Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    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?
    But why does it matter where it is in the world? Is it any less important an issue if it's happening in a developing country rather than a developed country?

    If you want a real statistic from a source that took me all of 30 seconds to google for you, "Almost all unsafe abortions (97%) are in developing countries, and over half (55%) are in Asia (mostly in south-central Asia)" This source is from 1995 so could be very different today.

    So yeah, you weren't far off with your 99% comment, but frankly it sounds like you care less about the plight of those women because they aren't in a developed country. You can't undermine the problem of illegal abortion by saying it only happens in developing countries.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redferry)
    This is a beautiful argument, thankyou, I had never even thought of that one!
    Haha, glad you liked it :L According to Wikipedia, there are actually people who live like this (not for very long, presumably, but each to their own).
    (Original post by Em8980)
    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.
    It's always the case with these people :rolleyes: By much of the reasoning used to oppose abortion, an adult pig is more living than your average foetus. Ah well.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    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.
    Not to mention the recent case in Ireland of a woman dying because she was refused an abortion. No doubt we'll be seeing more of this in North Dakota if they refuse women abortions even if their lives are in danger.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    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?
    That much is true, but you haven't given me any reason to know whether there would be 0 impact on ND or whether hundreds will die (which with a global death toll of 67,000 per year, is a theoretical possibility).

    If you're too lazy to research your points, don't make such claims, and certainly don't say 'i don't need to provide a source' when someone challenges you!

    Incidentally, the second hit on googling 'abortion mortality' would have told you 97% occur in the developing world. The remaining 3% are mostly in Eastern Europe, where its legal but not widely available. There were 0 deaths in Ireland where abortion is very restricted (from a, wait for it, second source i googled!) . So likely very few would die, largely due to better nutrition and emergency healthcare than the developing world, although significant morbidity and increased burden on healthcare can be expected from global patterns.

    EDIT: See, this person could do it! Is it really that hard?

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    If you want a real statistic from a source that took me all of 30 seconds to google for you,
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Misleading thread title is misleading. This is legislation that could come into effect, if and only if it is approved by voters. This should be clear to anybody who has bothered to read the first five lines of the article linked to in the first post.

    For those who are criticising Obama for being a weak president in reaction to this: this is simply how US politics works, I'm afraid. States rights have been reinforced more and more by the Supreme Court since the 1980s, particularly under the Rehnquist court. Any President would struggle to act against this process unless they stepped outside of the constitutional constraints imposed upon them. If anything, Congress is the only institution that would be able to in some way increase the power of the federal government at the expense of state powers, but in practice it will not do so at this time or at any time in the foreseeable future.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    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.
    It would be very interesting to see the referendum results broken down by gender, when it happens. In fact, i'd make a case that if they do have to hold such a vote, that it should only be women voting.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    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.
    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. :facepalm: only in America!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    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 think you're confusing pro-abortion with pro-choice, I've never met a soul who is pro-abortion. And sex-selective abortion is already extremely common in many countries, even here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...idespread.html

    Edit: I didn't mean to say it was extremely common in the UK, but it is in places like India and China, and it's more common than I think people are aware of here. Apologies for any confusion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    nothing i assume.

    if the attitude towards sex remains unchanged yet abortion is removed, id imagine it will stay the same. only difference is the people after this ban is started are screwed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    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. :facepalm: only in America!
    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
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    But where's the double standard? Please explain.
    Look above.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    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
    Because women have to carry the foetus in their body for 9 months. Ultimately it should always be the woman's choice because she is the one who carries all the health risks. I don't think that's sexist, if it were that the males of our species that carried the baby then I would say that it is entirely their choice. It may not be fair but that's just nature, sorry.

    At the end of the day, the only physical part a man plays in a pregnancy is the conception, after that it is irrelevant whether he sticks around or not. Therefore if he does not want to be a parent, then he needs to act at the moment of conception to prevent it.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    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 agree it should not be used as a form of birth control nor should it ever be something taken lightly, however I don't think it should be ruled out completely. It certainly shouldn't be legislated against.
    As for it being put to a vote, I don't think that is neccesary. It really isn't something that needs to be decided by a vote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If their reasoning is based on religious grounds (most likely) then it is very sad indeed. The religious beliefs of a single group should not legislate for everyone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonoahx)
    but it seems like a huge hassle for something which is pretty normal nowadays.
    I find it disturbing that you think abortions are "normal".
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 29, 2013
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.