatsoever, unless the mother herself chooses to give it.
Even if we agree that pregnancy is a "problem" why is abortion the only solution? Why not adoption?
Nothing. Except that it does highlight the moral dilemma of the pro-life brigade. They are often willing to compromise in the cases of rape or dire danger to the woman's health, because it is so obvious that they would be wrong to forbid abortion in these cases.
Actually--I am not willing to compromise in those cases. It is just that I am practical. I understand that if I expect any laws against abortion to have any chance of succeeding in this country, we have to tolerate abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother.

There is no time when a direct abortion is morally justifiable.

The only reason I asked you about that---was only becasue abortion supporters always use those extreme cases--rape, incest, life of the mother as an excuse for supporting abortion on demand--as if they are equivalent.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
And I think abortions are regrettable. I wish none had to take place... but, IMO, they do.
All you prove here is that we need exceptions for life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.

In all the examples you gave--it involves taking a human life becasue that human life is an aggressor seeking to harm other people. You are talking that life because that life is a direct threat to others.

Outside cases of where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, the child is not an aggressor attacking his or her mother.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
All you prove here is that we need exceptions for life of the mother, rape, incest, etc.
No.

I think the mother's right not to be pregnant should trump the life of the unborn in all cases where the unborn cannot be delivered at the time the decision is made.
In all the examples you gave--it involves taking a human life becasue that human life is an aggressor seeking to harm other people.
A woman is harmed by an unwanted pregnancy.
Outside cases of where the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, the child is not an aggressor attacking his or her mother.
Agreed.
Does not change my position - an abortion is done for the mother, not to the unborn, IMO.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
No.

I think the mother's right not to be pregnant should trump the life of the unborn in all cases where the unborn cannot be delivered at the time the decision is made.
And the mother has the right to not be pregnant by taking steps to prevent pregnancy from occurring.
A woman is harmed by an unwanted pregnancy.
How? Is her unborn child attacking her? Is the unborn child a threat? How is she harmed?
Agreed. Does not change my position - an abortion is done for the mother, not to the unborn, IMO.
My point was that you were attempting to compare apples and cakes.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Wrong. There are prudes who think that sex is a problem, but generally speaking, if all parties are willing and of age, there's no such thing as immoral sex. In my opinion. The problem can be pregnancy, and it is fixable via abortion. I would rather be problem pregnancy was terminated than the alternative, which risks blighting at least two lifetimes. I genuinely don't consider the non-viable foetus as having any importance whatsoever, unless the mother herself chooses to give it.

You are generalising again. I have said that personally I think it makes no difference how the pregnancy came about. All that matters is the woman's right to choose whether to continue it. Assuming that she has competency of course.

Nothing. Except that it does highlight the moral dilemma of the pro-life brigade. They are often willing to compromise in the cases of rape or dire danger to the woman's health, because it is so obvious that they would be wrong to forbid abortion in these cases. The problem for you is that you are wrong in all other cases as well. It is just not so obvious. However, the arguments that you bring to abortion on demand apply equally to abortion in cases of rape, but you are willing to sacrifice the rights of the unborn then, when it looks really bad not to. Once again you show the moral fortitude of a warm Mars bar.
Its reality. The pregnancy results from unprotected sex. You can see the realities of sexual intimacy as prudish if you want of course, but you can change the reality which our position is based on
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
And the mother has the right to not be pregnant by taking steps to prevent pregnancy from occurring.
You are conflating getting pregnant with being pregnant.
Contraceptives do not deal with a woman's being pregnant.
How? Is her unborn child attacking her? Is the unborn child a threat? How is she harmed?
Really?
You are not aware of the side-effects of pregnancy? Not to mention having to actually give birth?
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
You are conflating getting pregnant with being pregnant. Contraceptives do not deal with a woman's being pregnant.
So what? If a woman doesn't want a pregnancy--then don't get pregnant. What is so hard about that? You act as if this is an impossible feat, too much to ask anyone.
You are not aware of the side-effects of pregnancy? Not to mention having to actually give birth?
Oh, the humanities!
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
So what? If a woman doesn't want a pregnancy--then don't get pregnant.
What if she doesn't want a pregnancy she's already got?
And she hasn't got a time machine...
You act as if this is an impossible feat, too much to ask anyone.
I agree it's not even close to impossible.
But it fails, and I, at least, want measures in place for when it does.
Oh, the humanities!
Yep - "I don't think pregnancy and delivery are that bad, so they're not."
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Sir, the definition of "prude" is "A person who is easily shocked or claims to be easily shocked by things relating to sex and nudity."

I do not care who choses to have sex with who. I do not care what one or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes and bedrooms.
So you too have subjective morality.
What I care about is abortion. When one chooses to have sex---and one does so with out considering the possible consequences, it is that IRRESPONSIBLE sex I have a problem with, not sex itself.

If someone wants to have sex all the time but does not want to get pregnant, the responsible thing to do is take steps to ensure a pregnancy will not result. An ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure for abortion.
Not all unwanted pregnancies are the results of fecklessness.contracepeption can fail. Also circumstances can change, such that a welcome pregnancy becomes an unwelcome one. There are so many ways for a pregnancy to be or become problematic, that it makes no sense to try and list them all. Clear guidance as to when an abortion is legal and when it is not,is all that's required.
I disagree, but when it comes to consenting adults-----I get that not everyone believes as I do----and are free to choose for themselves. In other words---I care for my own behaviors what constitutes a moral use of my sexuality, but not for others.
So you have a moral view, but recognise that others have a different moral view. You think yours is "correct" but recognise that you cannot prove it because ultimately it comes down to opinion . Welcome to subjective morality.
Even if we agree that pregnancy is a "problem" why is abortion the only solution? Why not adoption?
Who said it's the only solution? It's a solution, which you want to ban. Who's trying to ban adoption?
Actually--I am not willing to compromise in those cases. It is just that I am practical. I understand that if I expect any laws against abortion to have any chance of succeeding in this country, we have to tolerate abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother.
Unwilling compromise is just another way of saying compromise. Of course you are unwilling. So what?
There is no time when a direct abortion is morally justifiable.
I have personally been involved in three such occasions. I have no reason to believe that they were even unusual.
The only reason I asked you about that---was only becasue abortion supporters always use those extreme cases--rape, incest, life of the mother as an excuse for supporting abortion on demand--as if they are equivalent.
Always. Except when they don't. Has I have said three times now. Why do you think that misrepresentation is a sensible tactic? Do you think I won't notice?
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
So you have a moral view, but recognise that others have a different moral view. You think yours is "correct" but recognise that you cannot prove it because ultimately it comes down to opinion . Welcome to subjective morality.
Indeed - a couldn't come up with a better definition of it.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
What if she doesn't want a pregnancy she's already got? And she hasn't got a time machine...
Sir, even if she HAD a time machine--it would be of little use to her with a functioning flux capacitor and sufficient Plutonium to power it. Unfortunately the hover conversion and "Mr" Fuel" conversion on my DeLorean hasn't been done yet--and I can't get plutonium. The only thing that will power the flux capacitor is a bolt of lightening--and you never know where or when it will strike. Hence---even if I was willing to let her use my DeLorean, she would be out of luck.

That---and-----too bad. You loose you snooze. In other words---then she is pregnant--and is a mother whether she wants to be or not.

In such a case, she can put the child up for adoption when it is born.
 
Top