Mícheál Martin opposes abortion for victims of rape. Women have "morning after pill.&

dlofnep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnvwWEdOG8M

(5:17 mark).

I can't believe this man could potentially be our next Taoiseach. How on earth can we have people in 2013 that believe that the morning after pill is a satisfactory answer to victims of rape, and better yet - opposes widening abortion laws to allow women who have been unfortunate enough to be the victim of a rapist, from having an abortion.

strandroad

If he could get pregnant, there would be tax breaks for abortion.

Nodin

While this doesn't suprise me, its still rather depressing.

p1akuw47h5r3it

I'm fiercely pro-choice, however I can understand (although completely disagree with) people with some pro-choice views.

However I find it astonishing and can't comprehend how anyone could justify refusing a rape victim an abortion if they so requested. I really can't. It really disgusts me. How can you justify forcing a woman who has had sex forced on her go through a whole pregnancy that she doesn't want or plan, and then make her endure a (probable) adoption process.

It's sickening to think about.

tony007

dlofnep wrote: »

I can't believe this man could potentially be our next Taoiseach. How on earth can we have people in 2013 that believe that the morning after pill is a satisfactory answer to victims of rape, and better yet - opposes widening abortion laws to allow women who have been unfortunate enough to be the victim of a rapist, from having an abortion.

And abortion is?

dlofnep

tony007 wrote: »

And abortion is?

I'm pretty sure you've missed the point.

tony007

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you've missed the point.

Who said that ''the morning after pill is a satisfactory answer to victims of rape''?

dlofnep

tony007 wrote: »

Who said that ''the morning after pill is a satisfactory answer to victims of rape''?

Mícheál Martin implied it in contrast to abortion - where he said that he opposes abortion for victims of rape, and that they had options today that they did not have before "in terms of the morning after pill and so forth..."

Did you actually watch the video?

Mr.Micro

dlofnep wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnvwWEdOG8M

(5:17 mark).

I can't believe this man could potentially be our next Taoiseach. How on earth can we have people in 2013 that believe that the morning after pill is a satisfactory answer to victims of rape, and better yet - opposes widening abortion laws to allow women who have been unfortunate enough to be the victim of a rapist, from having an abortion.

He is clearly playing to older populist voters. He is is not detached from church and state and would not go against the former if it came to a decision that would upset the church hierarchy,IMO.

Chucky the tree

On what grounds does rape count? Would a women simply have to claim she was raped, would she need to report it to Gardai?

wnolan1992

DanDan6592 wrote: »

However I find it astonishing and can't comprehend how anyone could justify refusing a rape victim an abortion if they so requested. I really can't. It really disgusts me. How can you justify forcing a woman who has had sex forced on her go through a whole pregnancy that she doesn't want or plan, and then make her endure a (probable) adoption process.

I can understand it perfectly. The baby in question has done nothing wrong, so why should it's life be terminated just because of how it was conceived? You're just focusing on the woman here, and not the child who she would be terminating.



I'm not saying I agree with this viewpoint, I happen to be pro-choice, but I think to lambaste someone as "disgusting" you for being against abortion in cases like this is a bit harsh. I think it's a valid point.

meoklmrk91

Great, I know that abortion is an emotive subject, I would be fiercely pro-choice but I do understand the other sides views, especially of those who are respectful and don't post pictures of dead babies all over the place, give lollipops to kids and call door to door spreading their hate.

But I thought that most people believe in abortion in 2 cases, those are rape and where the mothers life is in danger. What does Micheal Martin suggest women do if they have been raped and the morning after pill doesn't work for them, because it is not 100% effective, should they just then suck it up? I'm sick of old men telling me what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do with my own body.

Another reason not to vote for Fianna Fáil in the next election, not that I needed one in fairness.

strandroad

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

But I thought that most people believe in abortion in 2 cases, those are rape and where the mothers life is in danger. What does Micheal Martin suggest women do if they have been raped and the morning after pill doesn't work for them, because it is not 100% effective, should they just then suck it up? I'm sick of old men telling me what I should and shouldn't be allowed to do with my own body.

He's putting the onus on a raped woman to "get over" her shock in a snap to seek effective emergency contraception. And if she doesn't and misses the short window, or the pill doesn't work, well she'll bear her rapist's child with all consequences to her life, physical and mental health. Imagine explaining at work that you'll be taking time off, because you need to give birth to your rapist's child. Imagine going through this birth alone.

Underage girls can't access the pill anyway AFAIK, so they'll bear these children anyway, by definition.

What's his constituency again? I hope he knocks on my door.
Ah shoot, he won't. Good people of South Cork, please give him some good boll****ing from me.

wnolan1992

mhge wrote: »

He's putting the onus on a raped woman to "get over" her shock in a snap to seek effective emergency contraception. And if she doesn't and misses the short window, or the pill doesn't work, well she'll bear her rapist's child with all consequences to her life, physical and mental health. Imagine explaining at work that you'll be taking time off, because you need to give birth to your rapist's child. Imagine going through this birth alone.

Underage girls can't access the pill anyway AFAIK, so they'll bear these children anyway, by definition.

What's his constituency again? I hope he knocks on my door.

Out of interest, can underage girls access abortion in countries where it is legal?

Scortho

Well at least we now know where the rise in support for Fianna Fáil came from in the last opinion poll.

And not all people can take the morning after pill. It's advised not to take it if there is a history of thromboembolism. What does a person do in that case micheal?

strandroad

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Out of interest, can underage girls access abortion in countries where it is legal?

Yes. In UK you need the opinion of some professionals if you're under 16.

dlofnep

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Out of interest, can underage girls access abortion in countries where it is legal?

Yes. I know in the US, some require parental consent (which can be bypassed). Others require you've seen a counselor.

p1akuw47h5r3it

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I can understand it perfectly. The baby in question has done nothing wrong, so why should it's life be terminated just because of how it was conceived? You're just focusing on the woman here, and not the child who she would be terminating.



I'm not saying I agree with this viewpoint, I happen to be pro-choice, but I think to lambaste someone as "disgusting" you for being against abortion in cases like this is a bit harsh. I think it's a valid point.

She wouldn't be terminating a child, she'd be terminating a fetus. And I don't think it's harsh at all. Your forcing someone who has had one of, if not the the worst crimes committed upon them, to endure 9 months of physical and mental anguish all against their will.

Imo, if you are ok with that your a disgusting person.

Manach

To ensure the life of the unborn as mentioned in the constitution, I'm sure quite a few people could not care the typical liberal dehumanising tactic of un-personing both the unborn and those that do no share their special worldview,

wnolan1992

DanDan6592 wrote: »

She wouldn't be terminating a child, she'd be terminating a fetus. And I don't think it's harsh at all. Your forcing someone who has had one of, if not the the worst crimes committed upon them, to endure 9 months of physical and mental anguish all against their will.

Imo, if you are ok with that your a disgusting person.

The bolded is the issue.

If you're of the believe that life begins at conception, then it may be equally as abhorrent to terminate a life based on the way it was conceived. You get into the "two wrongs don't make a right" territory.

You say that you'd be forcing a woman "to endure 9 months of physical and mental anguish all against their will", well I could equally counter with you'd be robbing another human being of their life by aborting it.


Again, FTR, I'm pro-choice. But I think the reaction to Martin's viewpoint is a little OTT here.

strandroad

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Again, FTR, I'm pro-choice. But I think the reaction to Martin's viewpoint is a little OTT here.

He does not have a viewpoint, he will change it tomorrow if his polls turn. In the meantime it's OK to dehumanise raped women, he's a politician after all.

wnolan1992

mhge wrote: »

He does not have a viewpoint, he will change it tomorrow if his polls turn. In the meantime it's OK to dehumanise raped women, he's a politician after all.

On changing his view, that may well be the case, I wouldn't put it past any of the current TD's tbh.

On the dehumanising the victim, are you not doing the same thing with the unborn child?

strandroad

wnolan1992 wrote: »

On the dehumanising the victim, are you not doing the same thing with the unborn child?

It's not a child if it's unborn...

JOB93

Chucky the tree wrote: »

On what grounds does rape count? Would a women simply have to claim she was raped, would she need to report it to Gardai?

Hadn't thought of this before. If a guy got a woman pregnant accidentally and she falsely claimed rape in order to get an abortion, would he/could he be prosecuted?

wnolan1992

mhge wrote: »

It's not a child if it's unborn...

And that's your view on it.

Others believe that as soon as the fetus begins to form it is a child.

strandroad

wnolan1992 wrote: »

And that's your view on it.

Others believe that as soon as the fetus begins to form it is a child.

It's not my view, it's the definition of the word...
In some discourses the word child, or baby, is used incorrectly to describe a zygote or a fetus.

p1akuw47h5r3it

wnolan1992 wrote: »

The bolded is the issue.

If you're of the believe that life begins at conception, then it may be equally as abhorrent to terminate a life based on the way it was conceived. You get into the "two wrongs don't make a right" territory.

You say that you'd be forcing a woman "to endure 9 months of physical and mental anguish all against their will", well I could equally counter with you'd be robbing another human being of their life by aborting it.


Again, FTR, I'm pro-choice. But I think the reaction to Martin's viewpoint is a little OTT here.

I know the bolded is the issue, hence why I said I can understand where pro-life people come from in the majority of cases. This isn't the case for rape however. It's my opinion that cases of rape are special cases. The rights of the mother supersede those of the unborn fetus/child due to the fact that she has been forced into her position.

I don't see how you can force or take the view that the rights of an unborn, unaware, non-conscious being supersede or are on par with a living, conscious victim of rape who has been put in that position completely against her will.

wnolan1992

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I know the bolded is the issue, hence why I said I can understand where pro-life people come from in the majority of cases. This isn't the case for rape however. It's my opinion that cases of rape are special cases. The rights of the mother supersede those of the unborn fetus/child due to the fact that she has been forced into her position.

I don't see how you can force or take the view that the rights of an unborn, unaware, non-conscious being supersede or are on par with a living, conscious victim of rape who has been put in that position completely against her will.

I agree with you.

However, I can understand why someone might be of the believe that all life (and for this let's just assume that an unborn fetus/child/zygote/whatever is alive) is equal, and therefore wrong to extinguish the life of a child (because ultimately this is what's happening, you can hide behind scientific terms all you want, at the end of the day a child who was going to be born is no longer going to be) no matter how it was conceived.

p1akuw47h5r3it

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I agree with you.

However, I can understand why someone might be of the believe that all life (and for this let's just assume that an unborn fetus/child/zygote/whatever is alive) is equal, and therefore wrong to extinguish the life of a child (because ultimately this is what's happening, you can hide behind scientific terms all you want, at the end of the day a child who was going to be born is no longer going to be) no matter how it was conceived.

Ok fair enough. I can't!

strandroad

wnolan1992 wrote: »

However, I can understand why someone might be of the believe that all life (and for this let's just assume that an unborn fetus/child/zygote/whatever is alive) is equal, and therefore wrong to extinguish the life of a child (because ultimately this is what's happening, you can hide behind scientific terms all you want, at the end of the day a child who was going to be born is no longer going to be) no matter how it was conceived.

They can absolutely have such beliefs! It's when they want to impose their beliefs on raped women where it should stop.

wnolan1992

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Ok fair enough. I can't!

I think it helps that, while I would probably vote pro-choice, I hover very close to the pro-life fence, so tend to understand where pro-lifers are coming from in their arguments.

p1akuw47h5r3it

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I think it helps that, while I would probably vote pro-choice, I hover very close to the pro-life fence, so tend to understand where pro-lifers are coming from in their arguments.

I do aswell. I just feel rape is a very special case, and can't understand how you could make a woman go through a pregnancy against her will (regardless of the arguments you put forward).

JOB93

DanDan6592 wrote: »

I do aswell. I just feel rape is a very special case, and can't understand how you could make a woman go through a pregnancy against her will (regardless of the arguments you put forward).

I can't understand how you can force a zygote to be aborted just because of the actions of it's father. It didn't choose to become a zygote/foetus through rape but it is the party who suffers most.

That's the sort of viewpoint pro lifers have, for the record I'm pro choice in all cases, not just rape.

looksee

She won't have to go through pregnancy against her will, she can go to England.

p1akuw47h5r3it

JOB93 wrote: »

I can't understand how you can force a zygote to be aborted just because of the actions of it's father. It didn't choose to become a zygote/foetus through rape but it is the party who suffers most.

That's the sort of viewpoint pro lifers have, for the record I'm pro choice in all cases, not just rape.

Again I know the viewpoint they have. I just can't comprehend it.

It's illogical to view the rights of a being that cannot survive outside of it's host, that can't feel,is not-conscious, is completely unaware on par with those of a woman who is all those things and has being forced into the position they are in against their will.

p1akuw47h5r3it

looksee wrote: »

She won't have to go through pregnancy against her will, she can go to England.

Oh my God.

strandroad

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It's illogical to view the rights of a being that cannot survive outside of it's host, that can't feel,is not-conscious, is completely unaware on par with those of a woman who is all those things and has being forced into the position they are in against their will.

You just need to see the woman as a lower being, some sort of incubator whose role is to carry children. And such a view is well documented in the history of religious movements most pro-life initiatives stem from.

strandroad

looksee wrote: »

She won't have to go through pregnancy against her will, she can go to England.

You removed the remark about the cesspit outside our door, were you serious or sarcastic?

meoklmrk91

looksee wrote: »

She won't have to go through pregnancy against her will, she can go to England.

Which is part of the issue here, thousands of Irish women are going to the UK every year because they are being denied a medical proceedure, because that is what abortion is, so we as a country can sweep this under the rug and pretend its not happening but the point is that it is, it's just that good little ireland is forcing women who who feel the need to have this medical procedure for whatever reason to leave the county .

JOB93

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Again I know the viewpoint they have. I just can't comprehend it.

I can't comprehend how people vote for the Healy-Raes, we will never understand all viewpoints.

Nodin

looksee wrote: »

She won't have to go through pregnancy against her will, she can go to England.

Is this a sarcastic dig at the current situation...? A bit of clarification would be appreciated, if you'd be as good.

Simi

So Michael Martin is clearly not in favour of legislating for abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

I'm pro-choice, are there any political parties actually in favour of liberalising Ireland's abortion laws? Or should I just continue not voting?*

*Not because abortion is the only issue I care about, but because alll major political parties have similar, if not the same economic positions and have shown little to no interest in advancing progressive social changes.

e.g. That a clear majority of the country is now in favour of Gay marriage/adoption rights but all sides will hem and haw for as long as possible before introducing legislation, lest they upset some of their voting base.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Simi wrote: »

So Michael Martin is clearly not in favour of legislating for abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

I'm pro-choice, are there any political parties actually in favour of liberalising Ireland's abortion laws? Or should I just continue not voting?*

*Not because abortion is the only issue I care about, but because alll major political parties have similar, if not the same economic positions and have shown little to no interest in advancing progressive social changes.

e.g. That a clear majority of the country is now in favour of Gay marriage/adoption rights but all sides will hem and haw for as long as possible before introducing legislation, lest they upset some of their voting base.

As far as I'm aware all the Socialist parties including Labour favourite introducing, or at least legislating, for abortion.

But as someone who is economically leans to the right, please don't vote for them :pac:

Simi

DanDan6592 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware all the Socialist parties including Labour favourite introducing, or at least legislating, for abortion.

But as someone who is economically leans to the right, please don't vote for them :pac:

So what we need is a socially liberal, fiscally conservative (well center rightish anyway) party. I seem to remember such a party, had a bald guy in charge, wasn't too fond of illegal immigrants though. Wonder what ever happened to them?

looksee

Ok, sorry, ref the 'she can go to England' yes I was being sarcastic, and yes I did remove the 'aren't we lucky we have a cess-pit outside our back door' comment because I felt that this is Politics, not AH and it was simply inflammatory, and did not contribute to the argument. Its removal however made my comment ambiguous.

It is very easy to argue that someone pregnant as a result of rape should stay that way when the very real anguish this would cause is avoided because the woman can be quietly allowed to go elsewhere. Provided we can keep our hands clean its ok if someone else does the dirty work.

hoodwinked

i can't help but feel he is letting his personal circumstances affect his judgement on this,

i am pro life for me personally, but i am also pro choice for everyone else,

services should be provided and leave it up to the individual if they should use them or not.

Solair

Don't forget that FF have been one of the most deeply conservative, religious parties in the history of modern western politics.

What ever about their freshly spun image, it has a history of deep deep conservatism.

I never understood why people are surprised when they come out with something like this.

They're economically liberal but have a history of social conservatism that would make the Tea Party or right wing Tories seem like hippies!

If you don't like risks of deep Catholic inspired social conservatism, don't vote FF.

Death and Taxes

tony007 wrote: »

And abortion is?

Yes, if the woman (the victim) wants it.

Solair

I'd add to that that Fine Gael don't exactly have a history of anything but very right wing conservatism either, but FF were in power most of the time.
FG did very little in opposition to oppose any of that stuff.

crockholm

after the rape,would there not be some forms of contraception given to the victim,surely information on what to do if the pregnancy still exists would be given.

Also, this is a subject I would like to be better informed about as there may in the future be some referendum on the subject.


How common are pregnancies that arise after rape?

What time-frame are we talking about from the forced conception to the termination?

astrofool

What he really wants is a traumatised rape victim to have to travel up north or over to the UK because the politicians on this island are completely spineless.