The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Candamir

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because it is inside another person and can't benefit or vindicate its rights until after it is born.

Of course it can.
If you believe a foetus/embryo has such rights then you are in favour of criminalising pregnant women who take drugs during pregnancy. Or smokes. Or drinks. Or eats unpasteurised cheese or undercooked eggs. All of these things are potentially or definitely harmful to the foetus, yet we don’t vindicate the unborns right not to be harmed, greviously or otherwise, due to the actions (or inactions - failure to take folic acid prior to conception and in early pregnancy for example) of the woman.

Bannasidhe

JDD wrote: »

We accept all sorts of circumstances within our society where a human life is ended

This, I think, is an important point.
If a person is truly pro-life and believes it is morally wrong to take a human life than that should surely be without qualification. No 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'.

Logically extending this, it shouldn't matter where that life is ended. Geography shouldn't be a factor if wrong is wrong is wrong.

A committed pro-life person should oppose abortion in all circumstances but equally they should just a vehemently oppose the taking of the lives of the born. They should be pacifists. They should oppose the right to travel. They should oppose military flights entering Irish airspace. They should refuse to have their taxes used for the military.

Equally, since they want to save lives from being what they consider prematurely ended than shouldn't they in favour of refugees in danger of drowning, for example, being immediately picked up and brought to safely regardless of cost?
Insisting that those refugees be housed in suitable accommodation, given medical treatment, and properly fed?
Screaming and roaring about people being denied life saving medication due to cost?
Working to end Capital punishment...?

And that's just the times when life is deliberately being cut short due to someone somewhere making a decision.

Now, I would respect such a person, while also disagreeing with them on one key issue, because they are carrying their beliefs though to all aspects of the human existence not just fixated on one issue and ignoring all the other times human life is wilfully ended.

But to be honest - I am not seeing these people in the largely conservative pro-life movement. I am seeing them in the pro-choice movement and they are often dismissed by those conservatives as 'crusties' and 'loony lefties' etc.

jimmycrackcorm

Bannasidhe wrote:

This, I think is an important point. If a person is truly pro-life and believes it is morally wrong to take a human life than that should surely be without qualification. No 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts'.

But why should it be without qualification? Why so black and white?

In hospitals is very common to have a do not resusitate instruction for a patient near end of life, or even to stop trying to provide treatment that would only effect a poor quality of life for a short period.

I doubt anyone who is truly pro life could actually say that there aren't circumstances where a death is an inevitable choice, whether it's a 9 week fetus or pulling the plug on a terminal 90 year old.

Bannasidhe

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But why should it be without qualification? Why so black and white?

In hospitals is very common to have a do not resusitate instruction for a patient near end of life, or even to stop trying to provide treatment that would only effect a poor quality of life for a short period.

I doubt anyone who is truly pro life could actually say that there aren't circumstances where a death is an inevitable choice, whether it's a 9 week fetus or pulling the plug on a terminal 90 year old.

We have been treated to a barrage of posts about 'human life' and why it is morally wrong to take it. But then we get the caveats. If this human life exists because of rape or incest it's ok - why? Why is it ok to end that 'life' but not the accidental 'life'?


Why is choice inevitable in some circumstances but murder in others?

It's either morally wrong or it isn't. That is black and white.

amdublin

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I doubt anyone who is truly pro life could actually say that there aren't circumstances where a death is an inevitable choice, whether it's a 9 week fetus or pulling the plug on a terminal 90 year old.

Is that not the point though? They seem to be arbitrarily able to draw lines of what they are are ok with or what they are not ok with. And in my opinion they seem to be obsessed with stopping abortions but not caring much about the other lives as outlined in bannsidhes post.

Sigh. It really feels like an intrusion on my sex life and my reproductive organs.
In the 1970s it was all about whether I could or couldn't use contraception. And now it's all about abortion and my maternity care choices.
I wish they would stay out of my bedroom and body to be honest

Andrew Beef

kylith wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Abortion illegal except in medical cases, incest cases, and rape cases.

Allowing it in rape cases raises difficulties. Do you wait for conviction? That can take years. Would it require just a Garda report? The rate of false reporting would skyrocket. Do you take the woman’s word that she was raped and allow it without formal reporting? What’s the difference between that and allowing it on request?

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

NuMarvel

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I presume you mean except for our constitution?

Not even in our constitution unless you can cite the Article that's the direct equivalent of the 13th Amendment for someone who is born.

kylith

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

So it would come down to a panel deciding whether a woman was lying or not before it ever went to trial? You don't think that that would prejudice the trial in any way, no? How would the Rape Committee come to this conclusion? Do you think that this would lead to fewer women reporting rapes as they would have to attend a hearing on whether she was a liar before it even went to court or any charges were made? Are Gardai, GPs and psychologists infallible in telling whether or not someone is lying?

seamus

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

I think you're understating the primary issue there;

You're aiming to prevent women from lying about rape to get an abortion. So from your point of view it's a good thing that this committee might prevent such a thing.

What you're forgetting is the reason why we want to allow abortion in the case of rape in the first place. And these committees will undoubtedly force some women to have to carry their rapist's baby to term. Which makes the entire endeavour pointless - rather than face the indignity of 3 strangers deciding whether or not they were raped, women will just do what they do now - go overseas or take some pills.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Andrew Beef

kylith wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

So it would come down to a panel deciding whether a woman was lying or not before it ever went to trial? You don't think that that would prejudice the trial in any way, no? How would the Rape Committee come to this conclusion? Do you think that this would lead to fewer women reporting rapes as they would have to attend a hearing on whether she was a liar before it even went to court or any charges were made? Are Gardai, GPs and psychologists infallible in telling whether or not someone is lying?

You don’t appear to have read my post at all. The “Rape Committee” process is independent of an ordinary trial and cannot be referenced at any subsequent criminal trial.

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

Role play it with me. You are the entire committee, I am the woman's dad.

Before the hearing, I tell her to say she had a few drinks, went to a party, doesn't recall where it was, got raped by a guy she didn't know in a dark room, and made her way home alone. She remembers no other details.

OK, go.

Call me Al

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

This essentially becomes a rape trial with the woman in the dock by virtue of the fact that a panel has to decide whether shd is telling a sufficiently plausible version of events or not. The woman may not want to formally accuse her attacker. That should be her choice.
I think the idea of such a "panel", judge and jury on whether or not they believe she's telling the truth, is appalling.

Andrew Beef

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

Role play it with me. You are the entire committee, I am the woman's dad.

Before the hearing, I tell her to say she had a few drinks, went to a party, doesn't recall where it was, got raped by a guy she didn't know in a dark room, and made her way home alone. She remembers no other details.

OK, go.

I’m neither a Garda nor a medical professional; the whole point of having the clinical psychologist there is to determine whether the woman is a bona fide rape case or playacting.

zedhead

Andrew Beef wrote: »

You don’t appear to have read my post at all. The “Rape Committee” process is independent of an ordinary trial and cannot be referenced at any subsequent criminal trial.

You still haven't answered why the foetus that is the product of rape is not entitled to the same protection as all other foetus? Is it a different variety of human life?

January

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I’m neither a Garda nor a medical professional; the whole point of having the clinical psychologist there is to determine whether the woman is a bona fide rape case or playacting.

Sometimes it's hard to judge that though, which as someone already said will mean the women who convince the panel (even though they may not have been raped) will get the abortion and the women who don't convince the panel (even though they genuinely have been raped) will be forced to continue their pregnancy and carry their rapists baby.

Gardai, GP's and psychologists are not infallible.

How is that fair?

Andrew Beef

The interaction between abortion and rape is a key issue; at least I have proposed a potential solution rather than simply rant and gas-bag as most people do.

Complex issues such as this are so polarising and will never result in agreement.

SusieBlue

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The time-lag is the greatest challenge in terms of rape cases; by the time the case has been proven, the baby has been born.

It would therefore be necessary to set up “Rape Committees”, basically a three person tribunal consisting of a Garda of Superintendent rank or greater, a GP, and a clinical psychologist; in cases where the Rape Committee agree unanimously that a rape has taken place, an abortion would be permitted. The findings of the rape committee would remain confidential so as not to contaminate the actual trial.

Wow, it’s almost as though you tried your hardest to come up with a solution that would make life even MORE distressing for a woman who is now pregnant after being raped.
As if the whole thing isn’t traumatic enough, you now want to add another upsetting obstacle in her way of getting justice.
No wonder so few women come forward with notions like these around the place.

January

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The interaction between abortion and rape is a key issue; at least I have proposed a potential solution rather than simply rant and gas-bag as most people do.

Complex issues such as this are so polarising and will never result in agreement.

No, you haven't proposed a potential solution, what you have proposed is putting women on trial for being raped. An utterly idiotic idea when you take into account the trauma the woman has gone through being raped and finding out she is pregnant with her rapists baby, you want her to convince people she actually was raped so she can have a 'good' abortion.

Andrew Beef

zedhead wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

You don’t appear to have read my post at all. The “Rape Committee” process is independent of an ordinary trial and cannot be referenced at any subsequent criminal trial.

You still haven't answered why the foetus that is the product of rape is not entitled to the same protection as all other foetus? Is it a different variety of human life?

In my view, it’s a simple enough equation.

- A woman’s right to life trumps an unborn child’s right to life, so abortion is fine in medical cases.

- An unborn child’s right to life trumps a woman’s right to choose, so abortion is wrong in discretionary cases.

- A woman’s right not to be forcibly impregnated by a rapist trumps an unborn child’s right to life.

Call me Al

How can a garda commissioner or similar rank allow a named attacker (if one is named in a rape/incest case) not ensure that person is charged for the crime, if it's unanimously deemed by the panel that the woman has been raped?
Do they allow an incest victim back into a home once they're aware of a threat?

NuMarvel

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I’m neither a Garda nor a medical professional; the whole point of having the clinical psychologist there is to determine whether the woman is a bona fide rape case or playacting.

When did clinical psychologists become human lie detectors?

splinter65

January wrote: »

That's not true either.

https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/news/2017/08/16/doctor_says_cbs_news_claims_on_iceland_downs_and_ab/

One newspaper article contradicts another. The UK Independent doesn’t really have a dog in the fight though...

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

the whole point of having the clinical psychologist there is to determine whether the woman is a bona fide rape case or playacting.

Wow, clinical psychology has apparently progressed a lot recently - they can say with 100% accuracy if a witness is lying now? That should be useful in other legal situations.

January

splinter65 wrote: »

One newspaper article contradicts another. The UK Independent doesn’t really have a dog in the fight though...

It's been debunked by doctors in Iceland time and time again. I can share an article from the Abortion Rights Campaign on it too but you'd probably claim bias there.

Iceland is not trying to eradicate Down's Syndrome, just as Denmark isn't either.

zedhead

Andrew Beef wrote: »

In my view, it’s a simple enough equation.

- A woman’s right to life trumps an unborn child’s right to life, so abortion is fine in medical cases.

- An unborn child’s right to life trumps a woman’s right to choose, so abortion is wrong in discretionary cases.

- A woman’s right not to be forcibly impregnated by a rapist trumps an unborn child’s right to life.

The first one makes at least some sense as should the woman die, most likely the feotus dies too.

But I still don't understand the difference in the status of the foetus in the other 2 scenarios. She has already been forcibly impregnated, the abortion doesn't stop that. So either way the foetus exists and is being terminated. Why is it just rape - if the contraception used fails then she has not chosen to be pregnant either. So why is there a difference here. Either the feotus has a right to life or it doesn't.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

It all comes down to the one thing at the end of the day.

Only "good" women should be allowed have abortion.

Will we ever move on in this country? Seriously?

Have we learned nothing from the past?

JDD

Andrew Beef wrote: »

In my view, it’s a simple enough equation.

- A woman’s right to life trumps an unborn child’s right to life, so abortion is fine in medical cases.

- An unborn child’s right to life trumps a woman’s right to choose, so abortion is wrong in discretionary cases.

- A woman’s right not to be forcibly impregnated by a rapist trumps an unborn child’s right to life.

Genuine question. Would you also suggest a rape committee for a child that has been statutorily raped? Or would abortions be allowed in all cases where the child is under the age of 17?

Billy86

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I’m neither a Garda nor a medical professional; the whole point of having the clinical psychologist there is to determine whether the woman is a bona fide rape case or playacting.

Unfortunately, neither Gardai nor psychologists are magical beings.

2wsxcde3

kylith wrote: »

So it would come down to a panel deciding whether a woman was lying or not before it ever went to trial? You don't think that that would prejudice the trial in any way, no? How would the Rape Committee come to this conclusion? Do you think that this would lead to fewer women reporting rapes as they would have to attend a hearing on whether she was a liar before it even went to court or any charges were made? Are Gardai, GPs and psychologists infallible in telling whether or not someone is lying?

Well this takes the biscuit.

Pro-choicers are saying "We must trust women!!". Then when you say, ok rape victims should file a report that they have been raped at the local garda station in order to get an abortion ...they say "No, she might be lying!!!!"

Do you trust women or don't you? If you trust women, then a simple system where rape victims would file a report at the local garda station would be enough. Most women looking for an abortion would not have the nerve to lie to gardai that they have been raped. But obviously, pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

Incidentally, i'm against abortion in cases of rape as the baby in question is completely innocent. But i think Simon Coveney was right, it would be possible to set up a system where genuine rape victims would report to gardai that they have been raped, and assuming nothing obviously out of place with their story exists, that the superintendent would sign a form to this effect. I think pro-choicers fear such a system because then they wouldn't be able to have abortion on demand which is their true goal.

kylith

Andrew Beef wrote: »

You don’t appear to have read my post at all. The “Rape Committee” process is independent of an ordinary trial and cannot be referenced at any subsequent criminal trial.

HOw could it not be? If she was raped 2 years ago and the jury learns that she has an 18 month old child that could prejudice them into believing that the ‘rape committee’ decided that she wasn’t plausible enough to be allowed a termination which would affect their decision.

2wsxcde3

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Well this takes the biscuit.

Pro-choicers are saying "We must trust women!!". Then when you say, ok rape victims should file a report that they have been raped at the local garda station in order to get an abortion ...they say "No, she might be lying!!!!"

Do you trust women or don't you? If you trust women, then a simple system where rape victims would file a report at the local garda station would be enough. Most women looking for an abortion would not have the nerve to lie to gardai that they have been raped. But obviously, pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

Incidentally, i'm against abortion in cases of rape as the baby in question is completely innocent. But i think Simon Coveney was right, it would be possible to set up a system where genuine rape victims would report to gardai that they have been raped, and assuming nothing obviously out of place with their story exists, that the superintendent would sign a form to this effect. I think pro-choicers fear such a system because then they wouldn't be able to have abortion on demand which is their true goal.

I think most normal thinking peoples problem with this suggestion is that it is putting women on trial for being raped.

Also, I don't know how many rape or sexual assault victims you have dealt with, but I can assure you that by forcing those victims to report the crimes, you are not helping them. In fact you may damage them even further.

Zubeneschamali

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

I think pro-choicers fear such a system because then they wouldn't be able to have abortion on demand which is their true goal.

But that system is abortion on demand, the woman just has to lie on a form to get it.

January

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Well this takes the biscuit.

Pro-choicers are saying "We must trust women!!". Then when you say, ok rape victims should file a report that they have been raped at the local garda station in order to get an abortion ...they say "No, she might be lying!!!!"

Do you trust women or don't you? If you trust women, then a simple system where rape victims would file a report at the local garda station would be enough. Most women looking for an abortion would not have the nerve to lie to gardai that they have been raped. But obviously, pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

Incidentally, i'm against abortion in cases of rape as the baby in question is completely innocent. But i think Simon Coveney was right, it would be possible to set up a system where genuine rape victims would report to gardai that they have been raped, and assuming nothing obviously out of place with their story exists, that the superintendent would sign a form to this effect. I think pro-choicers fear such a system because then they wouldn't be able to have abortion on demand which is their true goal.

No, we fear such a system because we don't want to put women at the mercy of reporting their rape so they can obtain an abortion. Some women don't want to report their rape. Why should they be forced to?

Mr. CooL ICE

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Well this takes the biscuit.

Pro-choicers are saying "We must trust women!!". Then when you say, ok rape victims should file a report that they have been raped at the local garda station in order to get an abortion ...they say "No, she might be lying!!!!"

Do you trust women or don't you? If you trust women, then a simple system where rape victims would file a report at the local garda station would be enough. Most women looking for an abortion would not have the nerve to lie to gardai that they have been raped. But obviously, pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

Incidentally, i'm against abortion in cases of rape as the baby in question is completely innocent. But i think Simon Coveney was right, it would be possible to set up a system where genuine rape victims would report to gardai that they have been raped, and assuming nothing obviously out of place with their story exists, that the superintendent would sign a form to this effect. I think pro-choicers fear such a system because then they wouldn't be able to have abortion on demand which is their true goal.

Seems like you are completely missing the point. Deliberately or not, I honestly don't know.

The pro choice view of trusting women is trusting them to make choices regarding their body. What you describe is trusting women in a regime where they have no choice and would have to go through a jury before a trial gets to court.

You are applying a statement made in one narrative and trying to apply it to your own.

kylith

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Well this takes the biscuit.

Pro-choicers are saying "We must trust women!!". Then when you say, ok rape victims should file a report that they have been raped at the local garda station in order to get an abortion ...they say "No, she might be lying!!!!"

Do you trust women or don't you? If you trust women, then a simple system where rape victims would file a report at the local garda station would be enough. Most women looking for an abortion would not have the nerve to lie to gardai that they have been raped. But obviously, pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

Women who don’t want to be pregnant have historically put knitting needles through their cervices, thrown themselves downstairs, scalded themselves, and poisoned themselves and you’re suggesting that a desperate woman wouldn’t have the nerve to lie to a Garda! I could laugh.

If a ‘simple system where filing a report at a Garda station would be enough’ then there is no practical difference between that and abortion on request as anyone could file a report.

I trust women to know what is right in their circumstances.

ohnonotgmail

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Well this takes the biscuit.

Pro-choicers are saying "We must trust women!!". Then when you say, ok rape victims should file a report that they have been raped at the local garda station in order to get an abortion ...they say "No, she might be lying!!!!"

Do you trust women or don't you? If you trust women, then a simple system where rape victims would file a report at the local garda station would be enough. Most women looking for an abortion would not have the nerve to lie to gardai that they have been raped. But obviously, pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

Incidentally, i'm against abortion in cases of rape as the baby in question is completely innocent. But i think Simon Coveney was right, it would be possible to set up a system where genuine rape victims would report to gardai that they have been raped, and assuming nothing obviously out of place with their story exists, that the superintendent would sign a form to this effect. I think pro-choicers fear such a system because then they wouldn't be able to have abortion on demand which is their true goal.

Wow, you have managed to complete misread what has been posted. The problem with such "rape committees" (and frankly that sounds like it has been lifted from an Orwell novel) is that women wont be believed and this denied an abortion. It also adds further trauma to what they have already undergone.

Call me Al

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Well this takes the biscuit.

Pro-choicers are saying "We must trust women!!". Then when you say, ok rape victims should file a report that they have been raped at the local garda station in order to get an abortion ...they say "No, she might be lying!!!!"

Do you trust women or don't you? If you trust women, then a simple system where rape victims would file a report at the local garda station would be enough. Most women looking for an abortion would not have the nerve to lie to gardai that they have been raped. But obviously, pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

Incidentally, i'm against abortion in cases of rape as the baby in question is completely innocent. But i think Simon Coveney was right, it would be possible to set up a system where genuine rape victims would report to gardai that they have been raped, and assuming nothing obviously out of place with their story exists, that the superintendent would sign a form to this effect. I think pro-choicers fear such a system because then they wouldn't be able to have abortion on demand which is their true goal.

Why should she have to report the rape?
She may be in a domestic violence situation.

The practicalities of a situation you're trying to imply are logical are inappropriate in every possible level.

2wsxcde3

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Seems like you are completely missing the point. Deliberately or not, I honestly don't know.

The pro choice view of trusting women is trusting them to make choices regarding their body. What you describe is trusting women in a regime where they have no choice and would have to go through a jury before a trial gets to court.

You are applying a statement made in one narrative and trying to apply it to your own.

No ones suggesting they have to go to trial. Simply file a report at a garda station that they have been raped and would like an abortion. The women need take no further action beyond that.

But obviously pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

2wsxcde3

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

No ones suggesting they have to go to trial. Simply file a report at a garda station that they have been raped and would like an abortion. The women need take no further action beyond that.

But obviously pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

I'm not sure why you think forcing women to report a rape is anyway acceptable?

January

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

No ones suggesting they have to go to trial. Simply file a report at a garda station that they have been raped and would like an abortion. The women need take no further action beyond that.

But obviously pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

The DPP would be duty bound to take any man named in a rape report to court.

We trust women, you don't.

Zubeneschamali

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Simply file a report at a garda station that they have been raped and would like an abortion. The women need take no further action beyond that.

What is the advantage of that system over the system proposed by the Citizen's Assembly where the women don't file any reports to get an abortion?

Call me Al

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

No ones suggesting they have to go to trial. Simply file a report at a garda station that they have been raped and would like an abortion. The women need take no further action beyond that.

But obviously pro-choicers don't trust women enough to tell the truth.

Once a crime is reported it has to be investigated.
So no, it's not remotely the box-ticking exercise you are intent to portray it as.

Beethoven9th

Doesnt the availability of emergency contraceptive pill, the Morning After Pill make some of this debate academic. ?

January

Beethoven9th wrote: »

Doesnt the availability of emergency contraceptive pill, the Morning After Pill make some of this debate academic. ?

It's not 100% effective and it's not always suitable to take.

ohnonotgmail

Beethoven9th wrote: »

Doesnt the availability of emergency contraceptive pill, the Morning After Pill make some of this debate academic. ?

January wrote: »

It's not 100% effective and it's not always suitable to take.

and it also has a limited timeframe in which it works.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

JDD

Incidentally, i'm against abortion in cases of rape as the baby in question is completely innocent. But i think Simon Coveney was right, it would be possible to set up a system where genuine rape victims would report to gardai that they have been raped, and assuming nothing obviously out of place with their story exists,

I think that's a little different to attending a "rape committee" and engaging in what amounts to a cross examination. You're suggesting you just go the local garda station and report the rape, and get the garda super to sign a form.

To be honest, if I was in a situation where I couldn't travel to the UK, or couldn't order pills online, i.e. if I was an immigrant in a detention centre, in jail, or under the care of the HSE (being a ward of court or a minor in care) I wouldn't even think twice about going to Garda Super and saying I was raped. It would be p*ss easy to say I was raped and don't want to officially report it because, oh I dunno, I was drunk and I don't think I would get a conviction and I am already so traumatized a rape trial would send me over the edge. Job done.

When we say "trust women" we mean trust women not to use abortion as a contraceptive, that they are making a difficult (or sometimes not so difficult) choice that is the best interests of their health and their welfare. Not "trust women" to not abuse an abhorrent and judgemental process designed to find out whether they've been a "good girl" and haven't been engaging in consensual sex. In fact I'd "trust women" to absolutely abuse that system. I'd campaign for them to abuse. I'd run classes on how to abuse that system.