North Dakota has banned abortions

Scroll to see replies

No one has the right to impose their beliefs on another person, let alone on a whole state.
Just because the people in charge disagree with abortion, doesn't mean that it is okay for them to ban it. Some people need abortion. There are lots of cases where it's a matter of safety for the mother and for the child as well.
My mums a doctor and even though she doesn't like abortion, she frequently recommends it because some diseases mean that the child will die straight after he's born, sometimes it's almost certain that the mother will die. In such cases abortion is the only practical option.
I personally would not get an abortion except for medical reasons. But who am I to decide if you get one? If you feel that it is best for you, that's your decision and your beliefs. None of my business.

Reply 41

Aliccam

These are the same people who condone going off killing people around the world with all their wars. I guess it's OK to kill foreigners of any age.
This idea on abortion, just shows how the uninvolved love to dictate to others, especially when there is no consequence to them.

Reply 42

The_Last_Melon

Rats eat their own babies. Humans mash them up into pieces or suck them up into a machine. Not much difference between our species really, we're just slightly more inventive with our evil.

Reply 43

redferry

Original post by Xiomara

Animals are still murdered in the production of vegetables! Hoping this person is a fruitarian, and only consumes fruit that has fallen naturally from the plant (not picked off).

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

Reply 44

redferry

Original post by The_Last_Melon

Rats eat their own babies. Humans mash them up into pieces or suck them up into a machine. Not much difference between our species really, we're just slightly more inventive with our evil.

That is a VERY late term abortion.
Early term you just take a pill and it comes out your vag along with your womb lining
Mid term they just suck it out.

Reply 45

thunder_chunky

Original post by iamgreatness

nonsense. Do i have the right to beat somebody to death, because its my body and i have the right to do what i want with my body, e.g swinging and punching at someone? ridiculous argument, try again.

That isn't really a valid comparison. A state shouldn't be dictating to a woman or forcing her to keep a child she may have not planned and may not want. Especially if the child is concieved through incest or rape. Granted there is always the argument that they could give birth and then give it up for adoption but some simply do not want to carry the child for entire pregnancy knowing how it was concieved and that they would then have to give it away.
Furthermore what if early tests reveal that the child will be severly disabled? Again the mother or indeed both the parents might not want to go through with the pregnancy. Why should they be forced to keep the child? Obviously they shouldn't.

Reply 46

thunder_chunky

Original post by The_Last_Melon

Rats eat their own babies. Humans mash them up into pieces or suck them up into a machine. Not much difference between our species really, we're just slightly more inventive with our evil.

Rats probably do it for some animalistic reason whereas quite often us humans do it for a variety of reasons some of which i have just explained. Comparing abortion to animals that eat their babies is thin.

Reply 47

The_Last_Melon

Original post by thunder_chunky

It really isn't as it's motivated by similiar things. The rats do it because they're starving, humans do it just because they don't want it or think they can't afford it.

Reply 48

dartanoir

Like someone else said - if people really feel like they need an abortion they WILL get it either from a different state or basically a backstreet one. I think bringing up a child in a family that is not emotionally or financially ready or even giving it up for adoption, is equally as bad or even worse than an abortion. Giving birth to a child just for the sake of it is just plain immoral. Accidents do happen - condoms can break, oral contraception isn't always effective etc. If you're going to ban abortions at least provide decent sex education and free contraception. Abstinence based sex education is not reasonable.

Reply 49

thunder_chunky

Original post by The_Last_Melon

It really isn't as it's motivated by similiar things. The rats do it because they're starving, humans do it just because they don't want it or think they can't afford it.

Humans don't do it simply for that reason though do they? Even then I don't think it's that morally reprehensible for a person to deal with it at an early stage than going through with it all and then deciding they can't hack it whereupon the child has been born and could be at risk.
The comparison to animalistic behaviour is a wild one at best. We aren't beasts or savages or animals who do it for some stupid primal reasons.

Reply 50

minimarshmallow

I saw this on twitter, seems pretty relevant here:
"If you only care about babies being born, and not them being fed, clothed and looked after, then you cannot call yourself pro-life."

Reply 51

The_Last_Melon

Original post by thunder_chunky

The rats have a good reason since they don't have a society that can take care of them, we do. Shame on us. And yes we are savages.

Reply 52

thunder_chunky

Original post by The_Last_Melon

The rats have a good reason since they don't have a society that can take care of them, we do. Shame on us. And yes we are savages.

Our society might be able to as a whole but some individuals or couples might not be able to. They might not have enough work or any work, not enough money or any money, or not appropriate accomodation if they have any. Then throw in the impending arrival of a child, that probably scares the hell out of them.
So based on that if a person decides that it would probably be best if they had a termination then so be it. I don't think the state should be able to tell someone they not only shouldn't but are not allowed whatsoever. Especially when that means the mother would be forced to have the child and then (assuming she keeps it) pay for it every step of the way as dictated by the same state. It's ridiculous.
So no it's not savage and frankly the animalistic comparison is thin.

Reply 53

thunder_chunky

Original post by minimarshmallow

I saw this on twitter, seems pretty relevant here:
"If you only care about babies being born, and not them being fed, clothed and looked after, then you cannot call yourself pro-life."

Nice.

Reply 54

ageshallnot

Watch out for an increase in the crime rate in North Dakota in about 20-25 years...

Reply 55

Howard

Original post by lyrical_lie

It seems quite a step backwards. It will just lead to backstreet abortions causing danger to women.

No. Women will simply drive over the state line to South Dakota.

Reply 56

Messalina

Original post by Howard

No. Women will simply drive over the state line to South Dakota.

What if they can't drive? What if they can't afford the travel costs, and the costs of hotel rooms that they are forced to pay for while they undergo multiple transvaginal examinations before being allowed to have an abortion?

Women have terminated their pregnancies for thousands of years, there is proof of abortion as early as 1500BC, if I remember rightly. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, she will do what she can to end that pregnancy. If your only option is to keep the child, or get a backstreet abortion, then you'll end up getting a backstreet abortion. It's barbaric, and suggests that North Dakota (and various other republican states) care more about the "rights" of an unborn foetus than the rights of the grown woman who is pregnant.

It's downright wrong, and idiotic. All that will result from this is more women getting illegal unsafe abortions, more women putting themselves in serious risk of health problems thanks to this, and more unwanted children being neglected and suffering as a result of it.

At the end of the day, if you don't want an abortion or are anti-abortion, then do not have an abortion. But it is wrong to dictate to others what they do with their lives and their bodies.

I know that if I was living in poverty, unable to support myself financially, then if I were to get pregnant I would rather have an abortion than bring a child into this world who would be unwanted, unloved, and would suffer immensely more than any unborn foetus has. Having a rough childhood very often can result in damaged individuals, who stay damaged for life. Unless North Dakota is going to pay for childcare, clothing, food, and provide the love that these unwanted children will need to flourish, then how dare they ban something that is perfectly normal throughout human society.

Reply 57

Howard

Original post by edithwashere

I don't need a lecture on the history of abortion or women's reproductive rights.

I'm simply stating that North Dakota is very unlikely to see women being butchered by backstreet abortionists. Abortion is illegal (or made very difficult) in a lot of countries - Ireland for example, but you don't read news of Irish women dying of injuries resulting from barbershop abortions. They simply jump on the ferry and lad up in Holyhead for a few days.

So don't be so histrionic.

Reply 58

Messalina

Original post by Howard

My first paragraph was a response to you, the rest was simply my two cents to be added to the thread. Sorry that it got you so riled up.

And I quote, "The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that each year nearly 42 million women faced with unintended pregnancies have abortions, of which 20 million are unsafe, mostly in countries where abortion is illegal"

So yes, there are a lot of illegal abortions happening, people just don't talk about it. If you really think it's "simple", then I recommend you try it yourself and see quite how unsimple and horrible it can be.