looksee wrote: » But at this stage the man has had the input. literally. He should only be able to opt out if he can prove the woman raped him.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Three problems there though. The first is the moral issue of using rape to change the circumstances of a fetus/child. Either the fetus has rights, or it does not. Modifying it's rights because someone (not it) committed a crime on someone else (also not it) makes no moral sense. It is one of the two main reasons I never use rape as a "pro choice" argument.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » The second is the problem of workability. People who use rape as a "pro choice" argument often fail to realize this can not really work in reality. One would either have to have the woman 1) Secure a conviction for rape (which takes too long, and he might be found innocent anyway) 2) Register the crime of rape (could be incentive for false life destroying accusations by women desperate for an abortion) or 3) Simply take her word for it (which would FUNCTIONALLY be abortion on demand, as women could lie).
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » All of these same issues would apply to what you say here too. Especially given the difficulty of proving rape. It is hard enough for women to prove rape, but at times it is even harder for men to. Further Rape is not the only way to secure an unwanted pregnancy from a male participant either. Contraceptive sabotage springs to mind.
dermotTrellis wrote: » if the mans involved with the woman he should have his opinion heard. the child is 50% his dna after all. then again he dosnt have to carry.... bit of a grey area
gozunda wrote: » Rape (for women) therefore remains a very valid argument for 'pro choice' argument.
gozunda wrote: » 1)A conviction is not necessarily required
gozunda wrote: » 2) A register of rape. For the love of humanity what kind of notion is that? Desperate for an abortion? There are much easier ways to secure an abortion - many many women have the sense to buy a plane ticket and go to a more civilised fracking country.
gozunda wrote: » Do false accusations happen? Yes in all spheres of life but they are irrelevant to the issue of the provision of abortion services.
gozunda wrote: » 3)Oh no women are liers!. Whatever you do - do not give them the benefit of the doubt! Force them into pregnancy whether they were raped or not!
gozunda wrote: » Who the hell would want to secure "an unwanted pregnancy"?? - I presume you mean one partners wants it and the other doesnt and not that the women gets pregnant just to seek an abortion? Because that makes no sense whatsover
gozunda wrote: » "But at times it is harder for men"????? - when a woman has been rapped - is pregnant and is going to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes along with the lifetime consequences which this entails. You've really got to be fracking joking mate.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » ^ He probably noticed water is wet soon after. He probably even thought he was making a relevant point when he said this. I am not seeing one though.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Would you still be pro choice if the gun was pointing at you? that's point he was trying to make.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Again though, the idea people have is that the fetus has a right to life. Yet somehow it LOSES that right when someone (not it) rapes someone else (not it). I struggle to think of many (any?) significant scenarios elsewhere where X loses rights because of a crime Y performed on Z.
drunkmonkey wrote: » non-sentient entities, not sure if it's been promoted or demoted from a blob.
gozunda wrote: » That maybe an "idea" but the norm in most developed countries is that development is not fixed so termination before 12 weeks is allowed because of that very fact.
gozunda wrote: » Forcing a woman who has been rapped and impregnated against her will to commit mentally and physically to a full term pregnancy that may or may not result in a possible life (No pregnancy is guranteed) is barbaric and ignores the rights of the victim in this crime
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I do not see calling a spade a spade as promoting or demoting a spade. I believe in calling it what it is. YMMV
drunkmonkey wrote: » Do you have children?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 2, though the relevance of this escapes me.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Just the coldness of your terminology made me question your stance. Ok carry on.
notjustsweet wrote: » What is the relevance of someone having children?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: The conviction is just an EXAMPLE of what I mean though, not the totality of it. I am talking about the very fact of having to ascertain they were raped. Underage girls aside, which were raped by definition, how would the AVERAGE woman being raped in the AVERAGE rape scenario ascertain successfully they were raped for the purposes of abortion?
One of the common points during the abortion debate is we should not BE forcing women to go elsewhere for abortions. And many people who really want an abortion can not afford the time, resources, money and so forth TO go to another country. Has a raped women not been through enough without being told "And now if you want to abort the spawn of that rapist, bugger off elsewhere"?
As for "what kind of notion is that", what I am talking about is reporting a rape to the Guards for example. Point "1" was about getting a conviction, which usually starts by registering a legal complaint. So point "2" was discussing whether registering the complaint would be enough. And I think that if a woman wanted an abortion, this could be incentive to claim to be raped when they did not actually get raped.
They are NOW. But I was discussing their relevance in a situation where an accusation of rape could or might be used to ascertain she was raped for the purposes of abortion. False accusations happen, yes, but we do not need to create incentives for them for no good or workable reason.
If you say so. I sure as hell did not. What I DID say, which might be more productive if you reply to that rather than something you invented yourself, was that if we had a situation of "If you say you were raped, you can have an abortion" then FUNCTIONALLY how is that any different from abortion on demand? ANY woman could then walk in, say "I was raped" and get the abortion she wants. FIND with me. As someone who wants a 12 week aboretion on demand, I would be happy enough with that as it is functionally IDENTICAL to what I would want.
Then you "presume" wrong. I was talking about a situation like, for example, the woman insists on the use of contraception but the male sabotages it and makes the woman pregnant. That is not "rape" exactly, but it is not far off. And if a woman rocks up saying "I was not raped but I was made pregnant against my will" how would you propose a system that would or even could parse such an incident?
Keep up please. I was talking about how it is harder for men to prove they were raped. Nothing to do with being pregnant or being forced to carry a pregnancy. So it is much less about joking and much more about you simply reading what I wrote COMPLETELY wrong. Read the whole sentence again rather than the bit you cherry picked out of it: "It is hard enough for women to prove rape, but at times it is even harder for men to."
drunkmonkey wrote: » They might have a different view. It's ok keep plugging away with the lop the head off it mantra. I was just curious.
gozunda wrote: » What the frack is average rape???? Each case to its merits and on the basis of medical and other evidence. If there was proper access to termination - then THERE IS NO NEED to 'prove' rape one way or the other and further demean those that have actually been raped.
gozunda wrote: » The point is WHY would any woman cry 'Rape' (as you indicated in your previous post) when she could simply get on a plane if she had not been 'raped and wanted an abortion? You are making no sense whatsoever on this point.
gozunda wrote: » No the women would just get on a frigging plane! Why do that to herself? An incentive - seriously?
gozunda wrote: » Jezus chrzt - why are you making up bizarre scenarios about the perfidity of women when again all any woman has to do is to get on a friggin plane to access an abortion rather than making something up and then notifying all and sundry that not only was she 'raped' but she is now pregnant and wishes to have an abortion!
gozunda wrote: » You appear oddly fixated on rape.
gozunda wrote: » Forget the 'requirement' to be raped in order to access a termination and simply bring in abortion up to and including 12 weeks. Problem solved.
gozunda wrote: » Introduce termination up to and including 12 weeks and forget about breaking bottles on stones ...
gozunda wrote: » No I disagree - the context of your post clearly proposed the above reply.
gozunda wrote: » how is male rape relevant to that point
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But I am not talking about it being fixed or development I am talking about the concept that an entity someone feels has rights in any other situation, suddenly does not because of a crime it had nothing to do with.
And that, as you point out, rape happens before a conception only makes that worse. So now it is not "X loses rights because of a crime Y commits on Z" but "X loses rights because of a crime Y commits on Z before X even existed". Talk about "Sins of the Fathers" stuff there.
But it simply does not parse coherently for me: Person1: Here is a fetus. Do you think it has a right to life? Person2: Yes it does. Person1: Actually the mother was raped. Person2: Now it doesn't.
I 100% agree! We are entirely on the same page there. I think you might have missed the fact that I agree with you, just because I think one of the arguments often offered FOR this position is a terrible one. I am disagreeing with the argument, not the conclusion. I think the conclusion can be reached with good arguments.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » In your need to shout a lot and use the word "frack" in every post, you seem to be entirely ignoring and missing the fact that I agree with most of what you are saying. I WANT proper access to termination. That is the whole point I have been making since the start of our little conversation......... that we have GOOD arguments for providing all inclusive access to abortion and that the "rape" argument is a bad one for a multiple of reasons, and is also superfluous to requirements AS an argument. Seriously maybe tone down the emotion a bit. You are making yourself look somewhat shrill here. You not understanding a point does not make a point lack sense. If I wanted a tatoo and I could have it down the road merely by saying the right thing at the right time, or I could spend 100s of euro to travel to the UK for it..... I would feel heavily compelled to say the right thing at the right time. Also you say "she could simply" as if this is some universal. A LOT of people do not find a quick trip to the UK all that simple. Check your privilege at the door if you would. There are people in situations that have not the money, or even if they have the money they do not have the time or resources, to simply go on such an unplanned trip on a whim. Especially if there are people in her life she might have to explain that absence to, who she would much rather keep the reasons for her trip private. Further many people want loved ones around them during a time like that. But nah, its "simple" to go on a lonely trip isn't it? If you present a woman in a desperate situation, who wants to avoid all that, a more simple "out"..... then I think you can expect many of them to take it. Further it is not "simple" to go to another country for medical interventions. There can be complications, emotional issues, follow up requirements and more. There is nothing SIMPLE about it. You really are making the trip to another country for a medical intervention sound like it is nothing more than going to London for a fun shopping trip. I have to assume you have little or no direct experience with abortion or people who have actually had them, or what they go through before, during and after. Yea it is funny in a conversation that YOU started with me ON THAT SUBJECT, I might be talking ABOUT that subject? Wow, the world is a funny place huh? YOU started a conversation with me about a point related to rape, and I am having a conversation with you ON that subject, and suddenly I am "fixated"? Yea. I am. Always. Fixated on staying on topic in a conversation. As well I should be. Do keep up please, that IS my point and always has been. I genuinely have no idea at this point how you are missing that. No. It seriously and really and demonstrably did not. I made a comment about the relative difficulties for men to prove rape over women proving it. And you went off on a completely different point about the difficulty of being raped and having to carry a pregnancy. That had not just little but ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with what I was saying. Not in what I wrote. Not in the context. Not at all. Again it would be REALLY helpful if you were to keep up with the conversation before replying to it further. I replied to a post about male rape. The EXACT line I replied to was "He should only be able to opt out if he can prove the woman raped him.".And at that point you started replying to me directly. You replied to post #782 which was a reply to post #752So how is male rape relevant? It is relevant because it was ENTIRELY the topic of the conversation you just butted into! At this point I would recommend, request, even BEG you to go back to post 752 and catch up on this conversation, and where it started. Because you have demonstrably lost the run of it entirely. For example the fact you ask me " are you referring to rapes by males or by females" is proof 100% positive that you have entirely missed the point that started the entire conversation in #752 in the first place. Go back, take a deep breath, start again, and catch up on the thread. As I think you are experiencing a lot of extreme negative emotions in this conversation that there is no reason for you to have to experience.
gozunda wrote: » So you talking completely hypothetically then?
gozunda wrote: » The entity does not have the rights you are assigning it at early stages of development in developed countries with medically approved abortion services.
gozunda wrote: » Early access to emergency birth control after a rape will even stop implantation if fertilisation has taken place.
gozunda wrote: » Now I think you are just making it up lol. Who is person 2 who is evidently schizophrenic? The person with that type of "right to life" belief ain't going to change their mind cos of anything like rape ...
gozunda wrote: » That is a helluva lot of verbage that really doesn't make a lot of sense
gozunda wrote: » You appear to be saying one thing and arguing another. May I suggest you stick to one or the other. If my exasperation is showing I apologise - however your varied tortuous scenarios are doing the opposite of your claim of looking for good arguments to support the provision of adequate abortion services all women and couples. I can't help you there.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » We do not have abortion. So all the conversations on this thread are essentially hypothetical at this time.
Man, I am getting this really surreal hitchikers guide to the galaxy kind of feeling like I am talking to you, but you are replying entirely to someone else in your head. I am on record on this thread, and many others on boards.ie, as very very very clearly stating I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has ANY rights, and that no one ANYWHERE on this forum is putting forward an argument as to why it might or should have any. And yet here you are telling me it "does not have the rights you are assigning it"? Where in the good name of Terry Tate Office Linebaker did I assign it any such thing? Could you quote me please or should I just repeat my request in the post above that you step away, go back a few pages, and catch up on a conversation you have clearly ENTIRELY lost the run of? I can help though. Here is my position on abortion: 1) I do not think the fetus at 0-16 weeks has any rights. 2) I believe therefore all women should be able to abort such for any reasons. 3) SOME People think the fetus has rights, but that raped women should be able to abort them. 4) I think this a TERRIBLE argument for abortion because: A) It is immensely difficult to establish she was raped in a timely and coherent fashion and IF you think a fetus does have rights, there is no good moral argument so far for eliminating them because of a crime it had no part in, and did not even exist during. And, to bring the conversation full circle, I feel ALL those points in one way or another apply to men who were raped too. So my message to ANYONE who wants raped women to have access to abortion: You need to vote for allowing ALL women to have abortion. It is the only sensible and workable and coherent way to go about it. Two issues with that though is such drugs are not 100%. You can take them and simply fail to interrupt proceedings. It is relatively rare of course, but so are bursting condoms. The second is that not everyone who is raped KNOWS they were raped. Usually this occurs in the presence of alcohol or some other drug for example. Sometimes a woman who is the victim of "stealthing" may not know it either. Search the forum for the words "rape" and "abortion". There are many people who believe exactly that. That abortion should not be allowed except in cases of rape. Hell we had one already
gozunda wrote: » There is absence of abortion services and then there is setting out the scenario of assigning rights to something that doesn't exist at the time of a rape. Understand the difference? I'll leave it with you ...
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I think we can pocket the feux patronisation from you here given not only do I clearly understand it, it has been the core of the points I have been making that you have lost the run and understanding of entirely.
