RBG, abortion and Ireland

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:

irishproduce

Nomination live on US TV now

bfa1509

SusieBlue wrote: »

despite the manipulative underhanded tactics used by the No side, the Yes vote still won.

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.

The amount of ignorance in this post is eye-watering. What manipulative underhanded tactics were used by the no side? The yes side used the plight of a minority (the threat to the mothers health and unviable or malformed fetus) knowing full well that the majority of abortions would be on healthy mothers and fetuses.

Do you think a woman can't be supported unless you give an abortion?

Bizarrely, you go into societal and poverty issues as a reason to get an abortion. Is abortion your solution to every problem? Take black children, many of them are born into household poverty and neighborhoods with societal issues. Should we abort the majority of these black children? The line is blurring everyday from an abortion debate to one of eugenics.

Mongfinder General wrote: »

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.

Because, unlike liberals, conservatives value all lives despite the political views of the parents

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bfa1509 wrote: »

The amount of ignorance in this post is eye-watering. What manipulative underhanded tactics were used by the no side? The yes side used the plight of a minority (the threat to the mothers health and unviable or malformed fetus) knowing full well that the majority of abortions would be on healthy mothers and fetuses.

Do you think a woman can't be supported unless you give an abortion?

Bizarrely, you go into societal and poverty issues as a reason to get an abortion. Is abortion your solution to every problem? Take black children, many of them are born into household poverty and neighborhoods with societal issues. Should we abort the majority of these black children? The line is blurring everyday from an abortion debate to one of eugenics.

I wonder do black people ever get fed up of being trotted out as comparisons and examples?

And in case anyone says, I abhor them being used on either side of the political spectrum.

The Supreme Court made the judgement in the US because it violated the Constitution and infringed upon Americans' rights to make their own medical decisions.

So it was the Constitution that 'foisted' abortion rights on Americans.

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

Because, unlike liberals, conservatives value all lives despite the political views of the parents

G'way you chancer. The majority of conservatives are pro-war. Not too fond of poor people either. Tend to begrudge refugees some refuge in large numbers too.

Take your valuing of all life elsewhere as it won't wash in here.


As George Carlin succinctly put it...

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

bfa1509

Deleted User wrote: »

G'way you chancer. The majority of conservatives are pro-war. Not too fond of poor people either. Tend to begrudge refugees some refuge in large numbers too.

Take your valuing of all life elsewhere as it won't wash in here.


As George Carlin succinctly put it...

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

You view all conservatives as gun-toting southern americans. Little do you know it was the democrats who were pro-slavery and most of the wars started or entered by the US were supported by both parties.

Bonniedog

Deleted User wrote: »

The Supreme Court made the judgement in the US because it violated the Constitution and infringed upon Americans' rights to make their own medical decisions.

So it was the Constitution that 'foisted' abortion rights on Americans.

They based Roe v Wade judgement on a "right to privacy" that is a pretty strange interpretation of the 14th Amendment which nowhere mentions any "right to privacy."

But of course you don't know that

Bonniedog

Deleted User wrote: »

G'way you chancer. The majority of conservatives are pro-war. Not too fond of poor people either. Tend to begrudge refugees some refuge in large numbers too.

Take your valuing of all life elsewhere as it won't wash in here.


As George Carlin succinctly put it...

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

This is what passes for leftie "intellectual" argument is it?

Would you not be better off reading a few books?

As for the war thing, Trump the "war monger" has not started any new war. He did clean up the mess left by the Clinton/Obama gang. Vietnam US involvement was begun by JFK and continued by Johnson. They were Democrats by the way.

It was ended by Nixon. He was a conservative.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bfa1509 wrote: »

You view all conservatives as gun-toting southern americans. Little do you know it was the democrats who were pro-slavery and most of the wars started or entered by the US were supported by both parties.

Do you honestly think that’s not common knowledge?

Pherekydes

Bonniedog wrote: »

Vietnam US involvement...

It was ended by Nixon. He was a conservative.

Heh, it was ended by the Vietnamese.