Morning after pill

[Levin]

At bottom, your arguments come down to the fact that the zygote created by consensual sex lacks any moral weight. I disagree. My main reasons for affording it moral weight are the following: (1) it is alive; and (2) it is a human entity.

The countervailing considerations all focus on the mother, and the considerations are the exact same as those for abortion. Is there a consideration for the mother at the stage you would use MAP that doesn't apply to abortion? Only difference is the developmental state of the new life.

* * * * * *
On a completely unrelated note, I have to comment upon SU's utter inability to have an ethical discussion without impuning the character of the person he's debating or to make negative conclusions about that person's actions. He's the worst sort of demagogue. Do you really think, fucker, that I would let my neice know that I know about what happened? Do you think that it changes how I treat her or my feelings for her? Do you think it doesn't mean I can't give credence to the opposing view regarding the use of the MAP? Or that for some people in some circumstances, even if the sex is consensual, that it may, pragmatically speaking, be the best decision? The original topic related to her parents encouraging her to take the MAP. But because I disagreed with my brother's actions, and think that taking the MAP to be immoral in many circumstances, I'm "a terrible, judgmental and really pretty hateful uncle." My heart has gone out to my niece more since that decision than ever, you fucker. You repeatedly call people who disagree with you hateful, terrible, repulsive, disgusting, idiotic, unintelligent, crazy, etc. All that means is that you're the worst sort of demagogue. But you also make sweeping conclusions about how that person treats people. It is impossible for your tyrannical brain to believe that a person who believes an action to be immoral does not judge a person for that action. This is impossible for you b/c, in the end, your defining character trait is judgmentalism. As someone here once said, a parent's worst fear is raising an ass hole. For that reason alone, you've been a bitter disappointment to your parents.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

disagree. My main reasons for affording it moral weight are the following: (1) it is alive; and (2) it is a human entity.

Your assertion that it can be killed if the product of rape seems glib if you believe it is a human entity.

You assert it, with no reasoning, as if obvious.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Your assertion that it can be killed if the product of rape seems glib if you believe it is a human entity.

You assert it, with no reasoning, as if obvious.

I think there are countervailing interests, which I've explained. The creation of life was by force. What are your reasons for treating rape differently?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

I think there are countervailing interests, which I've explained. The creation of life was by force. What are your reasons for treating rape differently?

I'm not sure that rape should be treated differently.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Rape on the other hand is a whole different ballgame.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not sure that rape should be treated differently.

???

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

???

ethically it is not different.

one is however, more likely to be unethical, if those circumstances were presented.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Levin

On a completely unrelated note, I have to comment upon SU's utter inability to have an ethical discussion without impuning the character of the person he's debating or to make negative conclusions about that person's actions. He's the worst sort of demagogue. Do you really think, fucker, that I would let my neice know that I know about what happened? Do you think that it changes how I treat her or my feelings for her? Do you think it doesn't mean I can't give credence to the opposing view regarding the use of the MAP? Or that for some people in some circumstances, even if the sex is consensual, that it may, pragmatically speaking, be the best decision? The original topic related to her parents encouraging her to take the MAP. But because I disagreed with my brother's actions, and think that taking the MAP to be immoral in many circumstances, I'm "a terrible, judgmental and really pretty hateful uncle." My heart has gone out to my niece more since that decision than ever, you fucker. You repeatedly call people who disagree with you hateful, terrible, repulsive, disgusting, idiotic, unintelligent, crazy, etc. All that means is that you're the worst sort of demagogue. But you also make sweeping conclusions about how that person treats people. It is impossible for your tyrannical brain to believe that a person who believes an action to be immoral does not judge a person for that action. This is impossible for you b/c, in the end, your defining character trait is judgmentalism. As someone here once said, a parent's worst fear is raising an ass hole. For that reason alone, you've been a bitter disappointment to your parents.

Is that what you consider this to be, an ethical discussion?

I see I have done some good because this is the first instance in which Levin has demonstrated any flexilibity on this issue or a smattering of compassion for the woman. In this instance the woman is his niece!

Levin is dissembling about the original content of his post. This grown MAN waxed judgmental and sanctimonius concerning "damage to her soul" after this child took the morning after pill. He only objected to his brother and his wife's involvement because they advised her to take the pill. From the face of his post he'd have been fine with them coercing her to not take it and take the child to term (and give it up for adoption?):

Originally Posted by Levin

My niece got drunk and had unprotected sex with a guy she met at a bar while in Europe. My brother and his wife encouraged her to take the morning after pill, which she did. She was barely 18 at the time.

I think my brother and his wife were wrong. I'm fine with birth control, but not the morning after pill. There is a difference between preventing life and ending it. The scientific niceties of what a two-day old zygote is does not concern me. I would have told my daughter that one of the consequences of her actions was the possibility that she could get pregnant. The sexual act is the means by which life is created, and if she performs that act irresponsibly, it could have life altering consequences.

Small choices can have cataclysmic consequences. Life is hard. We have to accept the consequences of our actions. Blunting them with the convenience of modern technology is moral robbery in my opinion.

And my attitude does not come from a perspective of punishment. The damage to her soul by taking the morning-after pill, and the fundamental altering of her worldview that occurred when she did so, are much worse then carrying a baby to term and then giving it up for adoption. Morning sickness, the heartache of giving the baby up, yes. But such pains do nothing to her soul. The quick fix for heedless sex, the ending of life, does much to her soul.

Levin may not have the courage to tell his niece candidly about his "hard" judgment of her and her family, but he has taken these private facts about her onto this totally public forum, and there are people here who know him and his brother and have since childhood.

I admit I have a hard time getting along with religious extremists.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

ethically it is not different.

one is however, more likely to be unethical, if those circumstances were presented.

I'm having a hard time understanding this. "Ethically is not different" but one is "more likely to be unethical."

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Levin

I'm having a hard time understanding this. "Ethically is not different" but one is "more likely to be unethical."

I'm saying that one might believe that an unimplanted embryo has worth, value and life, but one might still quash it in the case of rape, despite it's worth, value, and life.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Is that what you consider this to be, an ethical discussion?

I see I have done some good because this is the first instance in which Levin has demonstrated any flexilibity on this issue or a smattering of compassion for the woman. In this instance the woman is his niece!

Levin is dissembling about the original content of his post. This grown MAN waxed judgmental and sanctimonius concerning "damage to her soul" after this child took the morning after pill. He only objected to his brother and his wife's involvement because they advised her to take the pill. From the face of his post he'd have been fine with them coercing her to not take it and take the child to term (and give it up for adoption?):



Levin may not have the courage to tell his niece candidly about his "hard" judgment of her and her family, but he has taken these private facts about her onto this totally public forum, and there are people here who know him and his brother and have since childhood.

I admit I have a hard time getting along with religious extremists.

Why would I tell my niece what I think on this issue? At this stage in my life as I try to work things out, I think it was worse for her to introduce that fact into her life. And plus, I obviously don't understand all the circumstances of the situation, and so maybe for her, it was ultimately the right decision. The partner could have been you.