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
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.
Asdfgh2020 wrote: » Who is RGB.....?
namloc1980 wrote: » I said a ban not limits. Try reading posts in future.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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....?
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.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » Personally, yes I knew what the recommendations were.
namloc1980 wrote: » Any effort to legislate to ban abortion at a federal level would instantly be unconstitutional due to Roe v Wade. .
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.
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......:?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
francois wrote: » Rather rambling original post, not sure what point OP is making, beyond some tedious rant about "liberals"
nolivesmatter wrote: » Respectfully we'll have to disagree. You're right this isn't the place for it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
