Morning After Pill For Victims of Rape -What's So Outrageous?

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,354
TD stands over 'outrageous statements' on 'morning after' pill for rape victims - Independent.ie


A Fine Gael TD has defended remarks in which he appeared to suggest the morning-after pill was a solution for crisis pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

Bernard Durkan faced criticism for a question he asked at a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee examining the Eighth Amendment on abortion.

Mr Durkan began his question saying: "With regard to rape and incest, presumably rape is reported on the day or the day after and there is particular treatment fairly readily available."

He asked the chairperson of the Citizens' Assembly, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy, if there had been discussion at that forum about the availability of such treatment, referring to the morning-after pill.

Earlier this year the Citizens' Assembly recommended a more liberal abortion regime that would allow the procedure in a range of circumstances.

Solidarity TD and fellow committee member Ruth Coppinger claimed on social media that Mr Durkan had made "some outrageous statements about rape" at the committee's meeting last week. She said that most people who are raped don't report it at all, and criticised his apparent suggestion that there was a treatment available for those who become pregnant after a rape.

What's so objectionable to suggest that someone who has been raped should avail of the morning after pill?
Reporting of rape and availing of the Morning After Pill are two separate issues.

As long as a woman is not being held against her will after being raped, isn't there an obligation on her to seek the morning after pill to avoid pregnancy?

Isn't there an obligation on a person to seek immediate medical attention if they've been bitten by a dog or have been physically assaulted or maybe have been in a car accident? Waiting for an injury to worsen for an insurance claim wouldn't stand up in court so why should it for someone who has been raped?

I'll tell you why.

In the world or the Pro Choice Lobby, ANY situation that can mitigate the necessity for access to abortion right up to full term must be put down and described as outrageous.


The incidence of pregnancy resulting from rape seems to be in the region of 5%. Some say more. Statutory rape is a separate matter. Should teenage girls plead stupidity for not accessing the morning after pill? Don't we already give them the HPV vaccine to avoid a sexually transmitted disease from age 12 -so how about the morning after pill?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_from_rape

A 1996 study of 44 cases of rape-related pregnancy estimated that in the United States, the pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45).[10][12] A 1987 study also found a 5% pregnancy rate from rape among 18- to 24-year-old college students in the US.[13] A 2005 study placed the rape-related pregnancy rate at around 3–5%.[14]

A study of Ethiopian adolescents who reported being raped found that 17% subsequently became pregnant,[15] and rape crisis centres in Mexico reported the figure the rate of pregnancy from rape at 15–18%.[16] Estimates of rape-related pregnancy rates may be inaccurate since the crime is under-reported, resulting in some pregnancies from rape not being recorded as such,[14] or alternately, social pressure may mean some rapes are not reported if no pregnancy results.

Although most studies suggest that conception rates are independent of whether insemination is due to rape or consensual sex,[17] some analysts have suggested that the rate of conception may be higher,[18][19][20][21] or lower,[22][23][24] from insemination due to rape.

Psychologist Robert L. Smith states that some studies have reported "unusually high rates of conception following rape".[18] He cites a paper by C.A. Fox and Beatrice Fox, reporting that biologist Alan Sterling Parkes had speculated in personal correspondence that "there is a high conception rate in rape, where hormonal release, due to fear or anger, could produce reflex ovulation".[19] Smith also cites veterinary scientist Wolfgang Jöchle, who "proposed that rape may induce ovulation in human females".[20][21] Literary scholar Jonathan Gottschall and economist Tiffani Gottschall argued in a 2003 Human Nature article that previous studies of rape-pregnancy statistics were not directly comparable to pregnancy rates from consensual intercourse, because the comparisons were largely uncorrected for such factors as the use of contraception. Adjusting for these factors, they estimated that rapes are about twice as likely to result in pregnancies (7.98%) as "consensual, unprotected penile-vaginal intercourse" (2–4%). They discuss a variety of possible explanations and advance the hypothesis that rapists tend to target victims with biological "cues of high fecundity" or subtle indications of ovulation.[3]
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/here-is-some-legitimate-science-on-pregnancy-and-rape/

So, rape and consensual sex have the same pregnancy rate. This means that of those 64,080 US rapes in 2004-2005, minus the 15% of rapes that are of children under the age of 12 which gets us to 54,468 rapes of almost all reproductively-aged women, somewhere between 1,689 (3.1%) to 2,723 (5%) pregnancies from rape could have occurred in that year alone.
 


ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,092
The morning after pill isn't a treatment for rape. It's to deal with one particular consequence of rape. I think that is where the controversy lay as the TD seemed
to think popping a pill would make the rape go away.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,354
The morning after pill isn't a treatment for rape. It's to deal with one particular consequence of rape. I think that is where the controversy lay as the TD seemed
to think popping a pill would make the rape go away.
No one is saying rape isn't psychologically and emotionally destroying. And nobody anywhere said it was a "treatment" for rape. Someone did say it was a treatment to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

The morning after pill isn't a treatment for rape. It's to deal with one particular consequence of rape. I think that is where the controversy lay as the TD seemed
to think popping a pill would make the rape go away.
But since they were discussing the 8th amendment, that was the only consequence of rape proper to be discussed.
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,586
TD stands over 'outrageous statements' on 'morning after' pill for rape victims - Independent.ie





What's so objectionable to suggest that someone who has been raped should avail of the morning after pill?
Reporting of rape and availing of the Morning After Pill are two separate issues.

As long as a woman is not being held against her will after being raped, isn't there an obligation on her to seek the morning after pill to avoid pregnancy?

Isn't there an obligation on a person to seek immediate medical attention if they've been bitten by a dog or have been physically assaulted or maybe have been in a car accident? Waiting for an injury to worsen for an insurance claim wouldn't stand up in court so why should it for someone who has been raped?

I'll tell you why.

In the world or the Pro Choice Lobby, ANY situation that can mitigate the necessity for access to abortion right up to full term must be put down and described as outrageous.


The incidence of pregnancy resulting from rape seems to be in the region of 5%. Some say more. Statutory rape is a separate matter. Should teenage girls plead stupidity for not accessing the morning after pill? Don't we already give them the HPV vaccine to avoid a sexually transmitted disease from age 12 -so how about the morning after pill?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_from_rape



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/context-and-variation/here-is-some-legitimate-science-on-pregnancy-and-rape/
Many of the extreme pro-lifers claim the morning-after pill is an "abortifacient"

Then of course, so is God, since He arranged it that many fertilised ova do not attach to the womb wall 60% of the time, and the "life" represented by them is terminated.
 

ruserious

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
29,092
Many of the extreme pro-lifers claim the morning-after pill is an "abortifacient"

Then of course, so is God, since He arranged it that many fertilised ova do not attach to the womb wall 60% of the time, and the "life" represented by them is terminated.
It would be helpful to drop the boring assertion that all pro-lifers are bead rattlers.
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
49,731
Why are some anti-abortion people ok with ending potential human life in this manner?
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,163
Why are some anti-abortion people ok with ending potential human life in this manner?
A morning after pill stoves the egg from being fertilised so no life is created afaik.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
No one is saying rape isn't psychologically and emotionally destroying. And nobody anywhere said it was a "treatment" for rape. Someone did say it was a treatment to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
"With regard to rape and incest, presumably rape is reported on the day or the day after and there is particular treatment fairly readily available."

Where is unwanted pregnancy mentioned?

1. Rape and incest are reported.
2. A treatment is available.

It follows that the treatment is for the thing previously mentioned. That is, rape and incest.
 
Last edited:

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
Ask it another way;

Why are some human rights advocates ok with ending human life in this manner?
That's a very different question.

And apart from arguing from your conclusion, you're illegitimately broadening the issue to avoid having to admit an inconsistency any legitimage argument you might make for that conclusion.

Only Tonic gets a free out, he's against abortion only after implantation (jaysus knows what his grounds are, but hey, at least he frees himself from this morning-after question).
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
49,731
"With regard to rape and incest, presumably rape is reported on the day or the day after and there is particular treatment fairly readily available."

Where is unwanted pregnancy mentioned.

1. Rape and incest are reported.
2. A treatment is available.

It follows that the treatment is for the thing previously mentioned. That is, rape and incest.
Why is incest treated the same as rape?

If siblings or other relatives are over the age of consent, and freely consent to sex, why is such a pregnancy treated differently to other consensual pregnancies?

Of course if it is non consensual it should just be plain old rape.
 

Toland

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
63,162
Website
www.aggressive-secularist.com
A morning after pill stoves the egg from being fertilised so no life is created afaik.
Nope. They are designed to disrupt ovulation but if that fails what they do is prevent any fertilized egg from being implanted. According to the theological definition of conception, this killing a human being.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top