nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.

[Deleted User]

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?