North Dakota has banned abortions

Look, I don't know if it is 99% or 89% or 80% (and I'm not about to spend the rest of my day finding out) but it must be obvious to anybody that if most of the countries that ban abortions are in the third world then most of the dangerous backstreet abortions must also be in the third world. Surely you can understand that very simple logic?

This is a beautiful argument, thankyou, I had never even thought of that one!

They must be. Otherwise they are being very selective over which 'murders' they condone. Hopefully, North Dakota is going to outlaw eating meat too, otherwise it's a bit of a mixed message.

Slitting the throat of, or electrocuting, an unquestionably living animal that can feel pain, for food, is fine. A living, breathing animal is far less important than a human's diet..

But removing an embryo before it progresses to a foetus/person, when it definitely can't feel pain and isn't capable of consciousness - no, let's sit back and watch coat hanger sales go up.

In the Republic of Ireland alone (to use a nearby example) there is a huge problem with illegal abortions, particularly given the rise in availability of abortion pills on the internet.

Look, I don't know if it is 99% or 89% or 80% (and I'm not about to spend the rest of my day finding out) but it must be obvious to anybody that if most of the countries that ban abortions are in the third world then most of the dangerous backstreet abortions must also be in the third world. Surely you can understand that very simple logic?

If you want a real statistic from a source that took me all of 30 seconds to google for you,

What will happen now of course is women will either do it themselves or be forced into backstreet clinics which will result in deaths because of unsafe abortion methods. Those who support this ban aren't "pro-life" at all, they're anti-woman. How anyone can put the rights of a non-sentient blob of cells over the rights of a fully-grown, sentient person is beyond me. Thank god I live in a country which recognises that women's rights are human rights.

People here are talking about pregnancies as if women just wake up one day and all of a sudden they're pregnant. Sex is not a god given right and all what this law is saying that if you don't want an unwanted pregnancy then simply don't have sex. I mean this is the same line that is said to men with regards to child support right?

Oh wait, I forgot. Women can never be held responsible for their actions.

What if a woman falls pregnant through rape?

Obviously in the case of incest and rape abortion should be allowed. But I was talking in general terms because the vast majority of abortions are done in cases where's there no incest/rape.

Personally in regards to abortion I think anything during the first trimester is fine. After that the lines become blurry in terms of when life begins.

I was just pointing out a double standard which exists.

Voters should be able to decide this. That's democratically fair, especially as abortion is a fuzzy topic (when is a life considered a life etc.)

It's no coincidence that women are always the most hardline pro-abortion folks. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. Heck women would start having abortions simply because they don't like the gender of the child.

I don't know if that's necessarily a double standard though - if a man gets a woman pregnant and then does not wish to pay child support, that is him being irresponsible and not paying the price for his actions. I'm not saying that there aren't women out there who are irresponsible and the result of that is a pregnancy, but to withdraw their right to end that pregnancy is rubbish, no matter how irresponsible they are. I'd also argue that it's far, far more detrimental to have a child that you do not want and therefore may abuse or neglect (not common but it still happens and it's just horrible) than to destroy the foetus at an early stage in the pregnancy.

Also, if this were really about stopping abortions, the message should not be "don't have sex", because you can't stop idiots from having sex whatever you tell them. You can however promote contraception, which republicans seem to ignore entirely and instead try and restrict access to it along with criminalizing abortion. only in America!

Obviously in the case of incest and rape abortion should be allowed. But I was talking in general terms because the vast majority of abortions are done in cases where's there no incest/rape.

Personally in regards to abortion I think anything during the first trimester is fine. After that the lines become blurry in terms of when life begins.

I was just pointing out a double standard which exists.

But where's the double standard? Please explain.

Wow! How on earth? I'm pro choice but that is the definition of double standards, women says to men: keep it in your pants then, you have no say in wether or not your involved with the baby! women says to women: have an abortion if you don't want it.

Tell me, why should a woman be able to have pro choice and for men no choice? That is just inconsiderate considering that a lot of condoms break! The pill is vastly more effective than a condom, and men don't have a pill yet!

And now you just sound horribly sexist!

I believe that abortions should be available but men should not have to pay for their mistakes, because women don't have to either!


Posted from TSR Mobile

Voters should be able to decide this. That's democratically fair, especially as abortion is a fuzzy topic (when is a life considered a life etc.)

It's no coincidence that women are always the most hardline pro-abortion folks. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. Heck women would start having abortions simply because they don't like the gender of the child.

but it seems like a huge hassle for something which is pretty normal nowadays.

I find it disturbing that you think abortions are "normal".