Hey Rachael,
In case you aren't aware the NRL is about football.
Not players relationships, not abortions, not politically correct ideology, not pushing leftist causes.

If women say 'My Body, My Choice'
Then men should be able to say 'My money, My choice'
These girls are just lamenting the financial windfall that would've come their way had they not had an abortion.
It takes 2 people to get a woman pregnant, so she's not innocent either.

Instead of the emotional women's whining you should be advising rich and famous men to use condoms when sleeping with little tramps that care not about the father (or child in question) but what they can get from sleeping with rich and famous men.

What about the poor blokes that don't have 50K upfront?
They pay for the next 18 years.

Stupid entitlement expecting women.
You think you have a right to seduce a man, extract his semen and make the man pay for your kid and your lifestyle for the next 2 decades.
Wake up to yourself.

After discussion with others on this topic, I want to amend my comment.
I want to acknowledge that footballers also act with a sense of entitlement and lack of respect and tend to treat women probably not as well as some other men.
Some of my male friends who are more knowledgeable on matters of NRL news argue the Cartright incident wasn't necessarily the woman's fault.
I still stand by my original basic criticism of the women, though I wish to back off a little based on a sense of entitlement and lack of respect shown by some football players.

I'm with AC: what the hell has the NRL to do with the personal lives of its players' girlfriends? Sporting fans would be interested in the game, not whether or not a player's girlfriend, who is unknown to them, is up to behind the scenes.

“... the NRL still has a long way to go in its treatment of women.” I'm sorry; we don't have rugby in South Australia, but I understand that women play something called 'nines'? Is abortion education and care part of that game? I thought it was about moving a ball about – in ways totally incomprehensible to a South Australian. But, who knows what they do in the change room?

This piece really highlights feminine hypocrisy: women should be the ones to make decisions about their own bodies, blah, blah, blah, but when they get it wrong, it's everyone’s' fault. Rather than alleviate genuine mistreatment of women, the people presuming to speak for all women are in grave danger of bringing down even more contempt on their sisters, including those completely innocent of all this 'feminist' crap.

Women can't have it both ways. Either they have complete control over their body or they don't.
If they wish to have that control, then that includes controlling whether or not they get pregnant.

What we need to do is get right out of the private lives of citizens with trauma issues to deal with!

If folk have unwise unprotected sex, then as sure as day follows night very virile couples will produce children!

And for many women the end of college or a budding career!? And hardly the NRL's responsibility!

As usual when virile young people have lots of money, they can become a virtual honeypot for the opposite sex, with less than perfect personal morals, and a young player putty in an ambitious partner's hands?

If there's any substance to any of these alleged claims by miss X or Y, then they need to come forward with proof that proves they were coerced. Always providing counter claims of coercion to become sperm donors can't be proven?

After all it takes two to tango or make a responsible marriage/relationship, where children would be welcomed? And a decision, in the age of easy as contraception, for the two people making babies!

Male bashing activists, with an agenda, need to just but out!
Alan B.

We should make coercing someone into having an abortion a criminal offence with mandatory imprisonment.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Armchair, you seem to have trouble comprehending that some things are more important than money.

And if the NRL is only about "football" then why (as the article points out) did they fine Mitchell Pearce a quarter of a million dollars for something unrelated to any sport?