RBG, abortion and Ireland

8kczg9v0swrydm

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

The way I see it, Roe v Wade was foisted upon the American people. Abortion was a "value" of the liberal elites, who constituted a large part the court, but it was not a value for the majority of American citizens. The American population began to further recoil from it with the discovery of ultrasound scans, which clearly showed that the fetus very early on developed a head, limbs and a heartbeat; that it was a little human being. The stance on abortion is now one of the key factors in US elections and appointments.

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites. Another pro-life judge in the US Supreme Court could mean the end of their cherished abortion project. They are going all-out.

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

Mr. Karate

They didn't undo Roe V Wade once Kavanaugh was installed. So I doubt they'll do it once Comey is. And once again the Left will end up looking like hysterical idiots again.

CtevenSrowder

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

The way I see it, Roe v Wade was foisted upon the American people. Abortion was a "value" of the liberal elites, who constituted a large part the court, but it was not a value for the majority of American citizens. The American population began to further recoil from it with the discovery of ultrasound scans, which clearly showed that the fetus very early on developed a head, limbs and a heartbeat; that it was a little human being. The stance on abortion is now one of the key factors in US elections and appointments.

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites. Another pro-life judge in the US Supreme Court could mean the end of their cherished abortion project. They are going all-out.

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

In Ireland, the majority of people viewed that a women should have control over her own body, or at least that the 8th was a terrible amendment. What's hard to underst tand exactly?

SusieBlue

The referendum here was passed by quite a large margin, so it’s disingenuous to say it was foisted on us. The Irish people knew exactly what they were voting for, and despite the manipulative underhanded tactics used by the No side, the Yes vote still won.

It’s certainly a divisive issue in America but the fact of the matter is that abortion is a part of life.
It has always existed and it always will exist, legal or not. There are references of women seeking and finding ways to end their pregnancies even in ancient times.
So long as there are women becoming pregnant, there will be a small percentage of women who for their own personal reasons will require a termination.
These women need to be supported.
Banning abortion or outlawing it doesn’t make them stop, it just exports the issue to other healthcare systems and forces women to take matters into their own hands, taking dangerous risks at home with no medical care.

In a country where healthcare is only for the rich, and whose society is riddled with complex poverty issues, outlawing abortion would be a very bad move indeed. Typically the same people in favour of outlawing it don’t support free healthcare, food stamps, or subsidised housing and that speaks for itself, imo.
Pro-Life, but only when it comes to fetuses. They don’t give a damn about born children and the kind of lives they’ll have.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

The way I see it, Roe v Wade was foisted upon the American people. Abortion was a "value" of the liberal elites, who constituted a large part the court, but it was not a value for the majority of American citizens. The American population began to further recoil from it with the discovery of ultrasound scans, which clearly showed that the fetus very early on developed a head, limbs and a heartbeat; that it was a little human being. The stance on abortion is now one of the key factors in US elections and appointments.

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites. Another pro-life judge in the US Supreme Court could mean the end of their cherished abortion project. They are going all-out.

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

You don’t understand what the word ‘foist’ means, do you?

The margin of victory indicates that across the political spectrum, this change in the constitution was desired. Across age groups too, bar one.

namloc1980

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past. .

They can't legislate to ban abortion. Democrats control the House of Representatives and will continue to do so after the next election. The Senate is a toss up on who will have control. Any effort to legislate to ban abortion at a federal level would instantly be unconstitutional due to Roe v Wade.

If the Supreme Court overturned the decision then abortion would be effectively banned in Republican states but would still be available in Democratic states as legislation on abortion is at state level currently.

Outlaw Pete

The US absolutely needs tightening up of their abortion laws and hopefully the appointment of Amy to the Supreme Court will go some way to achieving that.

suicide_circus

Figures vary but in 1990 abortions reached their highest with about 1.5 million carried out in the US. In 2014 there were about 600k so for whatever reason - likely education plus contraception - the numbers are steadily decreasing.

Irish Praetorian

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The US absolutely needs tightening up of their abortion laws and hopefully the appointment of Amy to the Supreme Court will go some way to achieving that.

Any particular aspects you have in mind as being in need of tightening or is this a more general 'fewer abortions' sentiment you are expressing?

Billy Mays

A large majority of Americans believe Roe v Wade shouldn't be overturned

Not that Republicans/the religious right give a fcuk what the majority of Americans want

jam_mac_jam

If it is overturned all you are doing is making it illegal for poor women. Women with money will travel to a state where it's legal or a country where it's legal.

So lots of extra children to the people who can least afford it.

bobbyy gee

You just take 2 tablets now for abortions under 10 weeks

osarusan

I don't think it's the totemic issue it once was even for US Republicans.

What the US Supreme Court and RBG has to do with Ireland I don't know.

Mongfinder General

I don't really get why conservatives in America and Ireland are worried about the abortion regimes in their respective countries. I'm not a supporter of liberal abortion practices but the way I look at it, it's going to be people of a liberal mindset having the abortion in most cases. That means fewer kids being raised with liberal, progressive values. Why would conservatives want to discourage abortion in these cases. Better off just leaving people of that mindset be. They're destroying their own.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Billy Mays wrote: »

A large majority of Americans believe Roe v Wade shouldn't be overturned

Not that Republicans/the religious right give a fcuk what the majority of Americans want

Makes me very glad to live in Ireland where we weren’t at the mercy of a phalanx of judges in deciding this matter. I’ve no problem with it being revisited in a generation either to see if it’s still what society wants.

Montage of Feck

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The US absolutely needs tightening up of their abortion laws and hopefully the appointment of Amy to the Supreme Court will go some way to achieving that.

Amy Schumer? America really is fooked.

nolivesmatter

SusieBlue wrote: »

The referendum here was passed by quite a large margin, so it’s disingenuous to say it was foisted on us. The Irish people knew exactly what they were voting for, and despite the manipulative underhanded tactics used by the No side, the Yes vote still won.

It’s certainly a divisive issue in America but the fact of the matter is that abortion is a part of life.
It has always existed and it always will exist, legal or not. There are references of women seeking and finding ways to end their pregnancies even in ancient times.
So long as there are women becoming pregnant, there will be a small percentage of women who for their own personal reasons will require a termination.
These women need to be supported.
Banning abortion or outlawing it doesn’t make them stop, it just exports the issue to other healthcare systems and forces women to take matters into their own hands, taking dangerous risks at home with no medical care.

In a country where healthcare is only for the rich, and whose society is riddled with complex poverty issues, outlawing abortion would be a very bad move indeed. Typically the same people in favour of outlawing it don’t support free healthcare, food stamps, or subsidised housing and that speaks for itself, imo.
Pro-Life, but only when it comes to fetuses. They don’t give a damn about born children and the kind of lives they’ll have.

While I agree with some of what you say, I do think you're making some very broad generalizations about the No campaign and the people who voted No that could arguably be applied to the Yes side as well.

MrMusician18

I'm not really sure why it should be a topic of discussion here. I would've thought it's a matter for Americans about how they organise their society.

SusieBlue

nolivesmatter wrote: »

While I agree with some of what you say, I do think you're making some very broad generalizations about the No campaign and the people who voted No that could arguably be applied to the Yes side as well.

I’m not at all, the LoveBoth campaign was rife with fake news, skewed statistics and manipulative marketing. They had their supporters pose as doctors and nurses to further spread their agenda and give weight to their position.
In fact I believe one of their biggest advertisements involved a man posing as a nurse who later turned out to be a hospital porter who worked in the position for just 8 months, which attracted international media attention.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/doubts-grow-over-nurse-used-by-anti-abortion-campaign-f37tb0ms9

Their behaviour was absolutely disgraceful, they were counting on the people falling for their emotionally manipulative and dishonest tactics and it didn’t work.
None of that applies to the TogetherForYes campaign.
Anyway this thread isn’t about the Irish abortion referendum so I’ll leave it at that.

nolivesmatter

SusieBlue wrote: »

I’m not at all, the LoveBoth campaign was rife with fake news, skewed statistics and manipulative marketing. They had their supporters pose as doctors and nurses to further spread their agenda and give weight to their position.
In fact I believe one of their biggest advertisements involved a man posing as a nurse who later turned out to be a hospital porter who worked in the position for just 8 months, which attracted international media attention.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/doubts-grow-over-nurse-used-by-anti-abortion-campaign-f37tb0ms9

Their behaviour was absolutely disgraceful, they were counting on the people falling for their emotionally manipulative and dishonest tactics and it didn’t work.
None of that applies to the TogetherForYes campaign.
Anyway this thread isn’t about the Irish abortion referendum so I’ll leave it at that.

Respectfully we'll have to disagree. You're right this isn't the place for it.

One eyed Jack

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites.

...

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

I’m struggling to understand your point too when on the one hand you appear to lament the idea that populism is under attack from ‘liberal elites’ in the US, and then on the other hand you claim you don’t understand the result when decisions in Ireland are made by the people, the very definition of populism, which you claim is under attack from ‘liberal elites’.

I think it might be worth your while figuring out where you stand on populism first before you confuse yourself any further.

Seamai

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I'm not really sure why it should be a topic of discussion here. I would've thought it's a matter for Americans about how they organise their society.

I'm not sure either, we had our referendum, like it or not it's here now, can we just move on? I for one am weary from listening to people arguing over it in this country for the last 40 years.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

nolivesmatter wrote: »

Respectfully we'll have to disagree. You're right this isn't the place for it.

My friend lives in the UK. Her husband would be conservative. They were back in Ireland for a funeral during the referendum campaign and her husband was shocked at the state of the NO campaign posters. Absolutely shocked. He could not believe they were even allowed. This is somebody who would not necessarily vote to legalise abortion. My father voted no but came close to abstaining, so disgusted was he with the antics of the NO campaign.

I personally the NO campaign shot themselves in the foot with the campaign they ran.

francois

Rather rambling original post, not sure what point OP is making, beyond some tedious rant about "liberals"

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My friend lives in the UK. Her husband would be conservative. They were back in Ireland for a funeral during the referendum campaign and her husband was shocked at the state of the NO campaign posters. Absolutely shocked. He could not believe they were even allowed. This is somebody who would not necessarily vote to legalise abortion. My father voted no but came close to abstaining, so disgusted was he with the antics of the NO campaign.

I personally the NO campaign shot themselves in the foot with the campaign they ran.

Yep, it was pure fear mongering and weird stuff like fake voices to their campaign like the guy who pretended to be a nurse.

Smee_Again

francois wrote: »

Rather rambling original post, not sure what point OP is making, beyond some tedious rant about "liberals"

I think the point is that it’s terrible when judges decide that abortion is legal and it should be up to the people to decide, and at the same time it’s terrible when the people decide that abortion should be legal.

I think the OPs preferred method of lawmaking is whichever bans abortion.

nolivesmatter

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My friend lives in the UK. Her husband would be conservative. They were back in Ireland for a funeral during the referendum campaign and her husband was shocked at the state of the NO campaign posters. Absolutely shocked. He could not believe they were even allowed. This is somebody who would not necessarily vote to legalise abortion. My father voted no but came close to abstaining, so disgusted was he with the antics of the NO campaign.

I personally the NO campaign shot themselves in the foot with the campaign they ran.

Yeah I probably agree with you for the most part.

RWCNT

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

The way I see it, Roe v Wade was foisted upon the American people. Abortion was a "value" of the liberal elites, who constituted a large part the court, but it was not a value for the majority of American citizens. The American population began to further recoil from it with the discovery of ultrasound scans, which clearly showed that the fetus very early on developed a head, limbs and a heartbeat; that it was a little human being. The stance on abortion is now one of the key factors in US elections and appointments.

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites. Another pro-life judge in the US Supreme Court could mean the end of their cherished abortion project. They are going all-out.

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

What has given you the idea that the majority of American people are against abortion or that they're fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from it?

Most polls indicate strong support for legalised abortion -

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

lawred2

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

The way I see it, Roe v Wade was foisted upon the American people. Abortion was a "value" of the liberal elites, who constituted a large part the court, but it was not a value for the majority of American citizens. The American population began to further recoil from it with the discovery of ultrasound scans, which clearly showed that the fetus very early on developed a head, limbs and a heartbeat; that it was a little human being. The stance on abortion is now one of the key factors in US elections and appointments.

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites. Another pro-life judge in the US Supreme Court could mean the end of their cherished abortion project. They are going all-out.

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

want to kill myself when I read people peddle that plagiarized crap

Acosta

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My friend lives in the UK. Her husband would be conservative. They were back in Ireland for a funeral during the referendum campaign and her husband was shocked at the state of the NO campaign posters. Absolutely shocked. He could not believe they were even allowed. This is somebody who would not necessarily vote to legalise abortion. My father voted no but came close to abstaining, so disgusted was he with the antics of the NO campaign.

I personally the NO campaign shot themselves in the foot with the campaign they ran.

The No side couldn't have done any worse if they had spent none of that Christian dollars and left it to the priests to do all the debates and media appearances. Priests in general are certainly a lot more likeable.
I was surprised more reasonable conservatives against abortion didn't try to set up a campaign Independent of YD/Iona. They were already toxic after the marriage equality referendum. People knew what they were about after the filth they had on posters hanging outside primary schools.

Asdfgh2020

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

The way I see it, Roe v Wade was foisted upon the American people. Abortion was a "value" of the liberal elites, who constituted a large part the court, but it was not a value for the majority of American citizens. The American population began to further recoil from it with the discovery of ultrasound scans, which clearly showed that the fetus very early on developed a head, limbs and a heartbeat; that it was a little human being. The stance on abortion is now one of the key factors in US elections and appointments.

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites. Another pro-life judge in the US Supreme Court could mean the end of their cherished abortion project. They are going all-out.

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

Who is RGB.....?

Manach

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

In Ireland, the majority of people viewed that a women should have control over her own body, or at least that the 8th was a terrible amendment. What's hard to underst tand exactly?

That this striped the right from the unborn and has led at last count to over six thousand less children never seeks to impact nor penetrate the aura of progressive sancity that has been enshrined by the cult of abortion. The removal of the basic santicy of the protection, which had been part of common law since its earliest, shows both an ignorance and a moral bakruptacy that modern Ireland is prey to.

Asdfgh2020

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You don’t understand what the word ‘foist’ means, do you?

The margin of victory indicates that across the political spectrum, this change in the constitution was desired. Across age groups too, bar one.

The vote was to change the referendum but did we know exactly what was being introduced if the yes side won......I’m not sure if it was properly explained......:?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

The vote was to change the referendum but did we know exactly what was being introduced if the yes side won......I’m not sure if it was properly explained......:?

Personally, yes I knew what the recommendations were.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Manach wrote: »

That this striped the right from the unborn and has led at last count to over six thousand less children never seeks to impact nor penetrate the aura of progressive sancity that has been enshrined by the cult of abortion. The removal of the basic santicy of the protection, which had been part of common law since its earliest, shows both an ignorance and a moral bakruptacy that modern Ireland is prey to.

I’m sorry, do you think there weren’t thousands of abortions every year being carried out on Irish women before the repeal of the eighth amendment? And between the ordering of illegal abortion pills and women giving incorrect details at UK clinics, we don’t even know what the pre-referendum annual figure was.

The difference now is that women can get proper aftercare in their own jurisdiction now. No hiding in the shadows.

Igotadose

Mongfinder General wrote: »

I don't really get why conservatives in America and Ireland are worried about the abortion regimes in their respective countries. I'm not a supporter of liberal abortion practices but the way I look at it, it's going to be people of a liberal mindset having the abortion in most cases. That means fewer kids being raised with liberal, progressive values. Why would conservatives want to discourage abortion in these cases. Better off just leaving people of that mindset be. They're destroying their own.

Rest assured plenty of pro-life conservative types have abortions, too. Here's the most recent example I could find from the 'social media' generation: https://www.boredpanda.com/abortion-clinic-worker-anti-abortion-women-get-abortions/

An earlier article on the same topic, anti-abortion types having abortions: https://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml


Who chooses to abort has nothing to do with political or religious affiliation.

Bonniedog

namloc1980 wrote: »

Any effort to legislate to ban abortion at a federal level would instantly be unconstitutional due to Roe v Wade.

.

You are clearly not familiar with one of RBG's great "stands for equality", when she was one of minority on SC that wanted to declare as unconstitutional (based on Roe v Wade interpretation of the 14th), an Act passed by congress banning partial birth abortions.

So the Federal government can indeed propose limits which are then going to go to the SC. An outright ban is highly unlikely. Most pro-life people would prefer it to be left in the power of individual states, as Louisiana attempted to do but was overturned by the Court.

SC once upheld the barbarity of racial segregation. Hopefully now, it will start to impose limits on the barbarity of abortion. One step towards that is less than an hour away.

Roe v Wade is a tenuous ideological interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It is not written in stone for all time, no more than were other interpretations that denied rights to black people and women.

uptherebels

Manach wrote: »

That this striped the right from the unborn and has led at last count to over six thousand less children never seeks to impact nor penetrate the aura of progressive sancity that has been enshrined by the cult of abortion. The removal of the basic santicy of the protection, which had been part of common law since its earliest, shows both an ignorance and a moral bakruptacy that modern Ireland is prey to.

What protection? You seem to conveniently forget all the thousands of women that travelled or ordered pills. Where was your morals when this was happening?

Asdfgh2020

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Personally, yes I knew what the recommendations were.

Was it explained that the recommendations were to come into law immediately....?

I would have thought the post appeal ‘legislation’ to be passed into law would have been debated and passed by both houses prior to becoming law....? Admittedly I’m no expert on dail procedures...but in this case it was like the ‘recommendations’’ that were talked about during the referendum campaign became law almost immediately once the yes won maybe this is normal protocol...but should the ‘recommendations’ not have gotten more debate..... who drafted the ‘recommendations’ the ‘citizens assembly’ group....?

SusieBlue

Manach wrote: »

That this striped the right from the unborn and has led at last count to over six thousand less children never seeks to impact nor penetrate the aura of progressive sancity that has been enshrined by the cult of abortion. The removal of the basic santicy of the protection, which had been part of common law since its earliest, shows both an ignorance and a moral bakruptacy that modern Ireland is prey to.

Abortion is not a new or modern thing, there were thousands of abortions happening annually in Ireland, we just stuck our fingers in our ears and pretended it wasn’t happening while proudly declaring ourselves to be an ‘abortion free’ country.

Countless vulnerable women and families suffered because we were happy to export our women to foreign healthcare systems and allow them to take pills ordered off the internet, unsupervised in their homes in secret.
We did a great disservice to the women of this country and it’s not something to be looking back at with rose tinted glasses.

namloc1980

Bonniedog wrote: »

You are clearly not familiar with one of RBG's great "stands for equality", when she was one of minority on SC that wanted to declare as unconstitutional (based on Roe v Wade interpretation of the 14th), an Act passed by congress banning partial birth abortions.

So the Federal government can indeed propose limits which are then going to go to the SC. An outright ban is highly unlikely. Most pro-life people would prefer it to be left in the power of individual states, as Louisiana attempted to do but was overturned by the Court.

SC once upheld the barbarity of racial segregation. Hopefully now, it will start to impose limits on the barbarity of abortion. One step towards that is less than an hour away.

Roe v Wade is a tenuous ideological interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It is not written in stone for all time, no more than were other interpretations that denied rights to black people and women.

I said a ban not limits. Try reading posts in future.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

Was it explained that the recommendations were to come into law immediately....?

I would have though the post appeal ‘legislation’ to be passed into law would have been debated and passed by both houses prior to becoming law....? Admittedly I’m no expert on dail procedures...but in this case it was like the ‘recommendations’’ that were talked about during the referendum campaign became law almost immediately once the yes win...maybe this is normal protocol...but should the ‘recommendations’ not have gotten more debate before being passed....?

It wasn’t immediate. Appeals were allowed to happen first. Even after that there was a wait. It was into 2019 before abortion was legalised.

Re: the result, maybe if it had been closer, the parameters would have been different (I’m a legal layperson so absolutely don’t hold me that). But the electorate sent out a pretty clear message.

uptherebels

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

Was it explained that the recommendations were to come into law immediately....?

I would have though the post appeal ‘legislation’ to be passed into law would have been debated and passed by both houses prior to becoming law....? Admittedly I’m no expert on dail procedures...but in this case it was like the ‘recommendations’’ that were talked about during the referendum campaign became law almost immediately once the yes win...maybe this is normal protocol...but should the ‘recommendations’ not have gotten more debate before being passed....?

The government released the heads of bill before the vote, so people would understand what was coming. These were not "recommendations". There was plenty of debate. It's passed through all the same stages as any other legislation.

Igotadose

Bonniedog wrote: »

You are clearly not familiar with one of RBG's great "stands for equality", when she was one of minority on SC that wanted to declare as unconstitutional (based on Roe v Wade interpretation of the 14th), an Act passed by congress banning partial birth abortions.

Partial birth abortion... seems 'pro-life bingo' is going on. No such thing defined medically. And, I think you're babbling on about Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) which in fact said it didn't infringe on woman's privacy (basis of Roe),.

Roe v Wade is a tenuous ideological interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It is not written in stone for all time, no more than were other interpretations that denied rights to black people and women.

Tenuous is YOUR interpretation, much like that there's such a thing as a partial-birth abortion.

ohnonotgmail

Manach wrote: »

That this striped the right from the unborn and has led at last count to over six thousand less children never seeks to impact nor penetrate the aura of progressive sancity that has been enshrined by the cult of abortion. The removal of the basic santicy of the protection, which had been part of common law since its earliest, shows both an ignorance and a moral bakruptacy that modern Ireland is prey to.

banning abortion does not stop abortions it just makes them more dangerous for the women involved. not that the pro-life crowd care about that.

nolivesmatter

uptherebels wrote: »

What protection? You seem to conveniently forget all the thousands of women that travelled or ordered pills. Where was your morals when this was happening?

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 might be the kind of thing they were referring to. Basically protection in the same sense that people are protected from murder or theft by virtue of those things being illegal. And though those things still happen as well, in most peoples eyes it doesn't make them any more acceptable.

ohnonotgmail

Manach wrote: »

That this striped the right from the unborn and has led at last count to over six thousand less children never seeks to impact nor penetrate the aura of progressive sancity that has been enshrined by the cult of abortion. The removal of the basic santicy of the protection, which had been part of common law since its earliest, shows both an ignorance and a moral bakruptacy that modern Ireland is prey to.

do you have anything to support that? abortion was made illegal in ireland by act of parliament in the middle of the 19th century. nothing to do with common law

Bonniedog

namloc1980 wrote: »

I said a ban not limits. Try reading posts in future.

The Federal Government banned the murder of children as they are in process of being born.

In the future it may try to ban abortion under other restrictions, or perhaps altogether.

That would then go to SC obviously, where perhaps the judges might interpret the relevant constitutional provisions differently than the 1973 court.

It is, after all, a "living document" to quote your hero

Buford T. Justice XIX

Asdfgh2020 wrote: »

Who is RGB.....?

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a US Supreme Court Judge prior to her death last week.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

Bonniedog

Igotadose wrote: »

Partial birth abortion... seems 'pro-life bingo' is going on. No such thing defined medically. And, I think you're babbling on about Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) which in fact said it didn't infringe on woman's privacy (basis of Roe),.


Tenuous is YOUR interpretation, much like that there's such a thing as a partial-birth abortion.

Actually the relevant RBG opinion is the one she wrote in 2000 when opposing a Nebraska ban on a procedure you claim does not exist. She opposed something that does not exist on the grounds that banning this mythical procedure would:

prevent " ... a woman from choosing the procedure her doctor reasonably believes will best protect the woman in [the] exercise of [her] constitutional liberty."

So if a doctor decided that killing a child as it was on the verge of birth was some sort of "right," then that was fine with RBG.

Logically, given that many pro abortion people do not believe a "fetus" is a person up to the time "it" emerges into public view, RBG was quite consistent.

Anyway, the good news is that her replacement agrees with me, not you:

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/president-trump-expected-to-announce-amy-coney-barrett-as-supreme-court-pick-saturday/2638016/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a US Supreme Court Judge prior to her death last week.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

Well, I should hope she isn’t still one. :eek: :pac: