ND House Passes Abortion Ban

[Principessa]

I still think that sterilization ought to accompany abortion. Period. The father, the mother or both.

:wtf1: Are you serious?!?! Such an extreme draconian attitude is at best over the top. and at worst just down right moronic. Sometimes even with birth control in place accidents happen. Why should a person be sterilized for that?

If this is a pun, it's not funny.

 

[lucky8]

Man how I would love for some of these pro-lifers to spend just 1 month in China, just to open their eyes a bit

 

[superbot]

i think that's FUCKING AWESOME!

i don't give a shit WHAT the reason is, i disagree with abortion. to me, its the same thing as murder. i especially can't stand if the mother just doesn't want to take responsibility and disposes of it, as if he or she is trash. i think those "mothers" are cowards!

even if i was raped and got pregnant, i'd still keep it. i believe every baby has the right to live. every baby deserves a chance. all babies are miracles.

i have no respect for people who choose abortion, whatsoever!

abortion is something that i just do not agree with and i don't think it should be permitted anywhere. i bet it would make people a lot more careful.

100% agree,well said....

 

[superbot]

I'm sorry, this is just simply gastly. Why is it whenever this country takes one step forward, we find ourselves moving several steps back? Can't we let women have rights over their own bodies and be done with it. Why the backlash now?

All this will do is send North Dakotan women to the next state to get an abortion if they can afford the gasoline to get there. This will affect the poor the most. The poor women will be forced to either live with the consequences of an unwanted pregancy or go to hacks that will allow them to pay whatever they can while they butcher these women's wombs. Where is the justice in this?

Simple answer to that. a) Don't get pregnant in the first place (thats what contraception is for. b)Don't ignore the rights of the unborn child c) include the father of the child too,he also is 50% of the equation...

 

[dong20]

Simple answer to that. a) Don't get pregnant in the first place (thats what contraception is for. b)Don't ignore the rights of the unborn child c) include the father of the child too,he also is 50% of the equation...

1. Because of course, contraception is 100% effective.
2. Yes (where these exist), but what about the rights of the woman?
3. I entirely agree that the wishes of the father be considered .. but not to be insensitive - a spermatozoon and a token grunt contribute rather less than 50% of that particular equation, I'd think.

There is a case for abortion, as there is a case for a 'right to life', but in reaching a decision many [often conflicting] considerations must be balanced. In most circumstances, I don't believe anyone but the woman is qualified, or entitled to make that final choice.

As for those who adopt a one size fits all 'it's a life (fetus), therefore it cannot be murdered, end of story' stance. IMHO, it's not that simple, those who would argue that it is, are probably not seeing [or wilfully ignoring] the whole picture. Are they not seeking to enforce their personal moral position on another? If so, then in most cases, and in most jusridictions - 'we' don't get to do that.

Few women consider abortion in a frivolous or casual manner, yet many are vilified for making what may be most difficult and emotional decision of their lives. Regardless of personal opinion, that is shameful. Of course, some women do adopt a cavalier approach, but really isn't that more a problem with them, than abortion?

In most circumstances, (not just on abortion), I will usually advocate personal choice - not just because I think it's right, but because of how it feels when someone, or some faceless 'entity' deprives you of it.

 

[Mem]

Look at these pictures and tell me that abortion isn't murder.

I looked at the pictures, let me tell you it is NOT murder.

If you don't want one don't have one, don't impose your will or choice or morals on other people.

 

[Mem]

I still think that sterilization ought to accompany abortion. Period. The father, the mother or both.

Do you also feel that retarded individuals should be killed? Or the disabled?

I think Banana Splits should accompany an abortion.

 

[Mem]

Abortion is a medical procedure. If you don't like it mind your own fucking business and don't have one.

 

[Gl3nn]

Well said Mem.

 

[superbot]

Abortion is a medical procedure. If you don't like it mind your own fucking business and don't have one.

If you view the dismembering of an unborn child as merely 'a medical procedure' than you are clearly sick in the head.You should be ashamed to put it those terms. ITS A HUMAN LIFE!!

 

[superbot]

1. Because of course, contraception is 100% effective.
2. Yes (where these exist), but what about the rights of the woman?
3. I entirely agree that the wishes of the father be considered .. but not to be insensitive - a spermatozoon and a token grunt contribute rather less than 50% of that particular equation, I'd think.

There is a case for abortion, as there is a case for a 'right to life', but in reaching a decision many [often conflicting] considerations must be balanced. In most circumstances, I don't believe anyone but the woman is qualified, or entitled to make that final choice.

As for those who adopt a one size fits all 'it's a life (fetus), therefore it cannot be murdered, end of story' stance. IMHO, it's not that simple, those who would argue that it is, are probably not seeing [or wilfully ignoring] the whole picture. Are they not seeking to enforce their personal moral position on another? If so, then in most cases, and in most jusridictions - 'we' don't get to do that.

Few women consider abortion in a frivolous or casual manner, yet many are vilified for making what may be most difficult and emotional decision of their lives. Regardless of personal opinion, that is shameful. Of course, some women do adopt a cavalier approach, but really isn't that more a problem with them, than abortion?

In most circumstances, (not just on abortion), I will usually advocate personal choice - not just because I think it's right, but because of how it feels when someone, or some faceless 'entity' deprives you of it.

I have to disagree with you there.I have a couple of friends who are GP's and they will tell you a whole bunch of horror stories about women seeking abortions and which lay to rest the idea that most are poor, alone and desperate.It is clear that because of the selfish society we live in alot of people think there are no consequences to casual sex, and lo and behold when they do get pregnant (because their own stupidity) they fully expect a termination to be their right.There were well over 200,000 abortions carried in the UK last year,how depressing is that?....

 

[Gl3nn]

Sad? yes

Their right? yes

Some people are just so stupid to not use a condom or the pill or something like that. And most of the people using contraceptives are teenagers. If they would get a kid at that age, the chance is that it would basically ruin their lives. They can't concentrate on school AND a kid. They wouldn't be able to get a good job because they didn't have the time or the means to go to college (because they have to take care of the kid). You can say what you want, but they have the right to choose whether to accept the kid or get an abortion. It changes their lives, not yours. So they get to choose.

Also, if someone gets raped and if the woman would get pregnant... I'm sure she doesn't want to get reminded of it every single day when she looks at her child.


People should be more aware and careful, but if anything might go 'wrong'... it's their decision how to deal with it.

 

[B_Monster]

Maybe pro lifers should be sterilized

 

[Mem]

If you view the dismembering of an unborn child as merely 'a medical procedure' than you are clearly sick in the head.You should be ashamed to put it those terms. ITS A HUMAN LIFE!!

It's not a human life. If it were, it wold be able to live and thrive outside of the womb. It's a zygote, fetus, embryo...whatever you choose to call it.

 

[dong20]

It is clear that because of the selfish society we live in alot of people think there are no consequences to casual sex, and lo and behold when they do get pregnant (because their own stupidity) they fully expect a termination to be their right.

Well, there are a great many potential consequences to casual sex, unwanted pregnancy being but one of them. Is it your considered view that only 'stupid people' have casual sex or only 'stupid people' get pregnant ... or both - or do you simply believe stupidity increases fertility?

There were well over 200,000 abortions carried in the UK last year,how depressing is that?....

I can't say, mostly because I'm not personally familar with the circumstances of any of them. It's certainly not worthy of praise, but like I say, I don't know the circumstances of each and every one.

That said, I'm sure a fair number would fall under the category of what you might term 'stupidity induced conception' - I do live in the real world too. It's just that I try not to make judgements about people or their circumstances when I don't know them, but then, you're doing a bang up job on your own so far (no pun intended).

I have to disagree with you there.I have a couple of friends who are GP's and they will tell you a whole bunch of horror stories about women seeking abortions and which lay to rest the idea that most are poor, alone and desperate.

It's not necessary that you agree with me.

However, it is desirable that you respond to what I wrote, not what you may like me to have written, or meant - because it fits your own perceptions of women better?

Alternatively, please point out where I wrote, or even suggested that most were 'poor alone and desperate', and I will stand corrected.

 

[superbot]

Sad? yes

Their right? yes

Some people are just so stupid to not use a condom or the pill or something like that. And most of the people using contraceptives are teenagers. If they would get a kid at that age, the chance is that it would basically ruin their lives. They can't concentrate on school AND a kid. They wouldn't be able to get a good job because they didn't have the time or the means to go to college (because they have to take care of the kid). You can say what you want, but they have the right to choose whether to accept the kid or get an abortion. It changes their lives, not yours. So they get to choose.

Also, if someone gets raped and if the woman would get pregnant... I'm sure she doesn't want to get reminded of it every single day when she looks at her child.


People should be more aware and careful, but if anything might go 'wrong'... it's their decision how to deal with it.

What we are talking about (certainly in the UK) is "abortion on demand",which goes against the whole 1967 Abortion Act, which is very specific about who is and who isn't entitled to an abortion.That's gone out of the window....I do resent those people who constantly throw into the arguement rape/incest victims etc,who make up (thankfully) a tiny percentage of the overall numbers,those individuals should not be used as reason to justify the rest who are 'using' abortion as a belated form of contraception.I'm afraid the Pro Abortion lobby has spent years and years trying to convince the world that it is some sort of wonderful Human Right,which it clearly isn't.I prefer the United Nations charter,which states that EVERYONE has a right to life.....!

 

[HazelGod]

Sorry to break this to you, freaks, but an embryo is a parasite that cannot survive without its host.

It's ultimately the decision of the mother whether or not she wants to allow the parasite to continue developing inside her body.

I don't care when you believe "life" begins or at what point it's sanctified, but if you truly believe that you have the "one true answer" that applies equally to everyone in all cases, then I'm here to tell you that you're deluded. You're well entitled to make whatever decisions about your own body using any fucked-up, nonsensical criteria you desire...but don't ever presume to tell anyone else that they have to play by your rules.

Simply put...mind your own fucking business, and let others mind theirs.

 

[dong20]

What we are talking about (certainly in the UK) is "abortion on demand",which goes against the whole 1967 Abortion Act, which is very specific about who is and who isn't entitled to an abortion.That's gone out of the window....

But your argument isn't well thought through. I do agree that the 1967 act (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) is abused - but that's only one part of the issue. The act merely facilitates, it doesn't mandate personal choice or circumstance.

I do resent those people who constantly throw into the arguement rape/incest victims etc,who make up (thankfully) a tiny percentage of the overall numbers,those individuals should not be used as reason to justify the rest who are 'using' abortion as a belated form of contraception.

Why, because it's a compelling argument?

From your argument you seem to feel that is less of a 'crime' (for the want of a better word) for an abortion in circumstanced where the woman was raped, the victim of incest or (presumably) when the child would grow up severely disabled or surely die soon after birth. So in such circumstances murder is acceptable to you? (I mean you do consider it murder, right?)

If it is, then how do you decide that the unborn offspring of say, a rapist is deserving of death (it committed no crime) whereas that of say a drunken idiot with no respect for their own dignity should live - even if it means being in a potentially dangerous environment?

As for the mother - if it's to protect her from the burden of an unwanted child in such circumstances, then how do you decide that a birth control failure (and they do happen) should render another woman less worthy of the same consideration and denied the same choice - after all it could be equally traumatic for her, no?

The answer is - you can't. Why - because that choice is for that woman to make. Forcing your personal moral agenda on her choice is tantamount to emotional blackmail. Now, do you begin to get it?

 

[superbot]

But your argument isn't well thought through. I do agree that the 1967 act (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) is abused - but that's only one part of the issue. The act merely facilitates, it doesn't mandate personal choice or circumstance.



Why, because it's a compelling argument?

From your argument you seem to feel that is less of a 'crime' (for the want of a better word) for an abortion in circumstanced where the woman was raped, the victim of incest or (presumably) when the child would grow up severely disabled or surely die soon after birth. So in such circumstances murder is acceptable to you? (I mean you do consider it murder, right?)

If it is, then how do you decide that the unborn offspring of say, a rapist is deserving of death (it committed no crime) whereas that of say a drunken idiot with no respect for their own dignity should live - even if it means being in a potentially dangerous environment?

As for the mother - if it's to protect her from the burden of an unwanted child in such circumstances, then how do you decide that a birth control failure (and they do happen) should render another woman less worthy of the same consideration and denied the same choice - after all it could be equally traumatic for her, no?

The answer is - you can't. Why - because that choice is for that woman to make. Forcing your personal moral agenda on her choice is tantamount to emotional blackmail. Now, do you begin to get it?

Sorry I haven't the vaguest idea what your actually saying,you've certainly rubbished my opinion to suit your own...

 

[HazelGod]

Sorry I haven't the vaguest idea what your actually saying,you've certainly rubbished my opinion to suit your own...

Your opinion was rubbish all on its own to begin with.