Morning after pill debate?

Question

if a woman goes through a period, she's commiting murder, right? i mean, she's basically letting the egg cell die, thus condemning the child to death. How can you say that a drug that targets an unintelligent grouping of a few cells is murder, unless you consider abstinance as murder as well? You have doomed the potential of the unsentient cluster of cells either way.

And if you say that all cells are alive and sentient, are you a murderer if you skin your knee and kill some skin cells?

i'm all for the morning after pill; that was just a question for those against it to answer.

Answer 1

Your premise is asinine. At no point in time has any culture ever regarded the natural function of the body as a criminal act. Nobody among the RTL movement has ever suggested that a woman ought to be penalized on account of menstruation.

MOREOVER, the ovum discharged during menstruation is UNFERTILIZED. Beyond that, natural menstruation falls under the same category as "act of God" -- and responsibility for it, moral and otherwise, is limited to God (regardless whether you believe there is or is not a god/God/etc.).

The moral condemnation of ELECTIVE abortion derives from the scientific fact that the natural course of that "unintelligent grouping of a few cells" inevitably and invariably results in the birth of a human being.

That such human being has not yet attained sufficient sophistication to appreciate his or her status is irrelevant: we recognize that idiots and imbeciles ought not be deprived of life for their lack of sophistication.

Age is likewise irrelevant: you wouldn't let an 80-year-old go around killing 4-year-old children just because she thought kids were a pain in the butt or because they otherwise inconvenienced her -- or would you?

Neither thumbnails nor toenails, nor hair, nor skin nor other organ tissue, nor blood, nor nerves, nor bones, nor muscle has EVER naturally or artificially developed into a human being: those tissues are differentiated.

Elective abortion says that it's okay to kill a human being as long as that human is sufficiently young, for no reason other than to prevent inconvenience to the pregnant woman.

It is unethical (and according to the Fifth Amendment, illegal) to strip persons of their basic rights without due process of law, and there has been no due process of law against any of the millions slaughtered through elective abortion.

Whether by action, inaction or some combination of action and inaction, it is unethical to kill anyone, or to prevent such person's natural development and evolution, on account of the inconvenience posed by allowing that person to live or to continue naturally to develop and evolve.

There is nothing wrong with preventing fertilization, but as soon as either (a) the ovum is fertilized or (b) the ovum spontaneously begins mitosis, the natural course of events leading to the manifestation of a human person has been set into motion and no person has the moral authority -- especially on grounds of convenience -- to terminate that life.

None of the foregoing in any way contradicts or undermines the longstanding principle of triage, in which the sacrifice of one life is required to preserve another. Moreover, the law has always recognized that the taking of life is, however rarely, sometimes required to preserve or protect other life.

Again, elective abortion is not about saving anyone's life, but merely about preserving a lifestyle -- at the expense of the lives of one or more others.

Answer 2

If a woman goes through a period she's commiting murder?!?!?! YOU definatly are a man! She doesnt LET the egg cell die...the egg cell dies itself. It hasnt had a chance to fetilize against the uterus wall, thus the uteran wall flushes itself. This occurs monthly...and it's not something a woman looks forward to nor does she do it consciously.

The morning after pill...although is a very deliberate and conscious act. Im sure you know, that the ONLY way for a fetus to be produced is with the help of a sperm...WHICH occurs after sex. When a woman DOESNT have sex...she still gets her period...sad but true. However, when a woman has sex, there's a probablity that the egg could become fertilized thus leading to a fetus. Taking the pill after unprotected sex is a fully conscious act. The woman is targeting the fertilized egg and thus putting psuedos and chemicals into her body that will flush the egg.

Any deliberate act...and act that you do in full conscious, that is planned where the ramifications of the consequences are known (unportcted sex can lead to babies) can be considered murder.

Facts are facts.

Answer 3

I guess that all menstruating women should be whores just so those eggs don't go unused and they should be pregnant all the time? If anyone believes that then they are idiots. The morning after pill is basically a super dose of birth control that won't end a pregnancy that's already under way but will prevent one from happening after having taken that pill. you aren't "killing a baby" so to speak because there never was one to begin with.

Answer 4

More often than not, naturally, an egg will not implant. It's a miracle that any pregnancy happens.

That being said, I am totally pro-life, but have no issue with the morning after pill, as long as it is not used as a primary form of birth control. Of course, as sick as it makes most women, once would be enough. I certainly think it is a mercy in the case of rape victims.

For me personally, I have no way of knowning how I would feel, because I am happily married. After having been on the pill for years, we have gone off because neither of us is getting any younger.

Answer 5

that is so true. you have an excellent point. i'm not against the morning after pill at all. the only reason i would ever be against it, is because it lets teens avoid the responsibility of having to wear protection during sexual intercourse. "oh, i'll just take the morning after pill. don't worry...." bla bla bla.

i'm not against abortion either. it is almost the same. except the fact that it's an embryo instead of a cluster of cells. but that is a totally different subject.

Answer 6

if the sperm is not intact with the egg, there is no life trying to become created. so no, periods are not killing a child. your being ignorant. the morning after pill is killing a group of cells trying to multiply and become a human. to some, that is death, to others it is just natural selection.

Answer 7

Stop thinking so much
A period is blood etc that was to be used if the egg WAS fertilized...so a period is the shedding of this blood since it's not needed...So if I were to think along your lines..a lot of women are committing murder as we speak, myself included....
Grab a clue and get a grip!

Answer 8

What the??
No..she's not a murderer..
it's supposed to be that way..
If not the whole world would be overpopulated and have like 54876894376878678937456838457689576 people on it.

And no you're not a murderer if you skin your knee..cells are alive but they are not people.

Answer 9

anything that is used to deliberately remove the egg from the womb once it has been FERTILIZED is abortion and therefore wrong. I don't know a lot about the morning after pill but if it would potentially destroy a fertilized egg then I am against it.

Answer 10

I am no expert on this subject but I can understand y they came out with this pill and can sympathize with those that maybe were raped or molested and can not handle carrying that child. I think there are some circumstances that make this the right thing. and some that make this wrong.