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

Leftist

astrofool wrote: »

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.

we have awful politicians but the religious fanatics of ireland are very mobilised.
MMartin is typical of FF policies, conservative yes, but they swing whatever way a large demograph is going. They are pretty adapt at that. they see the country has still got a loud fundamentalist christian voice and they will exploit any ground they can take.

looksee

crockholm wrote: »

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?

How common are pregnancies after rape? Probably rather more than normal as normally provision is made for contraception, but its unlikely a rapist would take time to do anything about it! American studies show this higher rate.

Also there is the consideration that STIs may have been passed on, which may have implications for the woman and the fetus.

The rape is not necessarily the time of conception, until a sperm reaches an egg there is no conception, and that takes from about an hour to four or five days.

Things that have to be considered though are that shock, shame, fear, or lack of understanding (for example younger girls being raped by relatives) might lead a woman to not seek help for several days, and wishful thinking (if I ignore it it will go away) can lead to a woman being pregnant for a few months before realising the situation. Those same reasons could cause delay in seeking termination even if the woman realises she is pregnant.

One of the problems is that a man commits rape for immediate, selfish, 'out of control' reasons, but the woman is expected to deal with the consequences of assault maturely and with common sense and logic.

drkpower

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument, how does one go about practically legislating for abortion in the case of rape (assuming that abortion 'on demand' remains unavailable)?

Cookie_Monster

drkpower wrote: »

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument, how does one go about practically legislating for abortion in the case of rape (assuming that abortion 'on demand' remains unavailable)?

kick it down the road like we've done for the past twenty years?

drkpower

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

kick it down the road like we've done for the past twenty years?

Well, I suppose that is an option...! But even if the will was there, I cant see how it could be practically legislated for.

clairefontaine

drkpower wrote: »

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the argument, how does one go about practically legislating for abortion in the case of rape (assuming that abortion 'on demand' remains unavailable)?

What, would you need a conviction first or just a letter from your GP?

It would have to be on demand or not. There is no inbetween in this matter.

In fairness to the man, either you think a fetus is a life that needs to be saved or you don't.
Pro "lifers" who think abortion is ok in rape "because it's not her fault" are pro-punishment for having sex, not pro life

Mr.Micro

Leftist wrote: »

we have awful politicians but the religious fanatics of ireland are very mobilised.
MMartin is typical of FF policies, conservative yes, but they swing whatever way a large demograph is going. They are pretty adapt at that. they see the country has still got a loud fundamentalist christian voice and they will exploit any ground they can take.

Primitivist and not progressivist.

clairefontaine

bluewolf wrote: »

In fairness to the man, either you think a fetus is a life that needs to be saved or you don't.
Pro "lifers" who think abortion is ok in rape "because it's not her fault" are pro-punishment for having sex, not pro life

Yes and no. I can see your point. However, rape comes in all sorts of circumstances, and to expect one to have a child they conceived with their rapist, whether husband, boyfriend, neighbour, stranger, whomever, also puts them in a position where they have to have a co parenting relationship with their rapist, should their rapist seek out paternal rights.

In such a small country, a woman would have to leave town or the country in order to raise the child in peace.

clairefontaine

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yes and no. I can see your point. However, rape comes in all sorts of circumstances, and to expect one to have a child they conceived with their rapist, whether husband, boyfriend, neighbour, stranger, whomever, also puts them in a position where they have to have a co parenting relationship with their rapist, should their rapist seek out paternal rights.

In such a small country, a woman would have to leave town or the country in order to raise the child in peace.

They tend to care more about protecting a life and see whatever happens later regardless of her circumstances, though.
Personally I'm entirely pro choice, but I do think that if they made an exception it would be extremely hypocritical of them

strandroad

clairefontaine wrote: »

In such a small country, a woman would have to leave town or the country in order to raise the child in peace.

These women have husbands and children too. I find that in the abortion discourse it's often overlooked. Imagine the husband having to lie that he's the father or seeing his wife carry the child of her rapist, on top of her trauma.

clairefontaine

bluewolf wrote: »

They tend to care more about protecting a life and see whatever happens later regardless of her circumstances, though.
Personally I'm entirely pro choice, but I do think that if they made an exception it would be extremely hypocritical of them

They would need to make serious legal protections around having to deal with your rapist, but given what we know about convictions of rape in the first place, this seems like an impossible task.

clairefontaine

mhge wrote: »

These women have husbands and children too. I find that in the abortion discourse it's often overlooked. Imagine the husband having to lie that he's the father or seeing his wife carry the child of her rapist, on top of her trauma.

Or if he is her rapist.

jmayo

looksee wrote: »

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

Yipee the good old Irish solution to Irish problems. :mad:
People can just feck off if they don't fit in or God forbid don't want to toe the Catholic churches line, right ?

Solair wrote: »

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.

Some in FG may be, and may have been, deeply conservative (anyone remember that weapon alice glenn), but I think people forget Garrett and his crusades on contraception, divorce, etc.

The thing I am disappointed in at the moment is this change in abortion legislation seems to be soley on the element of suicide with rape added into the mix, and it doesn't even seem to include the areas such as medical viability of the foetus.
There are many cases where women are told the chances of their foetus reaching birth nevermind survivng after birth is very very slim.

They are basically told by our health system that if you don't want the anguish of continuing with a very probable non viable foetus that you need to feck off to the UK or Northern Ireland.
That is one hell of a trip to have to endure.

goose2005

DanDan6592 wrote: »

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.

I can't comprehend how one can be anti-abortion except in rape cases - surely the whole point of being anti-abortion is that the foetus is a full human with legal and moral right to protection, which hardly changes is the foetus was conceived via rape.

mhge wrote: »

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

But don't you see that, if you believed a foetus was a human, abortion becomes no different to infanticide?

I don't believe a foetus is a human until 6 months at the very earliest, but if I did so, I would hardly decide it was a non-human based on how he/she was conceived.

mhge wrote: »

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

Is this the old "if men could get pregnant" canard? Because the rights of men to choose whether or not to be parents are even more restricted than women's - their only choice is to have sex or not, beyond that the mother has all the power.

Nodin

goose2005 wrote: »

I can't comprehend how one can be anti-abortion except in rape cases - surely the whole point of being anti-abortion is that the foetus is a full human with legal and moral right to protection, which hardly changes is the foetus was conceived via rape.


.

Consideration for the mother, and thinking of her as a human being, rather than an occassional incubator for babies.

clairefontaine

goose2005 wrote: »

I can't comprehend how one can be anti-abortion except in rape cases - surely the whole point of being anti-abortion is that the foetus is a full human with legal and moral right to protection, which hardly changes is the foetus was conceived via rape.



But don't you see that, if you believed a foetus was a human, abortion becomes no different to infanticide?

I don't believe a foetus is a human until 6 months at the very earliest, but if I did so, I would hardly decide it was a non-human based on how he/she was conceived.



Is this the old "if men could get pregnant" canard? Because the rights of men to choose whether or not to be parents are even more restricted than women's - their only choice is to have sex or not, beyond that the mother has all the power.

Because it would be pretty hard to co parent with your rapist and would put the mother in danger. Rape is a signficant violence towards the person. If you share a child you are tied to them forever unless you can eliminate father's rights to the child in the case of rape, which you obviously can't do.

micho

Micheal Martin is obfuscating as usual, he states that the party has an issue with the suiside question, he is equivical on weather he will support legislating for X. What he and others are avoiding is that it is legal for a termination of pregnancy to occur even in the absence of legislation. The purpose of legislation is (a) to give statutory effect to a constitutional right and (b) to bring legal clarity for pregnant women and the medical profession.

There seems to be a view among certain politicians that the absence of legislation means that abortion remains illegal and thus satisfying political expediency rather than any matter of principle.

Silvio.Dante

This is a fantastic step forward for the Life campaign.John Bruton and Micheál Martin nailing thier Life colours to the mast...

p1akuw47h5r3it

goose2005 wrote: »

I can't comprehend how one can be anti-abortion except in rape cases - surely the whole point of being anti-abortion is that the foetus is a full human with legal and moral right to protection, which hardly changes is the foetus was conceived via rape.

The difference is that a woman who falls pregnant outside rape has willingly engaged is sexual intercourse and become pregnant as a result as opposed to a woman who has had sexed forced on her.

They are different cases. Like Bluwolf, I also believe that it is contradictory however a better argument can be put forward for the non-rape cases as the woman chose to have sex.

oscarBravo

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The difference is that a woman who falls pregnant outside rape has willingly engaged is sexual intercourse and become pregnant as a result as opposed to a woman who has had sexed forced on her.

They are different cases. Like Bluwolf, I also believe that it is contradictory however a better argument can be put forward for the non-rape cases as the woman chose to have sex.

That's a pretty paternalistic argument, though. It boils down to the belief that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she must abstain completely from sex.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a pretty paternalistic argument, though. It boils down to the belief that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she must abstain completely from sex.

Well, we didn't say it made sense or was a good argument!
It's pretty awful, that's why it's "pro-punishment for having sex"
Analogies may include "if you didn't want to drown you shouldn't have gone swimming" and "if you didn't want to get injured you shouldn't have got into the car, of course you can't have medical attention"

p1akuw47h5r3it

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a pretty paternalistic argument, though. It boils down to the belief that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she must abstain completely from sex.

bluewolf wrote: »

Well, we didn't say it made sense or was a good argument!
It's pretty awful, that's why it's "pro-punishment for having sex"
Analogies may include "if you didn't want to drown you shouldn't have gone swimming" and "if you didn't want to get injured you shouldn't have got into the car, of course you can't have medical attention"

Hi, I'm not agreeing with that position. I agree with bluewolf it's a pretty bad argument!

goose2005

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a pretty paternalistic argument, though. It boils down to the belief that if a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she must abstain completely from sex.

And it makes abortion all about the woman, with both sides ignoring any of the arguments for or against the foetus's status as a human, which is entirely secondary to the whole Culture War thing they have going.

yore

DanDan6592 wrote: »

The difference is that a woman who falls pregnant outside rape has willingly engaged is sexual intercourse and become pregnant as a result as opposed to a woman who has had sexed forced on her.

They are different cases. Like Bluwolf, I also believe that it is contradictory however a better argument can be put forward for the non-rape cases as the woman chose to have sex.

Ok, let me make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. A child conceived as the result of a rape does not have the same right to life as a child whose mother got drunk and had unprotected sex?

p1akuw47h5r3it

yore wrote: »

Ok, let me make sure that I'm understanding you correctly. A child conceived as the result of a rape does not have the same right to life as a child whose mother got drunk and had unprotected sex?

Have you read the thread?

Gbear

If you've decided that a foetus is a person with the related rights then it's perfectly logically consistent to be against abortion in the case of rape.

Many anti-abortion people use the line of thought that sex should be punished but plenty also simply go for the sanctity of life angle or a mixture of both.
It's perfectly logical once you're starting from the false premise that a foetus = a baby.

JOB93

If a man wants an abortion and a woman doesn't what happens? And vice versa, what if a woman wants one but the father doesn't? Does the woman have 100% authority on it? That wouldn't seem fair

southsiderosie

bluewolf wrote: »

In fairness to the man, either you think a fetus is a life that needs to be saved or you don't.
Pro "lifers" who think abortion is ok in rape "because it's not her fault" are pro-punishment for having sex, not pro life

If I could thank this post 1000 times, I would. I strongly disagree with anti-abortion activists who oppose abortion under any circumstances, but at least their position is both morally and logically consistent. Many of the "only in cases of rape and incest" crowd should just go ahead and dub themselves the "You can have an abortion if you aren't a hussy" patrol.

goose2005 wrote: »

And it makes abortion all about the woman, with both sides ignoring any of the arguments for or against the foetus's status as a human, which is entirely secondary to the whole Culture War thing they have going.

That isn't true at all. It's not that arguments for the rights of the fetus are ignored, the issue is that for people who are pro-choice, the rights of the woman take precedence over the rights of the fetus.

p1akuw47h5r3it

JOB93 wrote: »

If a man wants an abortion and a woman doesn't what happens? And vice versa, what if a woman wants one but the father doesn't? Does the woman have 100% authority on it? That wouldn't seem fair

It's not fair but what can you do? At the end of the day she has the fetus inside her so it's her choice.

And would you really want to force girl to go through a pregnancy and birth just for your benefit?

JOB93

Its hardly for my own benefit. No pro life person holds their views for their own benefit.

It just seems like a double standard that a reluctant father should "man up", take responsibility and pay for his unwanted children whereas the mother should have a choice if she doesn't want kids. 9 months of unwanted pregnancy would be tough, all that nausea, taking time off work etc, not to mention childbirth, but I'm sure there are plenty of single fathers who would prefer that over paying hundreds of thousands of euro for the next 18 years to support a child they may not see regularly and never form a bond with.

Is there any difference between a woman who gets an abortion and a deadbeat dad besides gender? Not really

p1akuw47h5r3it

JOB93 wrote: »

Its hardly for my own benefit. No pro life person holds their views for their own benefit.

It just seems like a double standard that a reluctant father should "man up", take responsibility and pay for his unwanted children whereas the mother should have a choice if she doesn't want kids. 9 months of unwanted pregnancy would be tough, all that nausea, taking time off work etc, not to mention childbirth, but I'm sure there are plenty of single fathers who would prefer that over paying hundreds of thousands of euro for the next 18 years to support a child they may not see regularly and never form a bond with.

Is there any difference between a woman who gets an abortion and a deadbeat dad besides gender? Not really

I remember reading a thread on Boards that discussed this issue. One argument was that there should be a "financial abortion" available to a father so that he doesn't have to pay money to the mother but would never get to see his child.

I can't remember the thread but it was interesting enough to read.

southsiderosie

JOB93 wrote: »

Its hardly for my own benefit. No pro life person holds their views for their own benefit.

It just seems like a double standard that a reluctant father should "man up", take responsibility and pay for his unwanted children whereas the mother should have a choice if she doesn't want kids. 9 months of unwanted pregnancy would be tough, all that nausea, taking time off work etc, not to mention childbirth, but I'm sure there are plenty of single fathers who would prefer that over paying hundreds of thousands of euro for the next 18 years to support a child they may not see regularly and never form a bond with.

Is there any difference between a woman who gets an abortion and a deadbeat dad besides gender? Not really

What does this have to do with abortion in the case of rape? I hate that almost every thread related to abortion on boards turns into whataboutary regarding the rights of the father - which in the context of this thread, is a rapist.

clairefontaine

southsiderosie wrote: »

If I could thank this post 1000 times, I would. I strongly disagree with anti-abortion activists who oppose abortion under any circumstances, but at least their position is both morally and logically consistent. Many of the "only in cases of rape and incest" crowd should just go ahead and dub themselves the "You can have an abortion if you aren't a hussy" patrol.



That isn't true at all. It's not that arguments for the rights of the fetus are ignored, the issue is that for people who are pro-choice, the rights of the woman take precedence over the rights of the fetus.

One of the things pro life should do too if they want to be absolutist about it is lobby government for means by which to remove paternal rights in the cases of rape. You may very well have women who would want to keep the child, but do not want to have to deal with their rapists every other weekend or at pta meetings.

The Corinthian

A rather bigoted debate, ironically.

The pro-choice/pro-life are divided upon a basic difference of definition; the former considers the foetus a person after some specified period of time after conception, while the latter considers the foetus a person immediately after conception.

So from a pro-choice point of view, what criticising Mícheál Martin's pro-life stance essentially equates to is attacking someone for not allowing late-term abortions at, say eight months - in saying this I am presuming that most people (on either side) would likely agree that it's a person at that stage of development.

Now you may disagree with his pro-life definition of when it a person with rights or not, but that's another discussion. If you accept his definition, there's absolutely nothing abhorrent about his comments and to try to dress them up as such either shows limited understanding of basic logic or is a trite attempt at an appeal to emotion argument.

Note, I am not arguing that his, pro-life, definition is correct - I am criticizing the presumptions made when criticizing him.