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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. .
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.
