Women do not "submit" to abortions. They need, want, ask, demand, plead, or beg for abortions. And once they get one, they're generally relieved and grateful for the rest of their lives.

I don't blame the author for not signing his (or less likely, her) name this collection of grammatically incorrect right-wing propaganda.

It is shocking that this "editorial" was written by a physician's group, whose members are in the powerful position of being able to deny women health care services guaranteed to them by the Canadian Charter of Rights And Freedoms.

If physicians are to retain the right to the autonomy of self-regulation through their provincial associations (like engineers or lawyers), now is the time for those bodies to act to protect womens' health and welfare from the few doctors with radical right-wing agendas who would deny them essential reproductive health care.

As a pro-lifer, I of course agree with the sentiment of this article. But the thrust of the argument seems wrong to me.

It seems to argue that abortion is wrong because it causes the mother harm. Naturally nobody wants to see anyone harmed unnecessarily, but to make this consequentialist argument seems to bypass the fact that many (probably a majority) of women who have abortions do not feel depression and crippling remorse. While this is the regrettable outcome for many, I have a hard time believing that all women who terminate a pregnancy invariably turn to substance abuse and self-harm.

Abortion is wrong because it is "bad", not just because it is "bad for you." (It is bad for the preborn child of course, but I don't want to pursue that line of thought right now, since most pro-choice readers here are unlikely to accept that the preborn child is a person.) I have incredible respect for those organisations who go to great lengths to help those women who have been physically and psychologically harmed by having an abortion. These organisations need to continue their supportive, non-judgemental, and confidental work.

However our pro-life ethicists should argue the pro-life philosophy from a deontological, not a consequentialist, line of reasoning. Abortion is morally wrong whether it harms the mother or not, in the same way that reckless driving is morally wrong whether it causes a harmful accident or not.

I have to agree with Dan. The CMA and OMA should act to protect physicians in the delivery of abortion service. There are abuses and women are streamed into abortion and pretty soon its gonna bite them on the ass.

What a load of garbage! I think I would worry less about a woman that chose to do something over a woman forced to do something. You can't argue with these people.. they just don't see why taking away someone's rights is wrong. One of the people that left a comment actually posted that "you don't need to love your child, someone else can do it for you and no one will hate you for it". Ummmm except maybe your child? Growing up without love and unwanted does not have good end results from my experiences.

Also have you considered there is a good chance you've got the insane right wing Bible Belt Fundamentalists on here posting? I had a friend of mine in the US try joining and from Australia and Malaysia and they all joined and posted no problem.

THIS IS NOT CANADA!! This is not what we are about. Some poeple yes, the majority 3-1? Absolutely not!

I figure if you can't survive on your own you aren't alive. If you take a foetus out of the womb at 2 months it will not survive. It will just be a lump of cells.

Dennis is right - if anti-choicers think abortion is inherently wrong, they should focus on that, instead of scare-mongering about alleged dire consequences for women (all of them false alarms by the way).

But anti-choicers were forced to start pretending they care about women, because focusing on fetuses got them nowhere, except justly labelled as religious fanatics who are indifferent to the plight of actual children who need help. (Although they do work quite hard to punish their disadvantaged mothers.)

In regards to the comments from Kristen about children "Growing up without love..." because there parents gave them away.... I would have to disagree big-time on this. My mother was 17 when she had me and she gave me up for adoption. I have had a great life with a loving family. I'm glad I was valued as a life rather than just a "woman's choice"

Take care.

Jason.

Emotionalism does not lead to sound arguments. The basic pro-life argument is in no way religiously based.

Here is the basic pro-life argument which I believe to be of perfect logic.

1. If you cannot point to any particular moment in the timeline of growth at which moment a foetus becomes human, then there is only one logical conclusion. Humanity comes at the very start, with conception.

2. There is no particular point during growth at which you can say a foetus suddenly becomes human.

3. Therefore, either it has always been human or it will never be human.

4. We acknowledge that we are human.

5. Therefore humanity comes at the start, with conception and it follows necessarily that a foetus is human.

6. Abortion kills a foetus, and we have acknowledged a foetus to be human life.

7. It is morally unacceptable to kill human life.

8. Therefore abortion is morally unacceptable.

Please don't reply based on emotion or by making a personal attack. I would appreciate it if you would examine the argument. If you find an error in it, then so be it. If you can find no error, then you should accept it, and make ending abortion your number one wish too.

To Kristen and Dan Rheault,

It seems easier to label the editorialist some kind of "right wing" nut than to listen to the argument made.

I'll start with Dan. I think you missed the point. All individuals who are either pro-life or pro-choice should agree that it is pretty sad that women feel the need to have abortions. It is an indicator of how little support we as a society give our women. This is not about supposed "rights" or one particular view of "equality". The evidence is clear, in our society where many women feel the need to have an abortion, we do not treat women equally nor do we respect their right to be women. As for your brief discussion of professional autonomy, there is none if you are implying that professional societies should force physicians to participate in acts that they in their professional opinion is detrimental to the welfare of their patients.

Now Kristen, your reply reads as though it is full of anger. I am sorry if you have had bad things happen in your life experience that may have led you to believe that "unwanted children" are better off dead. Try not to merely label people so that you can ignore their arguments without giving it any serious thought. Can't you see that your rhetoric could be viewed the same way? I'm sure that you want to be taken seriously, so take others seriously also. Lastly, If any one of us were truly alone we would die not only an 8 week fetus, 2 month old baby or 30 year old woman.

I really can't understand what the debate is all about. We have a law against killing people in Canada and yet someone just brutally murdered ME. I was so warm and comfortable, floating around in my mother's womb. I was sucking my thumb and the next thing I knew--someone was sucking my body parts out, one by one. I don't like to be so graphic, but looking down on you from my new heavenly home, I have something very important to say. I want you to know what you're doing is wrong, and there are millions of Canadian babies up here that feel the same way. We're all praying that you come to see it our way, before it's too late.

We all believe that a country that kills its own- is a country without hope.

With Love,
Angel

Joyce- To say that warning women about the emotional and physical risks of abortion is "scare mongering" is extremely ignorant. I do agree with previous comments that not all women who undergo an abortion turn to alcohol and substance abuse, and not all suffer from depression. But it is the responsibility of the doctor -- and of individuals such as yourself who claim to be looking out for the rights and wellbeing of all women -- to inform women that there are numerous mental and physical consequences that accompany abortion. To lie about this is doing a disservice to the women.

To Karen I ask a simple question that is free of religious affiliation:
A 2 year old child left without care would not survive. Nor would a 9 month old baby. Nor would a 4 1/2 month old premature baby who has been "saved" by doctors because it is "wanted". So are these all just "lumps of cells" and not living because they are dependent? Where do you draw the line?

Compliments to Ryan for presenting the logic behind the 'natural law' that killing a defenceless human being is wrong and that a foetus is human from conception. Another aspect to this discussion - human beings are the world's greatest assests - not liabilities as some environmentalists would have us believe. Mother Teresa of Calcutta said the person who would have discovered the cure for cancer was aborted. She also said, "No baby is unwanted - if you don't want your baby, give it to me."

Compliments to Ryan for presenting the logic behind the 'natural law' that killing a defenceless human being is wrong and that a foetus is human from conception. Another aspect to this discussion - human beings are the world's greatest assests - not liabilities as some environmentalists would have us believe. Mother Teresa of Calcutta said the person who would have discovered the cure for cancer was aborted. She also said, "No baby is unwanted - if you don't want your baby, give it to me."

Rebuttal to Ryan's argument:

For starters, you're misusing the word "human". Of course, fetuses are human in the sense they are not canine or bovine. But you have not established they are human beings or persons, which is another thing altogether.

Even so, to adopt your argument, if you cannot point to any particular moment in the timeline of growth at which moment a foetus becomes a human being, there is more than one logical conclusion. Its "human-beingness" could be deemed to come at the very start, OR at the very end, OR we could decide it's just an unanswerable, subjective question.

Actually, in this society under our laws, it's legal personhood is not bestowed until birth. Before that, its moral value is subjective - mostly because society will never agree on this issue. Since only a minority of people in Canada believe that a fetus is a human being with the same value and rights as a born human being, we can't say that it's "morally unacceptable to kill it." Only the pregnant woman can make that judgment, because we can't impose a particular minority opinion on to her. She might perceive her fetus as some unwelcome parasitic clump of cells, and that's totally her call.

Finally, even if we could bestow legal personhood on fetuses and make them somehow equal to born people, women would still have a right to abortion under self-defense. In an unwanted pregnancy, the fetus is co-opting the woman's body against her will, and endangering her life and health, since any pregnancy poses medical risks and will have a profound effect on a woman's whole life. Therefore, she has the right to defend herself with an abortion. Killing someone in self-defense is not morally unacceptable, nor is it murder.

Kristen and Joyce's comments are characteristically offensive. They are merely ad hominum attacks on pro-life people. She is what I would call an "abortion absolutist" - someone who believes that a woman can do whatever she wants except voice an opinion about abortion. In that regard, abortion is not up for debate and must be adhered to fanatically, absolutely, without question. "Abortion fundamentalist" might be a better phrase. But like so many pro-lifers, I enjoy getting into the debate because the logic is so rich.

Let me explain:
When presented with a rights conflict, that is, the woman's right to choose vs. the child's right to life, the law must favour the right that is more fundamental by nature – that is, the right that is prior to all other rights. The right to life is clearly more fundamental than the right to choose. One cannot have a choice if they are dead.

But, says, the pro-abort, the unborn is not a human, or better still, not a person. Again logic would show that if the embryo is not human it never will be. To deny humanity or personhood from an entire class of people because of their level of development, size, location is pure and simple discrimination.

Finally, when in doubt as to someone’s humanity, at the very least, don’t kill. If there is even the slightest inkling that the unborn just MIGHT be human, we cannot kill. The basic principle of any civilized society is DO NO HARM. Abortion clearly violates this by ending the life of an innocent human being for reasons that we would never allow a born human being to be killed for.

As Physicians for Life correctly surmised, abortion violates our intrinsic taboos about killing and makes Canada a country that fails in its primary duty, to protect the lives of all its citizens.

I am pro-life and pro-choice. I believe, based on scientific evidence, that human life exists from the moment of conception. All that is needed to produce a fully functioning human person is there at the beginning. Since I believe human life should be respected and valued as a foundation of our society, I believe that abortion at any stage should be outlawed except when it is the indirect result of a treatment given to the mother to save her life.

I am also pro-choice since I believe a woman must make a choice based not just on her concerns about bringing a new child into the world and the anticipated difficulty this will cause her, but also on an understanding of the implications of terminating a pregancy. Many of those were described in the editorial above. The choice is really whether or not to take an innocent life that has as much right as the mother to grow, to learn, to acquire wisdom and make his or her own choices. We need to provide more support to women to encourage them to see the value of the gift of life and choose it.

Sarah - Abortion is provided under the same informed consent guidelines as any other medical procedure. Women are already told of the complications of abortion, which are infrequent and usually minor.

Pregnancy/childbirth carries at least 10 times the risk of maternal death as does early abortion, and something like 25 times the risk of various complications, both physical and psychological (e.g., post-partum depression is very common) See this website: www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm for a very long list of the negative effects of pregnancy. In addition, there are many contraindications to pregnancy (reasons why women should not get pregnant or should have an abortion if they do), including diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, interactions with prescription drugs, psychiatric conditions, lung diseases, cancer, heritable diseases, and many other conditions.

Since abortion clinics fully inform women of abortion risks, I think it's only fair that Crisis Pregnancy Centres do the same for pregnancy and childbirth.

Joyce correctly understands the “humanness” of the unborn, but says that we cannot know when it begins, at the beginning or at the end, so she leaves it up to subjective opinion. Whether or not someone is human can never be a matter of opinion especially if that person’s life depends upon it. This line of reasoning taken to its logical conclusion, would absolve perpetrators of all forms of genocide. For if we do not know when ”humanness” begins, it could be argued that neither did Hitler. His subjective opinion led him to believe that many classes of human beings were not human. How would we ever be able to convict someone of murder if their act depended on their subjective definition of what a human being is.

In contrast, the pro-life position says, when in doubt, DO NO HARM, especially if that harm is an absolute harm, like ending a life.

Laws can be unjust and wrong. Canada does not assume legal personhood until birth (thus allowing for abortion throughout all nine months) making our legal system as flawed as any system that has categorically denied any group personhood status. Let’s look at examples of how other laws denied personhood status from women: “The statutory word “person” did not in these circumstances include women,” taken from the British Voting Rights Case in 1909. Canada did not consider women “persons” in the legal sense until the Persons Case decision on 1929. Though Canada was not directly involved, we can never forget that laws favouring slavery; “In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person,” Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858. But if “humanness” or personhood is a matter of subjective opinion, we could not claim that these laws are in any way unjust.

Again, the pro-life position maintains that when in doubt as to anyone’s humanity, be they born or unborn, do no harm. Killing in uncertainty is then the absolute violation.

And finally, in regard to Joyce’s comments about self-defence, that argument only holds if the pregnancy is threatening the life of the woman. In that regard, a doctor would in most circumstances not have to kill the baby in order to save the mother’s life. Doctor’s can correct the pregnancy by removing the baby from the womb, with the intention of saving both lives. If the baby dies from the procedure, its death is not intended.

And, pregnancy is not a disease, but a natural process by which we all come into the world. As a women I resent other women referring to our ability to bear children as a “co-opting of our bodies.”

Joyce Arthur's comments are so reminiscent of something... ah yes... Hitler. He also made a law that deemed a group of people "non-persons", and the "majority" of people seemed fine with that at the time. Would you claim that it would be wrong to have imposed our "particular minority opinion" about the rights of Jews on him? Or does the right to impose morality only have validity when you think it does. If I decide that my three year old is just a clump of parasitic cells (he sure eats like he is), and that I can no longer afford him, or that he is interferring with my career, or that I just don't like him anymore, may I then rip his arms and legs off, crush his skull and dump him into the incinerator with your permission? Oh, sorry am I sounding like an extremist? (Aka. a person who doesn't cover up truth with rhetorical and nonsensical, self-serving lies.)

To those that argue that a "fetus" is not a person, what is it then? You cling to the word fetus as though you believe it makes the unborn baby less of a human. Are you then ignorant of the fact that fetus is derived from the Latin for the bearing, bringing forth or generating of young? If humans do not generate other humans, then what do we generate?

Incidentally, the first paragraph of the article was ommitted. It reads:
"In Canada, an unborn child’s only real protection is found in the heart of her mother. A wish to abolish abortion is, in the end, directed at the heart of every woman who is surprised by motherhood. She is suddenly confronted by another life, someone else’s life, as surely as if a baby was left on her doorstep with a note: "Please look after me." At this point, she has only two paths before her – to continue to be the mother of a live baby or to become the mother of a dead baby. Women know this, and need not be patronized by glib phrases like "it’s only tissue," or "it’s just a part of your body, like your appendix.""

This contentious issue is not going away. Just because people do not find the fetus is convenient does not make other than human. Just because a human being does not have legal definition as such, does not make it unworthy of protection. Relying on an archaic English law that could not see a developing human by ultrasound, is a head in the sand approach.
How long did it take African Blacks to be accepted as persons in our society? Their moral status preceded their legal status. First Nations only got the vote in 1960. What were they before that? It was easier to abolish slavery, because once you educated slaves, they could tell their story and be seen as human. Who is going to speak for those members of society who have not yet emerged from their mothers? That "clump of cells" is exactly what anyone reading this article was at an early stage in their development. Were you not as valuable than as you are now? Do you somehow think that unique aborted life will be given another chance at life in different pregnancy?
It is sadly true that women do "need, want, ask, demand, plead or beg for abortions"as outlined in the first comment. As in all other situations around the world where violence is seen as a solution to a social problem, where one group seeks to remove another out of self-interest, we need to protect the vulnerable AND work to remove the injustice behind the demand. Then we will all be free to live in Canadian society, even those yet within their mother's womb.

I am a young-ish Canadian woman, spiritual but not religious, who cares about women's rights (and human rights in general), poverty, the environment, cruelty to animals, and many other so-called "lefty" issues. However, the fact that I believe that every human being has the right to be born apparently makes me a "right wing extremist" and a "fundamentalist Bible-thumper".

I don't believe anyone has the right to decide that another human being will die, whether by abortion or capital punishment. Women are still being told the lie that it's just a "clump of cells". We all used to be that clump of cells. Adoption is a choice we can all live with. There are thousands of caring, qualified people in Canada waiting to adopt for years, but there aren't enough babies. It's an extremely difficult decision, but at least a woman can know she gave her child a chance.

Joyce, let me make you aware of some credible studies outlining the affects of abortion on women. Your claim that childbirth is 10 times more dangerous than abortion is utterly fallacious.
As we know, research based on record linkage is far more authoritative than research based on interviews. Record linkage studies typically involve large populations; they are not contaminated by interviewer bias; and they do not suffer from the problem of the refusal of some subjects to participate, or the attrition of those who do agree to participate.
David Reardon’s study of 173,279 low-income California women found the weakest correlation between induced abortion and suicide of a series of recent studies. The women who had abortions experienced a suicide rate 160 per cent higher than the women who delivered their babies, in the four years following their abortion. A much larger study of 408,000 British women in the 1990s established that women who had induced abortions were 225 per cent more likely to commit suicide than women admitted for delivery of their babies. The largest study, based on the records of more than 1.1 million births, induced and spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies experienced by Scandinavian women between 1987 and 2000 uncovered a suicide rate among women who underwent abortions over six times (518 per cent) higher than among pregnant women who had their babies.
The recent study by Fergusson, Horwood and Ridder. They gathered data on a birth cohort of 630 females in Christchurch, New Zealand, and tracked them for a 25-year longitudinal study. After eliminating a host of ‘confounding’ factors that have been the bane of most studies of this nature – such as mother’s education, childhood sexual or physical abuse, prior personality problems, smoking, alcohol abuse etc. – they conclude that ‘mental health problems [are] highest amongst those having abortions. The presentation of the evidence in their tables show how understated this conclusion actually is. By almost every measure -- major depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, alcohol dependence, illicit drug dependence, mean number of mental health problems -- those who terminated their pregnancy by abortion suffered higher rates of disorder than those who were never pregnant, and those who were pregnant but did not abort.
The study showed that women who didn’t have abortions were 80 to 85 percent less likely to have an illicit drug dependence than those who did.
And this is just the psychological effects.

Physiological effects will hopefully follow.

Joyce, let me make you aware of some credible studies outlining the affects of abortion on women. Your claim that childbirth is 10 times more dangerous than abortion is utterly fallacious.
As we know, research based on record linkage is far more authoritative than research based on interviews. Record linkage studies typically involve large populations; they are not contaminated by interviewer bias; and they do not suffer from the problem of the refusal of some subjects to participate, or the attrition of those who do agree to participate.
David Reardon’s study of 173,279 low-income California women found the weakest correlation between induced abortion and suicide of a series of recent studies. The women who had abortions experienced a suicide rate 160 per cent higher than the women who delivered their babies, in the four years following their abortion. A much larger study of 408,000 British women in the 1990s established that women who had induced abortions were 225 per cent more likely to commit suicide than women admitted for delivery of their babies. The largest study, based on the records of more than 1.1 million births, induced and spontaneous abortions and ectopic pregnancies experienced by Scandinavian women between 1987 and 2000 uncovered a suicide rate among women who underwent abortions over six times (518 per cent) higher than among pregnant women who had their babies.
The recent study by Fergusson, Horwood and Ridder. They gathered data on a birth cohort of 630 females in Christchurch, New Zealand, and tracked them for a 25-year longitudinal study. After eliminating a host of ‘confounding’ factors that have been the bane of most studies of this nature – such as mother’s education, childhood sexual or physical abuse, prior personality problems, smoking, alcohol abuse etc. – they conclude that ‘mental health problems [are] highest amongst those having abortions. The presentation of the evidence in their tables show how understated this conclusion actually is. By almost every measure -- major depression, anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, alcohol dependence, illicit drug dependence, mean number of mental health problems -- those who terminated their pregnancy by abortion suffered higher rates of disorder than those who were never pregnant, and those who were pregnant but did not abort.
The study showed that women who didn’t have abortions were 80 to 85 percent less likely to have an illicit drug dependence than those who did.
And this is just the psychological effects.

Physiological effects will hopefully follow.

Natalie, you think if there's doubt about someone's humanity or personhood, we should err on the side of not killing. But that means sacrificing women's lives, health, and rights for a mere hypothetical. That's totally unreasonable and unjust.

You say: "Whether or not someone is human can never be a matter of opinion especially if that person’s life depends upon it." But that's the very question at issue! You've said nothing to prove that a fetus is a person, you just make the leap of assuming so, but that doesn't make it so.

Every pregnancy threatens a woman's life and health. Every single one, for every single woman. I already explained that AND documented it.

As for Colleen Roy, may I point out that it's not me who's decided that fetuses are not legal persons until birth, it's just about every government in the history of the world. A sensible and practical decision, since you can't give meaningful legal personhood to fetuses without taking it away from women - i.e., thoroughly oppressing them.

Btw, how does Colleen explain the fact that Hitler banned abortion?

Colleen commits the same logical error in her argument as Natalie - simply assuming that fetuses are full persons the same as born persons. It's not something that can be proven, let alone assumed.

Sarah's argument about dependency is flawed (to paraphrase,"a 2 month old baby is dependent and we don't kill it, so how can we kill a fetus because it's dependent"). The crucial difference is that fetuses are dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only THAT pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can't hire someone else to do it. Which gives her the right to preserve her own life and autonomy by having an abortion - the self-defense argument. (For more info, please see my article The Fetus Focus Fallacy, at www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetus-focus-fallacy.shtml)

The previous post was not meant to be anonymous…

A 2000 study by the Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario of 41,039 women during the three months following their abortions revealed that these women had a more than 4 times higher rate of hospitalizations for infections, a 5 times higher rate of surgical events and a nearly 5 times higher rate of hospitalization for psychiatric problems than the matching group of women who had not had abortions.

The American Journal of Medical Quality, 2001, estimates that every year 13,000 Canadian women need surgical intervention following their abortions. These are women going back to hospital for second surgeries following their initial abortion.

Most pro-abortion facilities will not report the number of complications from abortion because it is bad for business. In 1993, the last records detailing abortion related incidents where women were returning to hospital from abortion complications, showed approximately 10,000. That is about 10% of the abortions committed that year. Now hospitals and clinics doing second surgeries on women do not record them as “abortion related injuries." They are listed under “internal medicine,” which could be anything.

The previous post was not meant to be anonymous…

A 2000 study by the Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario of 41,039 women during the three months following their abortions revealed that these women had a more than 4 times higher rate of hospitalizations for infections, a 5 times higher rate of surgical events and a nearly 5 times higher rate of hospitalization for psychiatric problems than the matching group of women who had not had abortions.

The American Journal of Medical Quality, 2001, estimates that every year 13,000 Canadian women need surgical intervention following their abortions. These are women going back to hospital for second surgeries following their initial abortion.

Most pro-abortion facilities will not report the number of complications from abortion because it is bad for business. In 1993, the last records detailing abortion related incidents where women were returning to hospital from abortion complications, showed approximately 10,000. That is about 10% of the abortions committed that year. Now hospitals and clinics doing second surgeries on women do not record them as “abortion related injuries." They are listed under “internal medicine,” which could be anything.

Way to go Facebook! We're Canadians -- and we're actually talking about abortion!

Just finished reading all the comments, pro and con. Most shocking is Joyce Arthur's description of elective pregnancy termination as a necessary act of self-defence. Is she seriously saying a natural and beautiful and wondrous privilege of womanhood calls for a violent offensive attack against a dangerous enemy force? (How harsh is that, Joyce, to describe a prenatal child as an "unwelcome parasite." All of us are alive thanks to mothers who didn't treat us as parasites.)

Are Canadian hearts big enough to meet the real needs of women? Can we agree to offer friendship, help and support, empowering woman, in all circumstances to welcome and celebrate the gift of a child?

First of all, I object to this editorialist's claim that "(abortion) violates our intrinsic taboos about killing" - you know what really violates our intrinsic taboos about killing? The kind of back-alley abortions that happen in countries where abortion is illegal. Giving women a safe way to end unwanted pregnancies SAVES countless lives. Furthermore, this supposition that women are somehow "damaged" by abortion is unsubstantiated and generalises considerably. Some women may find themselves experiencing emotional distress as a result - but how do you know that continuing the pregnancy wouldn't have caused them the same distress or MORE. As a woman, the thought of being forced to bear an unwanted pregnancy is unthinkably revolting. Also - the quote "A society that has lost respect for a woman’s biological giftedness and surrendered its abhorrence of killing leaves a distressed pregnant woman with little protection to offer her unborn child." leaves me with no doubt whatsoever that the author of this editorial is a misogynist. Why should a woman be defined solely by her biological capability to have children? Men aren't defined by this. I am more than just my womb, thank you very much.

Dear Anonymous - As David Reardon should know but doesn't, correlation does not equal causation. There is no evidence to indicate that subsequent suicides have anything to do with the abortion itself.

In fact, it's well-known that women seeking abortions tend, to some degree, to be more disadvantaged than women who choose to give birth. That is, they're more likely to be poor, single, in unstable relationships, drug-addicted, in poor health, dysfunctional, in crisis situations, etc. That's often why they get pregnant accidentally and have abortions in the first place - and it's why they would continue to have problems, including a higher suicide rate, and other adverse effects.

Again, to repeat, there's nothing to prove these effects are caused by the abortion itself; rather, the abortion may be just another symptom of a difficult life. (All the more reason to have compassion for these women and not add to their problems by forcing them to bear children they can't care for!)

Don't forget we're talking here about a miniscule percentage of women who've had abortions, since most women have little or no problem after abortion.

When a woman is pregnant another human life is present. They are related to each other as mother and child.(With child is an ancient term in the English language) Although in the womb the child is in the world already and has a life time of its own to realize. It is not a something but a someone who has a claim to justice and mercy.

A woman and her doctor? What about the life of the child, the life of the father and the lives of countless relatives that are affected by the death of a truly loved one?

Abortion is just a word to some. It means death to others.

Those who say that the pro-lifers are simply better organised therefore, their opinions simply don't count have come up with an excuse to hope the issue will go away.

China took the lead in abortions. Now they have an army of young males who have no females with whom to mate. Their choice?

Test-tube 'creations', or same sex couples who adopt from other countries?

Abortion has created a monster. Doctors who perform abortions are greedy, need a good look in the mirror and should count their blessings that the Nazis who invented the criminal act did not win the war.

What still irks me in this whole debate is that pregnancy is considered a disease by "pro-choicers" and us, the minority, who consider life as the only option, are still on the hook to pay for all the medically funded murders in our country. What ever happened to the right of conscientious objection? How many abortions would our country have in a year if women of "choice" mind had to pay for it themselves? Certainly repeat users of this "medical service" would think twice before having to use it time and time again. Imagine how short our waiting lists would become in our hospitals if time wasn't wasted in the operating rooms performing thousands of abortions every year? We may even be able to fund real illnesses for a change, perhaps find real cures for real unavoidable diseases. Just a thought. And on that note, if I were required to pay hospital fees out of my own pocket for all the lives I've brought into this world (7), I would gladly do so, and my conscience would be clear. I could live with that!!

It is important to debate this issue. I do not believe it will ever be resolved and I hope that we will never go back in time on our decision to give Canadian women the right to choose. I have made the choice myself and here is my story:

When I was 20 and in second year of university I fell in love, my boyfriend and I started having sex and our condom broke! I took the morning after pill the next day and it made me so sick that I threw up - a week later it was confirmed by the nicest doctor at the UVic clinic: I was pregnant. My boyfriend and I had only been together for a few months and I wasn't ready or willing to bring a child into my life. I always knew what my decision would be and told my boyfriend right away, he asked me if I was sure, I said I was and we were both relieved.
I am very close to my mother but I told my boyfriend that I couldn't possibly tell her this. The next day when I visited my mum it burst out of me before I had time to think and I told her what had happened and what I planned to do. She looked at me and smiled and told me "Well when I was 18..." She had made the same choice too, and now she was the mother of 3. If my mum could do it, and still feel whole in the end, then I knew I would be okay.
Before I had my abortion, I scoured the internet, looking for anything that could make me change my mind. I did find some pretty horrific things but also found lots of lies, even stupid one (fine, make an argument, but please don't tell me things that are illogical i.e. the world is not overpopulated!)
The big day arrived and my boyfriend drove me to the hospital, in a few hours I was back home. I expected to feel some emotions, but I wasn't expecting what I felt: relief.
That was it! I would have gone for a run if I was allowed but instead I just sat on the couch and cried, happy that it was over.

I am now 25, my boyfriend is now my husband and I am surrounded with children: I am a teacher and am in love with the eager young minds that I am so lucky to learn from everyday. I have never regretted my choice and will some day soon I will choose to have children of my own, but for now, I am enjoying the children of others.

You can say what you want, trust me, I have already heard it. You can tell me I will realize later on that I made a mistake, you can tell me my logic is flawed or that my heart has holes but I have heard it before and you can not change my mind.

It might be cliché, but I want every child to be wanted. I want people to choose families and I want the kids I teach to come from places of choice. I am proud to be Canadian and proud to belong to a society where the majority believes in these values and supports them.

Thank you to all of the men and women who have supported our right to choice.

This discussion proves to me the beauty of Canada. The fact that we can have this discussion is wonderful. The fact that we attack each other ad hominem instead of challenging the arguments themselves is also a testimonial to the wonderful country we live in.

The fact is that on this issue "never the twain shall meet." Some of us will be pro-choice others pro-life. As for governments legislating "personhood" - that has nothing to do with the argument. For goodness' sakes, in Canada even women were not persons until the 1920s, not to mention fetuses! This is not a legal argument, it is a moral one. People make moral mistakes all the time. It is not up to other people to judge them. It is up to us as Canadians and people to stand up and speak our minds which we are all doing more or less effectively on this forum.

We have to be careful, though, of moral relativism. The job of our government is to make laws because we believe in the rule of law and not the rule of people. Once the law is set, we must follow it unless we can work to change it. Our job as citizens is to make informed decisions (and I don't mean informed consent to medical procedure - it's not about the risks of pregnancy or abortion, it's about making MORALLY infomed decisions.) And finally, as I teach my students, when society changes and its values and morals change, the laws will change too (eventually).

I do find it interesting how many of them (my students and the writers here) are pro-life, though. It gives me some hope for the future.

I am absolutely horrified by such a wish. At fifteen years old, I experienced the horrors of being raped. From this, an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion was the only option for me. I would not bring into this world, a child who would forever remind me of the worst moments of my life.

I would like to say it is interesting how a man spearheading this anti- abortion promotion is telling women what they can and can not do with there bodies. Why should women go back into the dark ages, give up our rights to do what we want with our bodies when our ancesters have fought so hard for equalization. What is next would you like to ban birth control. This is another form of gender control. Why don't we consider more pressing issues like bringing our soilders home from Afghanistan, child poverty and pollution.

A woman should have a right to make her own decisions on abortion or not.
There are some personal decisions that should not be forced or made a law, "God gave free will to everyone," what makes anyone think they should have the power over another to take that away?
Ending wars that "kill" hundreds of men leaving woman husbandless and children fatherless should have a far larger focus than stopping a woman who feels having an abortion is necessary for her.

Linda

Dennis & Joyce are right in recognising that the bottom-line is that abortion is inherently wrong. So why do we no longer make that the only focus? The other effects, on the mothers and society in general, that people cite to show some of the harm done, are valid concerns that have been raised because the loudest pro-choice voices have claimed that there is no absolute truth, therefore what's wrong for you is not wrong for me, & with that the discussion ends. So prolifers have tried to say ok, maybe you don't believe it's inherently wrong because you don't believe in absolute truth, but surely you cannot deny the tragic, cold, hard statistics that point to devastating psychological effects on women, an increase in child abuse, an inability to bond with subsequent children, increased risk of breast cancer, difficulties conceiving & carrying future babies or the pain experienced by fathers of aborted babies. If you can't see the reality & sacredness of pre-born human life, surely you must care about your own well-being! Yes, abortion is wrong. Yes it is murder. But these words are very hard for someone who has made bad choices to hear or believe, because facing the awful truth of that fact must be a terrible sorrow to live with, unless one finds forgiveness & peace with the very Creator of life.

The different between Pro-Life and Pro-abortion supporter, is That Pro-Life supporters say that life is always good. But the Pro-abortion say that sometimes life is no good but death is good.
But there is study that proof that death is sometimes good, it never was never is and never will be. Never separate the word killing from abortion, we live in a time that moral relativism deceive people and makes good look bad and bad looks good.
We still can save Canada by stopping abortion.

Very good discussion.

Abortion is the North American equivalent to female circumcision, just one of the many ways women are reshaped to fit the sexual demands of men. We know that there is a case to make it safe and legal in Africa. How about reshaping society rather than women for once.

The law takes the male view that a baby is not a person until seen by a man. The fact that women have a relationship with their baby throughout pregnancy does not count. But then the law in Canada stated women were not persons until the 1920s either.

The view that pregnant women are fatally defective and going to die any minute is based on a male medical view that pathologizes’ pregnancy and the view that women are at best defective incubators... true misogyny. Remember this view is behind the fact that an astonishing 70-89% of women receiving private care in Brazil have C Sections.

Speaking of Hitler in the movie Sophie’s Choice she is given the choice of one of her 2 children while being processed in a concentration camp. I guess we should all be pro choice in this situation but the bigger question is why is there a concentartion camp in the first place.

Why are women forced to choose poverty, partner abuse and rejection or their baby. As one feminist said women want abortion like someone caught in a trap want to chew her leg off.

Today, more than ever, our society is in need of healing. There are uncountable numbers of women (and men) who are hurting as a result of their abortion experiences. They are uncountable simply because of these two reasons: The unprecedented numbers of abortions that are occurring in our country, and secondly, because abortion is so secretive.

People will speak of almost every known medical procedure they have undergone, except abortion. People will speak of their bypass surgery, the removal of their wisdom teeth, their vasectomies, their cancer surgeries, their hysterectomies, and anything else that has occurred to them, or procedures they have undergone. And these very conversations will occur in almost any forum or setting. Yet few, if any, will ever acknowledge their abortion experiences to others in the same manner. I believe that the two main reasons for this are as follows: They are either afraid of being judged by others for what they have undergone or taken part in; and/or they are ashamed of what they have undergone or taken part in. And this silence is deafening.

Project Rachel is a service which offers hope and healing to those still hurting as a result of an abortion experience. If there is anyone reading this who is struggling with this pain, Project Rachel’s confidential help line can be reached at 519 646 2950, or you can go to their web site at www.flymo.ca/postabortion . Speak with someone who knows and cares. Call Project Rachel. They also offer weekend retreats for women twice a year, and the next one is being held June 22, - 24, 2007 in southwestern Ontario.

There have been so many good comments articulated above, in defense of the millions of lives of the poor Canadian children being lost through abortion, and those in the aftermath. There are many still to be made to educate our neighbours about this reality. And of course, there are some who will not be convinced, as is always the case.

Yes, it is my Great Canadian Wish too that we, as a country, would protect the lives of all the vulnerable; in this case, babies in the womb and their mothers and families, from the harm of abortion, by abolishing abortion.

Joyce, every pregnancy does NOT threaten either a woman's life or her health. Pregnancy is a natural state of being for a woman. When a woman is pregnant, she is HEALTHY. She is not diseased and there is nothing wrong with her.
Sometimes, there are complications that occur as a result of pregnancy, it's true. However, these complications are the exception and not the norm. For you to so emphatically state that EVERY pregnancy endangers a woman is simply not true.
Furthermore, the number of abortions performed to save a woman's life is very small relative to the number of abortions performed as a manner of late birth control.

Robbie, Jen, Natalie, and the anonymous editor's punishment for unlucky sex is apparently: PARENTHOOD! (I prefer parenthood to be a joyful responsibility, undertaken voluntarily.)

The New Brunswick government's punishment for unlucky sex is a wrangle with two different physicians who need to invent psychological disorders that will result from continued pregnancy, or $500 and a trip to the one clinic in the province.

No Canadian legislative documents or codes contain a punishment for unlucky sex. Let's keep it that way; if you don't like abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE.

I am a Catholic and yet am pro-choice on the issue of abortion and birth control. Abortion is a necessary medical procedure in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. We should be putting our energies into improving birth control and sex education, so that abortions will not be necessary, instead of punishing women and girls who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.

If the pro-life movement really cared about the number of abortions then maybe they should be encouraging sex education that is obvious proof that it lower the rates of accidential pregency that often leads to abortion. As well, they should be advocating towards ending child poverty so that potential mothers don't get an abortion out of fear of putting themselves and their child in perament poverty. Making it illegal won't make it go away.

To those who are not Pro-choice, choose not to have an abortion. And you can site all the studies you want but until you have walked in the shoes of a woman who chose to have an abortion I am not sure you should say anything at all. What separates Canada and US from other countries around the world is our individual freedom. There are many reasons why women choose to have an abortion, and while some may suffer physical and/or emotional pain, others do not. That is life. Legislation can not protect us all from ourselves. I encourage women to make better choices earlier in their relationships so that they never have to be in the position to choose. Why don't we focus our energy on educating and empowering young women, why not have at the top of our wishlist a media free of the exploitation of women and youth?

CBC -- Is there some reason this is my 2nd attempt at posting this? Luckily I saved this before posting it. So here it is again.

Joyce, Dan, and Kristen,

Nice to know you weren't around when other people were written out of personhood, like people with my skin colour.

A potential X is an actual Y. If the unborn is only potentially human, what is it actually? What kind of species is it? If you want to destroy something that's growing, the burden lies with *you* to prove that it's not human. Otherwise you're basically guilty of criminal negligence causing death.

The law of biogenesis -- notice I said *law, not theory -- is that living things ONLY reproduce after themselves. So, cats beget cats. Dogs beget dogs. And humans (living things that they are) beget...humans. Nothing to "disagree" about here, folks. Of course you're as free to disagree with this scientific law as you are to disagree that the Earth's actually not flat, but your "lack of consensus" about that wouldn't make the Earth flat, no matter how many people believed that it was.

All of the scientific evidence points TOWARDS the humanity of the unborn, NOT away from it. Nothing even remotely suggests that it's not human. Witness the reliance on this fact for the success of IVF -- and even embryonic stem cell research, as wrong as that is.

If you want to argue that the unborn is not a "person", tell me which one of these is morally relevant in any other instance to the question of whether you can kill or not:

Obviously, the unborn are smaller in size than, say, newborns or toddlers. But since when do decent, civilized societies make size a defining point for personhood?? Most women are *smaller* than most men. Would you say I'm less a person than most men I know on the basis of my size? Sure hope not. So, size is irrelevant to the question of personhood.

The level of development of the unborn seems to be something you're also relying on in your posts, especially in terms of viability. And the fact that viability can be tied to the whereabouts of the unborn, and their degree of dependancy (for most of the duration of pregnancy) on their moms. Again, do you mean to say that toddlers are less persons than adults because they're still clearly less developed than them? Is that really something you find subjective? Does the movement from one room to another change *what* you are as a living thing? So how could the few inches of the birth canal magically change the *nature* of a living thing from "clump of cells" to human being? And do you think that people who are 100% on insulin or pace-makers for their viability are less persons, or not persons, because of that dependance? Are you serious???

Notice that anyone, regardless of religion (or lack thereof), can accept what I've just said. Because it has nothing to do with religion. Sure, lots of people who are against killing people because they don't look like you, or are defenseless, *are* people of some type of religious faith. But they vary so much on practically every other point of significance that it's ludicrous to suggest they're trying to "impose" their religion. (Whose religion, when they can't even agree about that?!)

Besides, you've ignored the fact that there are atheists, agnostics, gays, lesbians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, non-Protestant Christians (including non-Roman Catholic Christians), feminists, libertarians, and many, many, many non-"Fundamentalist Christians" who are against abortion. Have a little respect, will you?

CBC -- this is also my 2nd attempt at posting my 2nd comment, originally sent yesterday, and which I also saved before posting. Please post it.

And another thing, Joyce et al.: you've obviously never held a woman as she sobbed uncontrollably from physical pain that has gone on MONTHS after her abortion, or from the worst kind of regret you could ever see.

You've obviously never bothered to sit and listen to a woman weep as she describes how her boyfriend coldly drove her to the clinic, and sat there as she cried her heart out not wanting to go through with it. THAT is the meaning of abandonment. THAT is beneath any society that professes to care about women.

Don't come back with some rhetoric about "unwanted" kids or African orphans. Being "wanted", even initially, is no guarantee for being loved later. Many formerly "wanted" fetuses can now attest to that. But likewise many formerly unwanted, unplanned fetuses are basking in the love of loving families. (By the way, are you in favour of killing the homeless too? They're not wanted, after all. Nice.) And the presence or absence of orphans, as well as the willingness or unwillingness of prolifers to adopt every single one of them, does NOTHING to negate the truth of the scientific evidence of the humanity of the unborn, that I pointed out in my previous post. Nor does it make any of the current grounds of discrimination -- size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency -- morally relevant to the question of whether you can kill.

If a woman hasn't suffered any consequences apart from the loss of her child as a result of an abortion, good for her. But why is it asking too much for you to respect the struggles, pain, and suffering of those women who do?

Dan, you told us, if you don't like abortion don't have one. Fair enough. How about pulling that thought along a little further and saying, "If you don't like abortion, your tax dollars won't go towards paying for it."

Thanks to those who have posted supportive pro-choice comments. The thread running through many of the anti-abortion comments is that women's main purpose is to be mothers and that's how they find happiness and fulfillment. The fact that the same is not said of men is evidence of discrimination and even misogyny. Women are more than their wombs, as one commenter said.

Parenthood is a wonderful thing, for those who are ready and who want children. But anti-abortion people seem to live in a fantasy world. Life can be very difficult or unhappy at times, necessitating an abortion. Plus some women simply don't want to have kids, or are not cut out to be mothers. No-one has any right to persuade these women to have babies, let alone force them. Children deserve more respect too, not just women.

One Commenter misquoted me as saying I think abortion is inherently wrong. I was just citing an anti-abortion argument. I believe legal abortion is a positive advance that saves women's lives and health, protects fundamental rights and freedoms, and benefits families and societies. Abortion is a moral choice for women.

The problem is unintended pregnancy, not abortion, which is the solution to the problem. If anti-choicers really wanted to "abolish abortion" they would at least try to reduce it by helping ensure contraception and comprehensive sex ed are widely available to all, and by destigmatizing sex and unintended pregnancy. Women would rather avoid unwanted pregnancy than get an abortion of course. And they're entitled to sex without pregnancy.

I am a bit shocked that the discussion about abortion came up this way in a forum that is essentially nationalist. I believe stongly in all that I do, but it seems this little project has been hijacked... Abortion has nothing to do with our nationhood, although how each state chooses to deal with abortion medically and legally might be said to define the nation in some way.

We in Canada have a Supreme Court and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1988 it was decided that legal sanctions by the state against the provision of abortion is a violation of women's equality rights under the Charter.

If the 'wish' for Canada' is in fact a return to a legal situation where any person participating in abortion (mother and doctor/other medical staff in particular) can be criminalized, then this wish, should it be acted upon, would be a return to this version of women's legal inequality with men.

If the 'wish for Canada' is really 'abolish abortion' and it is meant to be taken outside of the legal relationship between the state and each Canadian, and perhaps is a call to the wider social contract, there are some basics that are required:

1) A Guaranteed Annual Income for all. We have raised generations and generations of children in poverty, but there is no need to continue this. Several governments have come to power in Canada promising to alleviate the poverty of children. Give their parents and potential parents money and the children will not be poor. Give a woman some money in her own name and she will be able to decide what to do about her pregnancy without the worry about feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child after birth

2) Proper and thorough and yes, culturally and religiously sensitive, health and sexuality instruction. Too many people become sexually active as adolescents and as adults without an understanding of the mechanics of their bodies, how to behave sexually with self-respect and how to deal with the bombardments of crass and sexist messages about proper sexual behaviour for men and women.

3)Free and widely available contraception of all sorts. Why do we have to pay for the pill? for ECP? for condoms, male and female alike? Why are young men and women who go to doctors looking for tubiligations and vasectomies discouraged and put-off? If you don't want to have a baby, you don't want to have a baby. Why are the people who don't want women to have abortions often the same ones that refuse to respect someone choosing to take responsibility for themselves and their sexuality by using contraception?

4)Discuss parenting early with young people. Why do they value raising children? What tools and supports will they need to do so? If they think they do not want to parent, why not? How can each person's decision be valued before the crisis of an unplanned abortion?

5) The End of Violence Against Women. If men who rape stop doing so, if men who batter stop doing so, raped and battered women will not be in the position of having to deal with the after effects of rape and violence, which sometimes includes pregnancy and abortion.

There is probably more, but this is a start.
I am pro-choice, pro-abortion even, and I heartily agree that I would like to live in a world where pregnancies are welcome and women are free to birth and parent, (with or without a partner to parent alongside them.) I hope that world will also have room for the people who don't want to have children, and that all of us will have the tools and wherewithal to prevent a pregnancy or to get pregnant without the moral judgements of others interfering with our ability to do so. In this world, perhaps abortion won't be abolished, it will only become a mostly unnecessary and very occasionally used medical procedure, offered by those who are trained to provide the best and most respectful health care.

I am a bit shocked that the discussion about abortion came up this way in a forum that is essentially nationalist. I believe stongly in all that I do, but it seems this little project has been hijacked... Abortion has nothing to do with our nationhood, although how each state chooses to deal with abortion medically and legally might be said to define the nation in some way.

We in Canada have a Supreme Court and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 1988 it was decided that legal sanctions by the state against the provision of abortion is a violation of women's equality rights under the Charter.

If the 'wish' for Canada' is in fact a return to a legal situation where any person participating in abortion (mother and doctor/other medical staff in particular) can be criminalized, then this wish, should it be acted upon, would be a return to this version of women's legal inequality with men.

If the 'wish for Canada' is really 'abolish abortion' and it is meant to be taken outside of the legal relationship between the state and each Canadian, and perhaps is a call to the wider social contract, there are some basics that are required:

1) A Guaranteed Annual Income for all. We have raised generations and generations of children in poverty, but there is no need to continue this. Several governments have come to power in Canada promising to alleviate the poverty of children. Give their parents and potential parents money and the children will not be poor. Give a woman some money in her own name and she will be able to decide what to do about her pregnancy without the worry about feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child after birth

2) Proper and thorough and yes, culturally and religiously sensitive, health and sexuality instruction. Too many people become sexually active as adolescents and as adults without an understanding of the mechanics of their bodies, how to behave sexually with self-respect and how to deal with the bombardments of crass and sexist messages about proper sexual behaviour for men and women.

3)Free and widely available contraception of all sorts. Why do we have to pay for the pill? for ECP? for condoms, male and female alike? Why are young men and women who go to doctors looking for tubiligations and vasectomies discouraged and put-off? If you don't want to have a baby, you don't want to have a baby. Why are the people who don't want women to have abortions often the same ones that refuse to respect someone choosing to take responsibility for themselves and their sexuality by using contraception?

4)Discuss parenting early with young people. Why do they value raising children? What tools and supports will they need to do so? If they think they do not want to parent, why not? How can each person's decision be valued before the crisis of an unplanned abortion?

5) The End of Violence Against Women. If men who rape stop doing so, if men who batter stop doing so, raped and battered women will not be in the position of having to deal with the after effects of rape and violence, which sometimes includes pregnancy and abortion.

There is probably more, but this is a start.
I am pro-choice, pro-abortion even, and I heartily agree that I would like to live in a world where pregnancies are welcome and women are free to birth and parent, (with or without a partner to parent alongside them.) I hope that world will also have room for the people who don't want to have children, and that all of us will have the tools and wherewithal to prevent a pregnancy or to get pregnant without the moral judgements of others interfering with our ability to do so. In this world, perhaps abortion won't be abolished, it will only become a mostly unnecessary and very occasionally used medical procedure, offered by those who are trained to provide the best and most respectful health care.

This has been an interesting blog, and it's great to see people talking about this issue.

I have a question for those who identify as pro-choice: are there any circumstances in which you believe abortion is wrong? Do you believe abortion is wrong after a certain time in the pregnancy? Do you believe sex-selection abortions should be illegal in Canada?

Thanks to CBC for the Wish List--great idea!

Real Catholics/Christians value each life from the moment of conception to natural death. Abortion is murder. A woman's womb was not created to be used as an extermination chamber. Abortion is today's holocaust. Anyone who supports the murder of babies in the womb is a holocaust denier and supporter.

There is no doubt that life begins at conception, so abortion destroys a unique, individual human being. No civilized society should accept this as a legitimate choice - a choice which is often driven by the father who does not wish to have the responsibility of raising a child, or by parents who are worried about what other might think. Abortion goes against a woman's natural maternal instinct and will, at some point in her life, cause her mental anguish, even if she escapes the physical consequences.

Mmm interesting. The every baby a wanted baby is a bit hollow considering the long list of those wanting to adopt. Who would support this view for any other human… every woman a wanted woman?
When are we going to stop the damage to the ecosystems of women? Tons of powerful hormones dumped into the blood streams of women every day, millions of women having abortions (reproductive liposuction), regular liposuction, botox, cosmetic surgery, unnecessary C Sections and episiotomies, foreign bodies placed in their uteruses for what, to make the more sexually available to men. We would never allow this to be done to the environment. Want equality with men then be sexually available no matter what the damage to the bodies of women and don’t become damaged by becoming pregnant.

Lets not kid ourselves abortion has always been promoted by men for men and some old fashioned feminists are happy to be the handmaidens to men who profit in every way from unregulated mass abortion.

Doctors should remember their Hippocratic Oath to do what is in the best interest of the patient, rather than prosetlyze like preachers about what they think we should think -- or worse yet, what their own religion decide what is best for someone else. Pro-choice means having the CHOICE. It is not Abortion Nation, people.

Pro-lifers ought to think about the people who cannot feed themselves, or are dying by the dozens by the second at the hands of someone else in warfare rather than concern themselves with someone else's body.

I do hope CBC realizes this 'wish' was heavily freeped and in no way represents the majority of Canadians.

Why is it men think they have a say in how we manage or uterus? Men, every time you masturbate, you are killing a potential child (in pro-life language). Chew on that pro-lifers, since you have no idea where life truly begins your only logical conclusion would be to ban masturbation. Nocturnal emissions? You should logically have to report those immediately and be charged accordingly (and/or shunned for killing a 'life'), whatever you pro-lifers dictate eh?

You see how silly your arguments are? (That was a rhetorical question)

Good luck with that one.

Quite a number of people on this blog have stated the "opinion" that the unfortunate number of abortions women undergo would somehow be reduced by introducing more sex education and contraception. A simple statistical analysis of almost any country you care to name will show that the opposite is actually the case. As contraception availability increases so does the rate of unplanned pregnancies and abortion. These devices fool people into thinking what they want to believe - that they can have fun without consequesnces. Contraception like the condom is actually shown to have a dismal 'success' rate when it is actually measured on a woman's days of fertility, when it is actually needed, and it does nothing to prevent against diseases like HPV which cause cervical cancer in women. The pill, another common contraceptive is dangerous for women in it's own right and could conceivably be considered society's biggest medical experiment since it was made available without any consideration of the long term effects on women - the people it was supposed to help. I know of cases of women in their early twenties and thirties suffering life-threatening bloodclots, diaetic -like shormone problems, and excessive bleading for years on end, simply by being on the pill. In addition, the attitude that fosters use of contraceptives, the 'my pleasure now' mindset is the very same mindset that then turns around and says, "my pleasure doesn't include this unwelcome consequesnce so now I need a quick fix"

In response to Joyce's posts, I find it interesting that you obviously seem to read this blog carefully enough to respond where you want to, yet you have nothing to say to the actual studies and scientific research that has been cited showing how detrimental abortion is to women.

I find it sad that so many women have been co-opted into supporting the further abuse of women. Having known women who've suffered at the hands of a rapist, they often liken an abortion experience to being raped again - a masked man hoists their legs up into stirrups to get them out of his way and thrusts cold, unfeeling, instruments of harm inside her. Tell me that that's going to help her heal. The only woman that I knew who carried her child that was conceived in rape was the one who found something positive to come fronm her experience (we are not reponsible for the sins of our fathers after all) and was actually able to forgive the rapist, and remember that forgiveness most helps the one who forgives, not the one who needs to be forgiven.

I would like to thank the CBC for giving us this forum to actually speak our thoughts as people who support life. So often we are silenced by the media. The majority of Canadians don't even know the basic facts of this issue because the media bias is so left wing 'politically correct' that our research and events often go unreported in the mainstream media.

No one has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body, and so no one has the right to tell her she should have a baby if she does not want to.

I do not wonder that a woman suffers from depression after an abortion. Maybe that's because of so many members of society laying shame and guilt on her for making a responsible choice and not having an unwanted child.

I know that I was an unplanned and unwanted child, and let me tell you that the life of an unwanted child is not always a happy one. I have spent the majority of my life being treated for depression, and I have often found myself really struggling with the decision of whether or not to go on. I know that if my mother had had an abortion I would not be here, but I do believe that if she had done so, she would have been a happier person, rather than being burdened by a child she did not want, and if you believe in souls, then mine would have gone on to a child whose parents wanted them.

I am now the single mother of an unplanned but very much wanted child. I could never have considered an abortion, but I would never presume to make that choice for someone else, nor judge someone for making it.

Deanna, you are on the right track (sort of), but why not take it to the full conclusion? Every time a woman has her period, the " gift of life " has not been delivered to the full potential of humanity. Thus, the logical extension of the Anti-Abortion argument is that it is immoral to deny any possible human being the chance at life.

Of course, if you take that to its logical extension, the human population would be so large within a few years that there would not be enough resources for newborns, and they would be dying left and right, and with the insane population explosion there will be more wars and more disease, and very quickly we will just wipe ourselves all out and the Earth can get on to developing the next advanced species over the next ten or twenty million years.

So, in the end, taken to its full conclusion, the logic applied to the staunchly Anti-Abortion would end badly for the human race. Very badly. Not to mention every other cuddly looking race of living creatures on this planet (and the not so cuddly ones, too).

Liz - I have dealt with the issue of alleged harm to women of abortions (see my post above of June 12, 2007 05:49 PM). Most of the harms alleged by anti-choice studies are confusing correlation with causation.

Abortion can be like any potentially difficult or traumatic experience - some women have a harder time than others, and every experience is unique. But the majority of women have no long-lasting ill effects, physical or psychological - and most never regret having the abortion. Those are the facts.

For many women, abortion is not actually a difficult choice or experience at all, and it certainly doesn't have to be. It's only anti-choicers who believe it MUST and SHOULD be traumatic, horrible, and dangerous.

How has the killing of our children (abortion) been good for our country?
Are we not short of workers? Trades people, nurses, military people ... Who will support the baby boomers when they retire?

If abortion is such a wonderful choice for women let us listen to the many stories from the women who regret the choice they made because they were not shown the facts. The first ever legal abortion in the USA was because of Roe were Wade --- Roe has since travelled the globe telling of the mistake she made in killing her own child.(Popular media does not cover this at all.)

Please CBC have the courage to show Canadians what takes place during an abortion --- If this was made public especially partial birth abortions --- the lie of the prolifers would be unveiled.

Truth always win --- it only takes time.

Joyce, let me cite these very credible studies that show correlation. Regarding the issue of correlation and causation, you are (I hope) not ignorant of the fact that no researcher worth their salt would ever argue causation. Claiming causation is never argued in scientific research of this sort period.

Here are the sources of the previously cited studies – of course there was the 2000 study by the Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario of 41,039 women during the three months following their abortions revealed that these women had a more than 4 times higher rate of hospitalizations for infections, a 5 times higher rate of surgical events and a nearly 5 times higher rate of hospitalization for psychiatric problems.

Surely you cannot simply trash this as “anti-choice studies”. The Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario are hardly known for taking a pro-life stance.

The other studies cited in my post (June 12, 2007 04:57 PM) are the following:

Reardon, DC, Ney PG, Scheurer FJ, Congle JR, Coleman PK. Suicide deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: A record linkage study of 173,279 low income American women. Archives of Women’s Mental Health 2001; 3(4) Suppl.2:104.

Morgan CL, Evans M, Peter JR. Suicides after pregnancy. Mental health may deteriorate as a direct effect of induced abortion. British Medical Journal 1997 March 22; 314(7084): 902.

American Psychological Association. APA Briefing Paper on the Impact of Abortion on Women (2005), cited in Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM. Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 2006; 47(1): 16-24.

All of these sources are not friendly to the pro-life position, neither the Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry and especially not the British Medical Journal. In fact, in order to be published in such prestigious medical journals, your research has to be highly credible.

Where exactly do you get your information from?

Joyce - Yet again, you show no EVIDENCE to support your position. Can you cite any scientific works or research studies that show a majority of women whose lives are notably better after an abortion compared to women who delivered children - planned ones or not. I suspect that your "evidence" is anecdotal - the same kind of evidence that abortion advocates sneer at when it comes to women who suffer adverse consequences as a result of abortion.

I have scanned through the posted messages and without having to spend too much time commenting on all those thoughts that struck me, I would just like to present the argument of what democracy means. I agree with a few of the writers in saying that yes, if killing with intent is considered murdered, then what is the difference between if it were a child. But the main point to remember here is that abortion options are offered only during very specific time frames when the child is still considered an embryo or foetus, in other words, before vital organs are developed and when the ability of conscious thought is possible. Yes, while many woman who choose to receive abortions do often suffer depression and other various negative psychological effects, the thing to remember is still their decision, thus the term, pro-CHOICE. If we were to dissect the situation and blame abortions the cause of grief in woman, then surely the same can be said to any other decision that one faces in their life that they may or may not regret once committed.

One of the commenter talks of how grateful he is for his biological mother not aborting him and how he was given an opportunity to live. Not to say that her decision was not for the better, but one can only be grateful for the situation if one were brought up in a good home, like the gentleman wrote the comment. What of children who are adopted and suffer tremendous abuse and childhood traumas (I am certain that we have all heard of such stories), in that case, are we cast the blame on the child's biological mother for putting her child up for adoption? Of course not. To do so would be just as absurd as to say that an unborn child, or rather - foetus, should not be aborted for the chance that he or she may one day grow up to be the next Trudeau.

And while the topic is often associated with religious debates, what we have often forgot to examine are the social and economical elements. While the state's social web is seen and understood by many to be endless in resources, the undisputable fact is that a country's monetary funds are limited. Perhaps for a holistic examination of the issue, in addition to the analysis of the religious and medical elements, those concerns relating to welfare and social morale should also be looked at.

While it may be hard for most of us who grew up in a loving environment to imagine, in all honesty, it is better to have not lived at all than to be put up for adoption and suffer the pains of existence in an environment, voided of love and care, to feel abandonment, and where perhaps if the accumulation of despair since childhood has not evolved into deeply-rooted feelings of depression and suicide, one would continue waywardly through life without a purpose or an glimpse of hope. That, ladies and gentleman, I think would be a much grimmer fate than having not existed at all. This fate that would most likely meet an individual who, as a result of an unforeseen accident, was given the chance to live could not be any worse than what tragedies that meet the mother her decision was reversed.

-Jessica

I have some questions for Joyce or any other supporter of abortion regarding the issue of "personhood."

1) Are philosophical distinctives about personhood more relevant than scientific evidence of when life begins? Before answering, remember how "personhood" was used to deny rights to minorities and women.

2) If science and religion agree on an issue, do they cancel out each other or make a stronger case in proving the realities of when life begins.

3) Why have pro-abortion comments ignored dealing with the issue of abortion taking an innocent life.

4) Why do so many who support abortion oppose capital punishment? The rationale seems to be that an innocent life could actually be taken by mistake. Why then support abortion just in case the innocent life that would be taken might not be considered a person?

5) What is the definition of a "person?" Generally it is characterised as someone who is self aware and capable of self-care. Does this mean that infants, invalids, Alzeimer's patients or those with other limiting ailments are not persons?

6) If one were deemed to be a non-person, does this mean we can randomly destroy any "non-persons." Can I burn down a forest, chop up stray animals, or throw my garbage in the lake or ravine because they are non-persons. If not, what is the significance of determining the unborn to be "non-persons?"

7) When Dr. Morgantaller was performing illegal abortions, did he suddenly become competent when abortion was legalized, or was he one of the back-alley abortionists that you refer to?

8) Since the homeless clearly can't care for themselves and must therefore be unwanted because they are not being taken in, would it be compassionate to legalize killing the homeless to spare them from their miserable existence or provide services, help and support to assist them.

I'm sorry if I sound crass, but I am merely fitting the logic of abortion arguments into the reality and out of the rhetorical. Let's face it; behind every desperate woman who got an abortion (legal or illegal) is usually a man who pressured her into it. The fact that there are so many single mom's is a testament to the fact that instead of holding the man responsible for the sake of the child, the price is paid by the woman and the child.

Legal abortions are more harmful to women for several reasons:

a) It allows the man to take a pass on being responsible. In fact, he has a huge investment in the woman choosing abortion to avoid having her come after him for money.

b) Legal abortions have had the backing of politicians, the media, and of course the pro-abort counsellors and doctors who perform the procedure. They are able to cover their mistakes and bad press because of complicit partners and the promise of confidentiality. This leaves the vulnerable woman who is generally ashamed of her decision or the shame or indifference of the former boyfriend.

3) For women who don't want abortions, they are generally left without resources because the indifference of those behind abortions and politicians don't offer supports, resources or shelters (that increase women's options). She is then further subject to coersion rather than the rosy sounding "choice" that they are told they should celebrate.

If you doubt the pain after abortion, check out the group "Silent No More" and their website. There you will find large numbers of women admitting they regret their abortions and wanting to bring their message to other vulnerable women. There are legions of adamant pro-aborts who have become pro-life, but never the reverse.

Nice editorial. I have never understood why a life is allowed full protection of the law a moment after birth but a mere moment before it is allowed nothing. What a difference a few seconds makes.

As soon as pro-lifers start putting as much effort into helping the born as they do the unborn I'll start taking their concerns a little more seriously.

I notice that there is focus on how abortion reportedly hurts women.

But what about the harm that would be and is caused to women who do not have access to legal, safe abortion?

I don't think there is anyone that advocates more unplanned pregnancies. However, abortion as an option is needed - is VITAL - to women's safety and autonomy.

Pro-lifers / anti-choicers would further their 'cause' by improving access to contraceptives and accurate, safer sex information as pro-choicers have been doing for years.

This would be far more effective in reducing harm than 'wishing away' a woman's legal right to choose.

But the majority of women have no long-lasting ill effects, physical or psychological - and most never regret having the abortion. Those are the facts.

No Joyce, those are not the facts. No matter how emphatically you state it, those will never be the facts.

Deanna, you seem to be confused as to what defines a human being. Despite what is being said here and in second editorial, the definition of a human being is not a philosophical debate. All beings are defined by their DNA. This was shown by Watson and Crick in 1953. The Human Genome Project is a massive ongoing project to decode the entire human genome.
There are 24 distinct human chromosomes: 22 autosomal chromosomes, and the sex-determining X and Y chromosomes. The egg provides 23 chromosomes (22 autosomal chromosomes plus and X) and the sperm provides 23 chromosomes (22 autosomal chromosomes plus either and X or a Y) for a total of 46. A human being is therefore defined at conception when the egg and sperm join. Masturbation or nocturnal emissions have nothing to do with this discussion, since sperm defines only half of what is required for a complete human being.

A fertilized egg is not human yet. No one should be forced to carry an unwanted fertilzed egg. NO ONE! That is more than an inconvenience! Having an child one cannot afford condemns both mother and kid to a lifetime of poverty and deprivation. Some say she can give it away. Yeah, right. One should go through all the torture, the physical deformity and mental anguish--not to mention the colossal expense--so that some other couple can have a baby? Childless couples can always find a child! There are plenty of kids waiting for parents, wanting parents--but, no, many parents seeking kids want a brand new baby!

Frankly, the world need another human being like it needs another case of the clap.

Abortion, for the info of thse those myopic, self-righteous and authoritarian tyrants who write here, is not any woman's first choice. It's just that there is no other choice for her, period.

Poverty is the greatest violence, and human overpopulation, the greatest environmental disaster.

You will never get away from the fact that abortion KILLS a life. It does not in the parlance of the day expel an insentient collection of cells, it destroys the full potential of the life framed in the mind of God.

It is an abomination on our country (along with a lot of other things) that will ultimately effect every aspect of our social discourse and harmony.. spiritual and material. It is fundamentally undermining our country.

Karl

A fertilized egg is the beginning of life, who has the right to stop that life from continuing. I was told to abort my 2nd pregnancy after six weeks because of a heart condition. At 2 months gestation I felt movement of the fetus that never stopped kicking until birth. Thank goodness i did not heed a poor medical suggestion to abort. This was a baby right from the beginning, who am I or anyone else to say when a baby is a baby?

Someday, when our culture falls and another rises to replace it (And it is inevitable - we are on the descent already) the new culture will surely look back at this sad period in our existence and see abortion for what it truly is - genocide. An abortion takes place once every 25 seconds in the EU. There are more than one million in the USA and 100,000 in Canada every year. Any society that treats its reproductive gift with such disrespect, and its potential offspring with such disdain, deserves to be relegated to the ash-heap of history.

Joyce Turner writes that “In an unwanted pregnancy, the fetus is co-opting the woman's body against her will,” etc.

To say the fetus is co-opting the woman’s body against her will implies the fetus has a mind of its own to do this. Perhaps, after all, the fetus is truly human. Did this cruel fetus invade the woman’s body against her knowledge and will? One moment this fetus is a blob of tissue and cannot be counted as a human being, the next it is co-opting a woman’s body against her will. Her will was to co-operate in the sex act, knowing this could produce a fetus. Perhaps, if not married, a woman’s dilemma can be avoided by not having sex outside of marriage. And if married, then she has a responsibility towards the the child who did not ask to be conceived in the first place.

Dear Jessica S.,

You wrote, “But the main point to remember here is that abortion options are offered only during very specific time frames when the child is still considered an embryo or foetus, in other words, before vital organs are developed and when the ability of conscious thought is possible.”

I thought that you might re-consider your position if you were made aware of the following:

In 1988, the Supreme Court, in the Morgentaler Decision struck down Trudeau’s abortion provision, that had initially legalized abortion in Canada. Since 1988 there has been no law in Canada governing abortion. By default, abortions in this country are legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy.

The earliest abortion procedures (suction aspiration) begin at approximately six weeks. At six weeks the developing embryo has tiny arms, a beating heart, a brain, the pupils of the eyes can be clearly seen and brain waves are able to be detected. Dilation/evacuation abortions (too horrible to describe here, but perhaps you can do your own research) are usually performed on babies between the ages of 12 and 16 weeks. These are fully developed babies. Prostaglandin abortions are performed on babies between the ages of 16 – 24 weeks and sometimes these babies are born alive. And finally there is the much debated partial-birth abortion, which again if far, far too grizzly to repeat here. It was banned in March of this year in the United States after a ten year battle with pro-aborts who insisted that banning this heinous act might limit a woman’s “right to choose.” {I do not know if PBA abortions are performed in Canada or not.)

The definition of a human being that we go by in this country is the following( s. 223 of the Canadian Criminal Code). “A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother.” The second part reads " A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.”

This leaves the unborn child with no legal protection what so ever while it is in the womb of its mother.

Secondly, there are over 600,000 known infertile individuals in Canada who either have or are seeking help in this area. Canada aborts over 300 babies a day. As a result, for several years now, Statistics Canada has been reporting an alarming below replacement birth rate. Healthy, happy couples who would just like to have a family but cannot, are waiting anywhere from 7 – 12 years to adopt Canadian born babies. Most give up and go elsewhere to countries like Russia and China to adopt.

What a shame that we kill our own children at a rate of over 104,000 each year, while an almost equal number of couples remain childless, and Canada has to look to other nations around the world to maintain its population.

This article is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. The fact is that a woman's choice to have an abortion is just that-her choice. A woman knows when she is ready to bring another person into this world and if she's not ready or prepared to do so, why should she be condemed for her choice?
There is no proof that having an abortion causes breast cancer, chronic PID or any other remaining health issues. A woman has a right to make a decision about how to live her own life. Stop making woman who make this decision feel like they are bad people.

I can't quite grasp what the pro-life community expects.

Would you like abortion to be pushed into the back rooms? Coat hangers and women throwing themselves down the stairs? Black market abortions?

There are a lot of different reasons why a women would choose to have an abortion. I know if I were to get pregnant tomorrow, I wouldn't be able to carry that child to term and give it away, not only because it would be emotional suicide, but because my parents wouldn't let me(and by let me I mean disown me). Then what? I'm 22 and in school and all of a sudden I'd have a child to support for at least the next 20 years of my life. I don't even know if I ever want to have children. Abortion would be a rational decision for me to make. It may be selfish, but I love my family, and if I ever have a child I want to love it, I'd want to be married (or close) and stable, so that I can be a good parent. It sort of sickens even me to say it, but if abortion were illegal and I were pregnant right now, I would still seek out an illegal abortion.

Abortion was legalized because women were killing themselves, and the babies growing inside them. They were desperate. Banning abortion wouldn't be humane, it will just make it easier for people to sleep at night, deluding themselves into thinking that since its illegal, it isn't happening.

I don’t like the idea of abortion becoming an excuse for irresponsible sex, but I don’t like the idea of banning abortion and forcing good women into dangerous situations (and perhaps death) either.

Joyce mentioned in her June 13 01:11pm post that we should help ensure contraception and comprehensive sex ed are widely available to all. Joyce, what makes you think that this would reduce pregnancy? Comprehensive Sex education only gives a one sided view of contraception. It give medically inaccurate information ie. condoms are 98% effective in preventing pregnancy. This is a theoretical statistic that in no way can be applied to real life situations. According to the Family Planning Perspecitve (research arm of Planned Parenthood), if used 100% of the time, condoms fail 14% of the time for adults. 18.4% for teens!! That means that 1 in 5 teens are getting pregnant using condoms as a contraceptive device. Also, why is it that 80% of all abortions are a result of contraceptive failure? Let's start treating our adolescents like they have a brain and tell them the truth!

As well, on Tuesday, June 12, a 2 year US government study was released to show that comprehensive sex education had no impact on frequency of intercourse, no impact on initiation of first sex at six months, no overall impact on unprotected sex at 18 months, and no impact on pregnancy rates.

Joyce, you say that we are entitled sex without pregnancy. There is no such thing as sex without consequences. In the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 2004, the authors concluded that any sexual involvement is considered a risky behavior that increases the odds for depression, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts.

Life is sacred. Life is a Gift from God.
Pray for making the 'right decision', a culture of Life.

"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers."
Mother Teresa >

It is important to recognize the value and the difference between good and bad choices. Pro-Abortion activists love to say that they are defending a woman's right to choose, but what they never mention what choice. Why do they not mention that they are promoting abortion? Because they no abortion is viewed as morally wrong. It is viewed as a bad choice. Why is it considered a bad choice? Because it not only kills an innocent human being, but it hurts the confused women who do not realise the consequences of their actions. So instead of openly discussing the issue, pto-abortion activists try and make it seem like perfectly reasonable pro-life folks wish to take away every choice from a woman. We don't. We actively support everyones right to make choices, whether good or bad. But when a bad choice (i.e. abortion) affects not only the person making the choice, but someone else, in a drastic and life-ending way, it is entirely reasonable to limit that bad choice. Following this line of reasoning, it is entirely valid and moderate to limit abortion, as it not only hurts the mother, but also kills the baby.

Thanks to Tom, Liz, Natalie, Ruth, etc. for bringing science and logic into the discussion.

Jessica, you said, "abortion options are offered only during very specific time frames when the child is still considered an embryo or foetus, in other words, before vital organs are developed..."

Actually, there there are no legal restrictions on time frames for abortion in Canada. The majority of surgical abortions are performed between 9 and 12 weeks into the pregnancy. By 10 weeks all of the internal organs are present and functioning, brain waves can be detected, and after this point up until the birth the main change will be to grow larger. His or her heart starts beating around 3 weeks! This is all basic human embryology.

I thought it was interesting that you wrote, "when the child is still considered an embryo or foetus".

When you said it would be better for someone to have not lived at all than to be born into a terrible situation, and that a person who wasn't brought up in a "good home" couldn't be grateful that his or her mother didn't abort them...well, you're talking about someone like me, except I AM grateful.

Both of my biological parents were alcoholics and my mother had schizophrenia. When my mother was pregnant with me, they had 3 other children and the oldest was 5. I've learned through family over the years that it was a horrible situation--my father was extremely abusive to my mother, and she was afraid of him. They weren't working, but somehow found money to go out drinking. Sometimes my older siblings were left alone. After I was born, my mother left me at her parents' house, and my grandfather made it clear as I was growing up children were to be seen and not heard. I spent most of my childhood being afraid of everything. We lived in one of the poorest areas in our city. My parents divorced at some point, my mother had 3 more children with another man, and 5 of the 7 of us lived with different relatives.

So yes, it was very difficult. I spent many years struggling with depression and alcoholism. But I've been sober almost 20 years and am happier than I've ever been in my life. And because of what I've gone through, I've been able to understand and help others who are struggling with similar issues. Life isn't perfect, and I'm not Sally Sunshine all the time, but I have a wonderful husband, wonderful friends, and an amazing God who has given my life more meaning than I ever thought possible. I couldn't control what happened to me when I was young, but as an adult I have come to realize I can make choices that are life-enhancing or not. I imagine that every time my mother was pregnant, people were hoping she'd either miscarry or abort, not because they were uncaring people, but because they thought it would be better than bringing a child into that mess. And it was a mess...but I think it's a mistake for us as adults to decide that a tiny human being's life should be taken because WE KNOW what's better for her or him.

Btw, Marysue, poverty is NOT the greatest violence, at least not the North American version of poverty.

A child has the right to be born into a loving family that can provide support and stability. A woman has the right to protect her body- choose whether or not she is ready and able to care for a baby. At the end of the day, it is a choice.

Food for thought for the Anti-Choice readers: think about the car that you drive to work every day. Think about the pesticides that you feed your children every day. Think about the trees that you destroy by wasting toiletpaper, faxing and printing. Inadvertently, you are contributing to the destruction of our world. You are killing your own children, my children and our grandchildren . . only much more slowly. Which is the bigger crime: The conscious abortion of one foetus for good reason, or the ignorant destruction and poisoning of our earth?

A child has the right to be born into a loving family that can provide support and stability. A woman has the right to protect her body- choose whether or not she is ready and able to care for a baby. At the end of the day, it is a choice.

Food for thought for the Anti-Choice readers: think about the car that you drive to work every day. Think about the pesticides that you feed your children every day. Think about the trees that you destroy by wasting toiletpaper, faxing and printing. Inadvertently, you are contributing to the destruction of our world. You are killing your own children, my children and our grandchildren . . only much more slowly.

Which is the bigger crime: The conscious abortion of one foetus for good reason, or the ignorant destruction and poisoning of our earth?

There is no way that any physicians, or a group of physicians should have a say in whether or not women are allowed to continue having abortions. They may not wish to provide abortions, but to be a group of physicians, who I would like to believe are enlightened about what century we live in...that's just wrong.

I have two comments to make

1) This debate is with out authenticity

2) This debate only severs to misinform the public

1) Authenticity in a debate refers to the ability of a debate to be acutally aplicible to its subject matter. Somehow I highly doubt that all of these bloggers are women who were ever in the position that would ever want or need an abortion. I certainly am not such a women, nor am I am woman, thus my opinion should not be thrust. And It won't. This is not my debate, nor could it ever be my choice or the choice of a 'free and democratic society'

2) This debate only serves to misinform the public as it discusses the matter in abstract terms like "right", "wrong" and "genocide". Refereing back to my last point, if it abortion that we are discussing then we need to be listening to different voices. However, we are not. This misinforms the pulbic by establishing the parameters of the debate as "should a free and democratic society impose its will on women in need?" instead of what the parameters should be. That is, "should a women be allowed to have an abortion?" The Answer to the second question is obvious to me, but my idealization of this nation is that it IS free and democratic. What is yours?

This debate, the way it is framed, makes it seem like we could or should impose the greater nations will unnecessarily on women in need. This idea could only come from a deluded mind.

I am almost 30 years old. At age 27, after 7 years of pleading with physicians, I finally got a tubal ligation. I NEVER want a child and I know that if I were ever stuck with the horrid misfortune of becoming pregnant, I wouldn’t be able to trust that my RIGHT to rid my body of an unwanted conglomerate of cells AND to rid my life of the burden of carrying and birthing an unwanted conglomerate of cells could be protected.

Between environmental devastation, an increasing divide between rich and poor, a horrifying imbalance of global resources (what’s left of them, anyway!), and self-serving corporations having more rights than any human being and not an ounce of responsibility, the world is becoming a more horrific place every day yet there are people wasting time arguing against abortion. That, to me, is ludicrous! Bringing yet another new person into this world is what’s truly irresponsible.

Re the declaration of abortion as genocide: Try caring about LIVING, breathing people being massacred every day in war torn nations around the world!

To those posting comments such as “I’m glad my mom didn’t abort me”, think about it this way: If you were aborted, you wouldn’t even know it. Get over yourselves! No one’s life is so precious that they should be “grateful” for being here. Grateful to who? To what? Stop indulging in trite fantasy.

To those declaring abortion the “killing” of a life: A clump of unwanted cells isn’t a “life”, no matter how many priests have told you so. However, if you want to play make believe and say that it is, then understand that the whole point of an abortion is to remove, to cleanse, to eradicate, to eliminate... to get that unwanted drain OUT and as quickly as possible.

To those “suggesting” unmarried women avoid sex outside of marriage: I’m sorry your lives are so small and unsatisfying that you feel the need to push your confused “morals” onto others. A good orgasm ought to relieve you of that nagging urge.

Re the comment that we need more people to care for the ageing baby boomers: How utterly illogical and completely irrelevant! Since you brought it up... be aware that there are currently over 6 BILLION people on this planet! If the boomers hadn’t been so eager to create an economy that decimated the necessity for jobs paying a living wage, there would be plenty of people earning sufficient incomes to pay their pensions.

:sigh:

If anti-abortionists think their position makes them morally superior, they should think about the role they’ll play in the deaths of women forced to gamble on abortions in illegal “back alley” clinics. Whether abortion is legal or not, don’t think it won’t continue to happen. Women and men will continue to have sex, they will continue to use contraception as best they can, and they will continue to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy, no matter what.

To all the pro-choicers who’ve been more eloquent in their words than I have, thank you. I wish I could write without being quite so infuriated, but the number of regressive, fundamentalist comments littering this conversation board has made me feel rather ill. This right wing swing is getting deeper and darker all the time – it scares me horribly. I’ll continue to do what I can to resist it, but in case those of us who are more logical and respectful of individual rights aren’t heard in the face of their misplaced fervor, at least I know I won’t be stuck with a child to worry about.

I feel for the younger generation who has no moral direction. It is those who are hurt the most. Always being directed by false opinion, that it is ok to kill a baby. Usually guided by Anti Life Comments, Peers who have no direction themselves and of course the fathers who do not want the responsiblity...what a easy out for them. Kill the "thing" is an option to them, and they will not call the thing what it really is. Remember we are talking about babies not tissue. It is a woman's natural ablility and privledge to be bless with this body who gives life. And it is also a blessing to share this miracle child to another mother to raise (Adobtion) Why are so many going in other countries to adobt...mothers who can not have children and are crying to have a baby in thier arms to love and care for. This is the solution. 9 months of having a baby within the safety of your body is not a long time considering the possible life span of 75 years on this earth. Pass this love along to another mother. The generation who are making the decision to have an abortion will feel the pain of that decision in later years, it is happing today. They can not go back in time but they must find someone to help them through this terrible realization that they killed their baby. Has anyone done a study on how many had an abortion and committed suicide. I would think there are numbers out there from comments of younger generations who had an abortion. They never forget what they done. How many are comforted by the ones who told them to have an abortion. My guess is that they did thier duty and moved on. It is tough. I pray for the million + babies and the mothers who are part of the generation that says "It is ok to Kill a Baby"
And for the mothers who are now lost without that baby in thier lives based on that decision. Remember, in all life choices, we all do things wrong and we have to forgive ourselves, that is the tough part. Say No to Abortion - give a baby a chance.

I believe in Pro-Choice. Why? Because when you are a victim of rape or inceste at age 12 and become pregnant, you should have the freedom to choose an abortion. Why should middle-aged men, fanatic religious groups and anyone for that matter, dictate to women what they should or should not do with their bodies? I think in a "free" society that our "freedoms" are slowly being taken away from us one by one. Womens rights are being taken back 60 years. I do not want a government that will set the clocks back to the middle ages. We are a progressive country...or so I thought!

I'm amazed and distressed at the arrogance and self-rightiousness of the folks trumpeting for both sides of the argument. Men are entitled to their opinions but frankly, I wish they'd keep it to themselves.
In defence of all of the kids who were born into unfit or unable families, I suggest these concerned citizens organize to give education and support so these kids will have half a chance at a good life. Stop spinning your tires and preaching like some holier-than-thou moralist. Sheeeesh...

RE:Karl Bogdan

If that's so, how do you explain Miscarriages?

The child is NOT part of the woman.' body but carried by the woman's body. The only differecnce between a fetus and the mother is time. Time to grow, just as a two year old needs time to grow into a three year old.
Proof exist that this tiny human being feels pain.
Before a person this to be untrue please do some research ,real scientific reserch.
Pleaase let us put an end to this horrid act of murdering our sweet little children

If all you people who are concerned with people living why don't you focus on human rights? Why not focus on making children lives in Government care safer and healthier. Or other areas where children are in horrible circumstances. Abortion is a woman's choice and you will not take it away.

If all you people who are concerned with people living why don't you focus on human rights? Why not focus on making children lives in Government care safer and healthier. Many children who are living are in horrible circumstances, why not try to make their lives better. Abortion is a woman's choice and you will not take it away.

I find it disgusting that anti-choice is one of the top wishes for change within Canada. There are more important issues.

This message is in response to some of Clare's statements:

Dear Clare of Vancouver:

I also had an abortion at the age of 16 and after reading your story I felt compelled to respond to some of your statements , ask some questions and also share my personal story.

First of all , in response to your statement "I wasn't ready or willing to bring a child into my life" - The question that comes to mind is - "If women aren't ready or willing to have children - then why are they having sex???"

You stated that your Mom also had an abortion at the age of 18. I'm curious to know if you ever wonder why she aborted your sibling and not you or think to yourself (that could have been me).

In regards to the statement - Most women feel relief immediately following the abortion - this is often true due to the crisis situation being taken care of , however that feeling of relief may not last forever.

As I said earlier , I also had an abortion at the age of 16. The decision to have the abortion was basically made by a panel of doctors called a "Therapeautic Abortion Committee" who at the time convinced my parents and I that it would be in our best interest to go through with the abortion. My parents trusted and looked up to doctors and they also told my parents that there would be no ill effects. I had the abortion at the General Hospital under a general anaesthetic and returned home that day with an empty womb and a huge hole in my heart. Even at the tender age of 16 , I knew without a doubt that we had made a terrible mistake. I was told never to bring up the issue of the abortion in the future and so I began a long road of pain and suffering in solitude. I went from being a very shy and soft spoken young woman to being a very loud and rebellious one.For the next 9 years I engaged in alot of destructive behaviours. I drank alcohol heavily , did drugs and became very promiscuous (all of which I believe were in an attempt to cover up the immense pain I felt post-abortion).

I am now 44 years old and I must say that when I look back to that time in my life -that I wasn't aware of why I was doing all of those terrible things. All I know is that when I was married at the age of 25 and my husband and I attempted to start a family I miscarried 3 times in a row. Suddenly , all of the deeply repressed feelings and emotions surrounding my abortion experience began to resurface. I thought I was being punished by God and that I would never be able to have children. But I know now , 27 years later that this is not the case because my God is a loving and merciful God and not a punishing God.

After yet a 4th miscarriage (all of which I believe by the way , were a direct result of having the abortion at 16) my husband and I were blessed with 4 beautiful children.

I now speak out on behalf of pro-life and I have decided to be "Silent No More" about my abortion testimony. I believe that God speaks to others directly by way of our testimonies (stories) and I believe without a doubt that he wants me to speak out. And so , for the past 4 years , God has given that once shy young 16 year old woman the courage as well as a very strong voice to tell her story to thousands on Parliament Hill at the annual "March For Life".

In closing , I would like to say "Thank You" Clare for writing your story because in turn , it has prompted me to once again tell mine , which I believe is truly important. I pray that God blesses you and your husband now and forever.

Sincerely , Dale Barr

WOW. interestingly enough the only protection a life has is with God. If you dont believe in God, then the childs only protection is the world he or she lives in.

Although it violates our fundamental views on killing, we have those SAME views about killing adult humans. A man shoots a knife weilding man to defend his family. Which is the worse? Is DEATH of one soul, innocent or not, greater than safety or security of another? or OTHERS?
What is the mother to do at 14 15...16? barely a child... barely able to support herself? Too attached to the child to give it up for adoption yet too poor to support it. Without other family support?

And you love to forget to mention the father. It takes TWO PEOPLE.... not just a mother, to create life.

"abortion is linked to greatly increased risks of depression, self-harm, and suicide." Linked because ususally those that need an abortion can not afford to keep the baby. That because they already have LOADS of problems already to deal with. Like money or a father for the child. Sheesh.

Abortion is not the answer, but neither is sex without love or intent for procreation. Deal with the REAL problems of society instead of the band aid solutions we use to fix them.

I just posted about the original article and would now like to look at Ryan from Winnipegs remarks. His step by step approach at looking at Abortion.

1)A human being consists of DNA. Half from mum. Half from dad. If you want to get REAL technical, this DNA has been passed down (in fetal form) for..... well since the beginning of man. So for arguement sakes lets say the baby is alive once it starts being able to breath on its own. Hows that?

2) At no point can you call a fetus human? A human is started when the sperm shoots out of a mans penis and fertilzes an egg? WOW then God.. whoops!!!! Nature itself kills BILLIONS :P Look it up. I'm not talking about sperm, I'm talking about Miscarriages.

3) so something either has to be human from the get go, or not human at all. I prefer to be human, thanks. Even if you cant tell what time we began. I'd say... once again, when I start to breath in Air on my own. THAT IS LIFE. Learn CPR. the A B C's of life.

4) Duh

5) Call a fetus whatever you want. Human or not. Death still exists. Hell look at your ring. Are you wearing any diamonds? Has anyone died making that shirt youre wearing? Think about it. I bet you dont have an answer because you REALLY DONT KNOW.

6) Even if we can all agree that abortion kills humans, what gives you the right to say that killing one life for another is wrong? Isnt that what the death penalty deals with? WHOOPS Wrong topic. And we are talking about the "life" of a woman. her child. and the father. How can a mother protect her child if she cant protect herself? And when you take away a womans right to have or have not a baby..... you ARE TAKING AWAY HER LIFE. Her freedom and liberty. thanks.

7) Morally yes. Doesnt mean killing doesnt happen. Get over it. Read the news sometime. How about saving a life that has already existed for 1...2....3..... 30 years? Sorry you're right... women and children first.

8)You should re-adjust your moral compass.

I am proud to be Canadian.

Cheers.

WOW. Okay lets rewind for a second.
What is life? Is it the sperm and the ova coming together? Does a human consist of 46 chromosomes?
WE ARE MADE UP OF BILLIONS OF CELLS. what a human being is... and always will be... cells in constant replication/growth until death.

Birth is an extention of that life. Your sperm/ova will carry on these cells and merge with someone elses sperm/ova. I think it is EVERY parents right whether to extend their OWN LIFE (lineage) or not. Isnt it the least of rights passed on for millenium? ***Do I want to have a child or not? ***

WHAT IS ABORTION? well... its a bandaid way of fixing a premature-sex driven society that cant or dont use condoms. Okay, thats a lil narrow minded but I bet if we banned Brittany Spears videos and toned down the SEX on TV and movies.... youths may just try and keep their pants on.

It is society having more sex than they can handle when the sex leads to making bayyybeeeez. This is ALL DRIVEN BY THE MEDIA.

How dare anyone suggest that abortion rights advocates are somehow forcing unwanted abortions on unsuspecting mothers? Planned parenthood has long been a part of our culture both before and after medical science decided to take notice of women and their bodies.

I will willingly have a debate with anyone who has questions and honest concerns, but this type of slanderous nonsense that effectively accuses myself and any woman who has had an abortion as murderous is completely unnacceptable. How dare the CBC give webspace and airtime to this uninformed drivel and consquently promote the idea that abortion is some covert operation used instead of other choices like adoption?

This entire discussion is hysterical and extremely disappointing.

I highly doubt that the majority of women are "relieved" after undergoing an abortion. From the stories I have heard I believe there needs to be much more education on abstinence - the best way for a woman to not find herself faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Yes there can be complicated situations, but to say that those are the norm is ignorance. The Canadian government needs to take a stand for our nation's future and admit that abortion isn't just another surgical procedure. The public needs to be made aware if this issue.

Mary Lou --> Abortion, of course, is about the choice of women. But, you seem to think that this means that men should not be allowed to voice an opinion, as if somehow this issue had nothing to do with them. Maybe you would like to point out how many men you know who were not born?
Your comment is an insult to all men, even those who are pro-choice and who do not believe it is for them to make the decision. It stinks of how women were treated in regards to " manly " activities, like war. Somehow I do not think many female anti-war activists would be impressed if we were to tell them to go home to their knitting because war was about men.

I do not think that abortion should be illegal.I believe that it is a pregnant woman's choice wether or not to have a baby. And no matter how many preventative measures are taken during sex, it is still possible to become pregnant.

Another fact wich seems to be ignored in this issue is that pregnancy is not an enjoyable state especialy when one does not want to be. And will easily get in the way of a person's life, maybe even destroying everything that they have worked up to.

Anyway, just because someting is illegal does not meen that people are not going to seek out abortions. Wich will certainly lead to many deaths.

While Irespect everyones right to live, I simply believe that on eshould have an ounce of control over waht is happening to they're bodies.

Two things:
1. In response to comments that this discussion is "hysterical", "disappointing", "ridiculous" etc, I think it is clear from the number of responses that this issue IS something that Canadians want to discuss. After all, the MAJORITY of Canadians want an end to abortion (as evidenced in countless surveys and on this WISHLIST). It makes sense that people are getting worked up though, as it is a very emotional thing when you are dealing with truth and lies.
2. An interesting question: How many pro-lifers have become such after having an abortion? It would be interesting to read the stories and hear the reasoning of these women (and men - as they are equally affected by abortion). The side effects of abortion can not be denied - both physical and psychological.
As for Joyce's earlier comments about the "risks of pregnancy" being so numerous...I have been pregnant twice and never have I felt even a little bit of risk to me. Is there a doctor out there who can refute her lies using the medical logic?

Amy

As a liberal minded person myself I realize that the false debate on abortion is driven by religious nuts.

It bothers me that people think there is much of a debate to be had on this subject outside of theological discussions.

Sometimes liberals allow too much, im not tolerant of people calling for blacks or gays or women to have rights denied to them so why are so many liberals, people against the idea of dictating womens rights based on the bible allowing the religious right to have this much leeway?

Theres no chance this law will be overturned, the real story here is why is it that intelligent, open minded, non-religious Canadians allow the religious idiots to spew such nonsense?

I will never ever support a religious group ever again and I will work hard to make sure I help destroy all religious movements in Canada.

Enough is enough, its no longer acceptable to say "they are religious" for it to be "ok", stupidity is NOT OK and should be fought against.

Religious idiots have no place in an intelligent, just society.

Easily solved:

1. Have all the pro-life activists submit their names and contact info on one government list and pro-choice on another list.
2. Abolish abortion and make it illegal with #3 the “new” procedure.
3. Once an unwanted child is born, the next name in sequence listed on the pro-life list is automatically the adoptive parent of said child. They are legally required to support said child in a loving caring environment, whereas the pro-choice person may continue onwards with their life until such a time they are prepared and willing to have a wanted planned child of their own.
4. Problem solved.

Hmmm. I’ve always wondered how many children have been adopted from the people claiming to be pro-life?….let me guess…very few or none.

Several people have rightly pointed out the lack of support that women especially young single women face when pregnant. So we offer the cheap and violent abortion “choice” or single parent poverty. Some choice! Women’s bodies must be restructured rather than society because restructuring society would actually cost us something. We know women just aren’t worth it. Non violence is just too hard.
We are too stuck on ourselves, acquiring more things at the cost of cheap third world labour and enjoying our sexual anarchy oops I meant freedom.

Someone mentioned concerns for our planet’s ecosystems but they ring hollow when we ignore what is being done to the delicate ecology of women, being strip mined for their pregnancies, ingesting tons of powerful hormones and having millions of cosmetic surgeries just to be sexually free to please men at no cost to men. We can’t improve the care of our global environment at the cost of ravaging the ecosystems of women’s bodies.
But mother earth is the politically correct focus of environmentalists. Women’s bodies... who cares?
One last thing before I sign out, abortion can never be safe as it kills one of the doctor's patients and damages the other.

Abortion clinic "counsellors" use high pressure sales tacts to sell abortion to women in crisis. This is a violation of informed consent and would not be acceptable, if a consumer was buying an RRSP, a home or car.

Taxpayer dollars are wasted on killing that could be used to treat cancer, perform hip and knee replacements, etc.

We are killing our next generation and contributing to the burden of CPP as our population ages.

Health care professional resources are wasted on killing instead of being put into clinics to reduce wait times for people in need of doctors and nurses for necessary medical procedures.

Both sides need to realize that arguing the morality versus the legality of abortion are two completely different topics. People who want to ban abortion are essentially saying that it should be illegal. Imagine this, an 18-year old high school student gets pregnant. For whatever reason, she decides to get an abortion. If the antichoicers have their way, she would go to jail. I consider myself pro-life in the sense that I don't think abortion is moral, but I still think it should remail legal. Why? Because the women who go through abortion should not be sent to jail.

However, I disagree with some of the pro-choicers who argue that the fetus is not life. Biologically, the zygote (fusion of sperm and egg) is life, and human life at that. It has 46 chromosomes (the same number as those of us out of the womb), and can replicate by itself. The only argument that can condone abortion is a philosophical one, by stating that the fetus is not a 'person' and therefore, does not have human rights.

Lots of interesting comments here!
It's been said, and I'll say it again:
What IS "the unborn"?
It's something.
It's something that causes a lot of contention, clearly. = )
If we don't know if it's human, then is there any proof that it might be something else? I'm being serious, here. Does anyone know what else 'the unborn' could be except human?
Well, maybe we're just not SURE that they are human. Maybe we're still wondering. So... if you're going hunting with your friend and you lose track of where that friend is, do you shoot at a clump of rustling bushes? Of course not! It might be your friend in there. So let's put a hold on all abortions until it can be proven that the unborn are NOT human. A complete end to abortion unless and until hard evidence comes forth that 'the unborn' are anything other than human.

I wholeheartedly agree with this editorial. The thing I find amazing is the pro-abortion rhetoric and choice of words. I have always found CBC to be very biased against pro-lifers. One example is the terms that are used. You will notice right at the begining how they refer to "anti-abortion". I know that people who have supported the protection of all life from conception to natural death have always been pro-life. If you want to use the "anti" word consistently and in an un-biased way, then call pro-abortionists anti-life. It is certainly a lot more aggressive to say "anti" as opposed to pro-life....

Please, PLEASE don't let these people get any more attention. The very notion of taking away a woman's right on whether or not to abort a fetus (NOT a baby) is repulsive. It does not have a soul at the stage abortion can be done at. It may be 'alive', but it is in no way aware. It may move, but that is merely nerves firing, NOT the movement of something that is aware. Taking away the legal right to abort goes against human rights. What right do these 'pro-lifers' have to dictate what others do? Is it THEIR baby? NO! There are too many humans as it is, and forcing more to be born will only insure a miserable life for a baby which was not wanted and upon birth was promptly abandoned in an orphanage to be crowded in with other unwanted babies and grow up miserable. Is that what these people want? To force women to carry an unwanted baby to term, only to get rid of it because it was not wanted and probably can't be supported?! Disgusting.

A foetus is not a person, so an abortion is only delaying an idea. A person is someone who has been through a successful birth -- that is, the being, pnce delivered, is or will soon be viable. The early stages of pregnancy are a time of choice. If we cannot kill life, we cannot eat, as everything we eat is alive, even broccoli. The other concern with abortion is that so much of a pregnancy has to do with instinct rather than planning -- and our entire world is set up to give us a life in which we can make choices. The choice to have an abortion is not an easy one but it must be respected. Unwanted and unplanned pregnancies do not have the right to demand that someone now spend the resi of her life caring for them.

I think what a lot of people who want to ban abortion don't realize is that - should such a law occur, abortions will still happen. We will simply revert to the days of rusty knives and back alleys, and women dying at the hands of "doctors".

A lot of pro-lifers make the mistake of thinking that abortion is the "easy way out". It's not. A very very dear friend of mine had to go through an abortion, and I was at her side throughout the process, as was the child's father. In no way did she not love that child, in no way did it not tear her apart to do what she had to do. But she could barely take care of herself, her life was falling apart, and the pregnancy was due to a failed birth control pill, not irresponsibility. She considered adoption, but knew that she couldn't do it, that if she gave birth to that child, she would want to keep it, would have to keep it. And she couldn't bring herself to bring a child into an environment that wasn't stable and everything a child deserved. Anymore than she could give that child up to the system, and strangers, where it could get hurt and she wouldn't be able to take care of it. So she went for the operation, and still cries about it, will not discuss it except with me and the child's father. And she prays to that child's spirit every day, talks to her, thinks about her...

It's not the easy way out...

Scientifically the unborn child is not a person until quite late in the gestation period. I agree that after that period the operation should not be done, and in fact medical procedures agree there as well. Abortions are only completed in the early stages of pregnancy when the fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells still dependent completely on the mother's body for support. They have usually not even separated and begun to form into their own being yet, and it is my honest belief that the spirit of the child is nowhere near the body at that point, but is usually somewhere outside, waiting for it's physical shell to be ready so it can *become* a person.

Giving up for adoption isn't really that reliable, often the children don't meet the right qualifications and are sent into the system, bouncing around from life to life till they finally settle. Or if they do settle, always living with the feeling that they don't quite belong, that somewhere someone didn't love them enough to hang on to them.

Would it be better for a woman to be forced to have a child that she does not want or could not handle for whatever reason and have that child grow up in an unloving unstable environment? What of children born of rape? Would pro-lifers argue that those children must be born as well? Would you force a woman to have a constant reminder of pain and trauma running around her life, expecting and deserving to be loved? Could you expect her not too look at that child and feel some of the resentment and pain from his/her conception every time she looked in it's eyes.

I do not think abortion should be used as birth control by any means. I do not think it should be used to "take care" of mistakes. I do think that it is important to maintain a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, her right to decide whether she is ready for the huge responsibility that comes with being a parent. No one has a right to bring a child into an already over-populated world if they are not willing or capable of supporting and caring for it, there are, after all, children out there dying of aids and worse.

As I said, if we do not maintain the right to choose, we will soon be back to back alleys an rusty knives, and if you think about it - you'll realize that that's not something anyone should want or hope for.

Joyce Arthur

"Women do not "submit" to abortions. They need, want, ask, demand, plead, or beg for abortions. And once they get one, they're generally relieved and grateful for the rest of their lives."

I find it truly sad and a poor reflection on society that people such as Joyce Arthur are allowed to publish such ignorant and uneducated statements so easily. Perhaps that is how she would like things to be in her fantasy world but in the real world it's just not so.

Yes, we can all turn a blind eye to the devil and his ministers that would have the pariahs of society such as planned parenthood and their ilk continue to poison the minds of the unsuspecting as they murder more and more innocent people but that doesn't stop the TRUTH from being what it is!

In truth, women and young girls are indeed begged, pleaded and cajoled into murdering their innocent children with the filth and lies of "pregnancy is a 'threat' to a woman's health", "you'll regret it if you continue to have this child", "a woman needs to understand that her life will never be the same and she will regret forever having a child". These are atypical slogans from the pro-death camps of which Joyce Arthur obviously chooses to belong.

Yes, Joyce, we've all seen the propaganda that your squads dish out daily with fudged up figures about how "threatening" a pregnancy is to a woman's life but in the real world those figures don't even come close the the excellent health of women who carry their beautiful children to full term and have many more and have very happy and complete lives with excellent health never once "threatened" by what God sought to create.

As I've mentioned in a previous editorial comment, my family and I will continue to pray for you and those like you whom the devil has fooled so easily. We hope that you will wake up to reality and repent before God for the genocidal horrors that you would visit upon millions of innocent women and their children.

To all those posting who believe that access to contraception is the answer -- Perhaps you should do a little more research into the harmful effects that many contraceptives have on women. A year ago, the May Clinic released a study revealing that a woman who uses the birth control pill prior to her first pregnancy increases her chance of getting breast cancer by an average of 50%. The results were from a meta-analysis of EVERY study ever done on the relationship between breast cancer and the pill. The pill is also labled a Group 1 carcinogen according to the World Health Organization and the Association for International Cancer Research -- in the same group as arsenic and solar radiation. Had they known what they know now, it is logical to assume that the pill never would have been approved by the FDA, and consequently the Canadian Medical Association. Not giving women these facts is dispicable. I would challenge the CBC to do some real journalism and expose the truth about the pill's deathly side effects. I want desperately to see an end to breast cancer, but this will not happen if we keep ignoring the facts. The facts are black and white and indisputable.
I know this post is not directly related to abortion, but with all the talk about women's rights and health, I feel it important to point this out.

The alleged 'personhood' of a fetus is completely irrelevant to abortion rights.

There's no such thing as the "right" to live off the body of someone else. My neighbor is fully human -- yet that doesn't give him the right to take or use anybody else's body to meet his own medical needs. Personhood never gives anyone the right to use someone else's body for their own benefit.

That's why fetuses don't get greater rights than actual people have. Pregnancy and delivery always pose more threats to a woman's life and health than non-pregnancy or abortion do -- a woman is under no obligation to take extra risks with her life and health merely because a fetus is incapable of surviving outside the uterus.

This entire situation makes me ashamed of my fellow Canadians. The Great Canadian Wish List was an opportunity to turn a mass-contact website into a tool to improve our country by giving its citizens a place to speak their minds. Instead, it has degraded into this.

Until it can be universally established that the fetus shares the same human status as the mother, it would be a violation of human rights to criminalize abortion. Not only would it violate the rights of the pregnant woman, but it also reintroduces the terrible realities of abortions performed with wire coathangers and by “back-door butchers”. Hundreds of thousands of illegal abortions are performed around the world in a plethora of countries that have outlawed them. This should not have to be the reality in Canada. Being “pro-life” will not stop abortions from happening; instead, try respecting the fact that your fellow Canadians have a very different perspective on the matter and do not cause them undue hardship for holding their own views. This is not a black-and-white issue.

It saddens me to see that this is how Canadians have chosen to use their opportunity to improve their country. Instead of running an old debate into the ground with the same arguments over and over, I would like to see people have constructive, forward-thinking ideas on the future of their country. There are countless important facets of life and society that can be improved upon! For people concerned about this country’s children, think about improved sexual education so there are fewer accidental teenage pregnancies. Or consider improved programs to help those women that choose not to have abortions but still do not have the means (or will) to properly raise a child. For those who are pro-choice: the legislation is already in your favour. Continue working towards a consolidation of women’s rights, if that is what attracts you to this debate. Or consider ways to improve Canada’s health care program; abortion is still not easily accessible to women everywhere. New Brunswick (for example) is particularly appalling and has so many barriers in place it’s shameful. Whichever side you support, BE PRODUCTIVE NOT DESTRUCTIVE. Stop tearing at each other’s throats and do what you can with what you’ve been given.

And finally, shame on CBC for entertaining this debate. The only things that can come from reopening this argument are scathing comments and a degradation of women’s rights. I don’t care how good a story it may be for you, there are more important things to be concerned about.

In response to Jeanne:

Your comments about the development of the baby are completely unfounded and incorrect - the facts are there for anyone to find. You can even see how a child develops in a high school textbook, and any student could tell you that you are mistaken. Also, you are mistaken about when in gestation abortions are performed. In Canada, abortions are legal at any time in the pregnancy, although access to them is limited as many doctors refuse to perform them at a late stage. Again, please do your research before posting lies.

In response to Jeanne:

Your comments about the development of the baby are completely unfounded and incorrect - the facts are there for anyone to find. You can even see how a child develops in a high school textbook, and any student could tell you that you are mistaken. Also, you are mistaken about when in gestation abortions are performed. In Canada, abortions are legal at any time in the pregnancy, although access to them is limited as many doctors refuse to perform them at a late stage. Again, please do your research before posting lies.

Individuals like Joyce Arthur will always win this debate because they have managed to turn the sanctity of human life into exactly that: a debate. What was once considered an immutable truth has been turned into a relative one, through the sophisticated sophistry of those who have such a high stake in defending their pro-abortion stance -- most often, that stake being, complicity in the termination of the life of another human being who was in his or her most nascent stage of development, whether directly, or indirectly. An abortion is never something one has; rather, it is an act in which someone is sacrificed for temporal gain.

Individuals like Joyce Arthur will always win this debate because they have managed to turn the sanctity of human life into exactly that: a debate. What was once considered an immutable truth has been turned into a relative one, through the sophisticated sophistry of those who have such a high stake in defending their pro-abortion stance -- most often, that stake being, complicity in the termination of the life of another human being who was in his or her most nascent stage of development, whether directly, or indirectly. An abortion is never something one has; rather, it is an act in which someone is sacrificed for temporal gain.

Individuals like Joyce Arthur will always win this debate because they have managed to turn the sanctity of human life into exactly that: a debate. What was once considered an immutable truth has been turned into a relative one, through the sophisticated sophistry of those who have such a high stake in defending their pro-abortion stance -- most often, that stake being, complicity in the termination of the life of another human being who was in his or her most nascent stage of development, whether directly, or indirectly. An abortion is never something one has; rather, it is an act in which someone is sacrificed for temporal gain.

Interesting: none of the claims have proof behind them. It's pure demagoguery. As for the "Women are told they must forget who they are and submit their social problems to a typical male solution: mechanistic, controlling, destructive" claim: historically, it was the men who were (and still are, is some places) trying to control their women's fertility. Women going for an abortion are not "mechanistic, controlling and destructive" - they are in fact fighting against those things. They fight against the machinery of unwanted pregnancies, brought about by evolution in a world where most babies died before their first birthday. Today, especially in North America, most babies survive and few parents have the resources to care for more than 2-3 kids. Do we want to lower the living standards of kids alive today? No. DO we want to lover the living standards of everybody by making them spend money they do not have on children that could have been avoided? Do we want to crumble the economy by bringing kids into this world when we know that many of them would become impoverished and never get a chance for a better life? And do we want to heighten the levels of teenage crime by forcing women to have children they do not want, children who will turn to crime because they never received the caring love that would have taught them a different survival strategy? These women are also fighting against the control men have had over them for thousands of years. Previously, men decided if a woman got pregnant, they held her down, raped her, sold her into slavery, and she could do nothing about not wanting a baby. They are fighting against the destructiveness that inequality is still bringing to the world because they are fighting for choice, they are fighting for freedom and liberty in their own way. A foetus is not a child, only a child-to-be. 50% of them never make it to birth due to natural miscarriages. Then why is abortion such a crime in the eyes of some? I think the crime is to overlook that a woman is more than just a bag of flesh intended to have other bags of flesh. Women are persons with a mind and their life should not be subordinate to the biology of their bodies - or did the West not consider things of the flesh impure for centuries? Are women born to be impure? Many of us don't think so, so think your arguments over again before you claim to be "pro-life" and realize what you are saying before the real downward spiral starts its journey back down again!

Agnes, your statement that "50% of them never make it to birth due to natural miscarriages" is incorrect. Only about 25% or less do.

Kathleen in Toronto: Just wondering if you thought about what you posted and thought that if you had not been completely dependent on your mom bringing you into this world, you would not be here. If everyone thought like this, who would be alive? The babies in the wombs of women are real boys and girls, who will grow up to be influencial men and women with the right influences in their lives. These babies in the womb feel pain, so when an abortionist rips them apart, they feel it. I had an abortion 15 years ago and I know the pain involved. It's a regret that every women who has one will face, if she is real with herself, sooner or later. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that I adamently, and securely stand against abortion and 'pro-choice'. I stand against the ideology, not the people themselves - just please REALLY think about what you all are saying.

Response to Kathleen -

"That's why fetuses don't get greater rights than actual people have."

Actually, currently in Canada - the foetus' don't have ANY rights. That's what we're trying to change.

I am a women who is adopted & who chose at one point in her life to have a abortion. I am tired of this issue - its not a black & white issue & until you yourself find yourself in the position of having to make this very hard decision then you really shouldn't have a say - especially a man who can't spell the world "fetus". Sometimes we find ourselves in the grey area of our decision & there is no right or wrong its just what is best for you the individual. I read a article the other day whereas doctors in the US are allowed to refuse treatment of a patient is they don't believe in it or it goes against there religious beliefs. So women have been refused the morning after pill, a women was refused help with a ectopic pregnancy (no chance of survival) due to a doctors religious belief - this women will "DIE" w/out this procedure - what happened to 1st do no harm. We live in a society in which women's rights are taking steps backwards - based on religion & beliefs - seriously come on. Women are still to this day responsible for 90 % of the child rearing the only difference is now we are working the same amt of hours per wk as our male counterpart - who can't lift a finger to do housework - so now I have 3 kids hanging off me - have to work 40 hrs this wk & a wonderful husband/man - that says I just want to sit here & do nothing because its my day off - when does that women get her day off is what I would like to know?? But yet they are the 1st ones to sit there & say abortion is wrong - of course its wrong -when you are not the one who has to deal w/the repercussions of having a unwanted & unplanned child. Before you jump all over me & say - well you don't have to love it or raise it - as a adopted child I believe that all children born into this world has the right to know their geneology & the only way that can be achieved is w/open adoption or with info given to the child about me & that still requires me to have a personal commitment to that child at least at some point in its life. Women bond with a child when it grows in them for 9 months - a good intended adoption plan doesn't mean its going to happen once you have the child - not to mention - in my case pregnancy comes with all kinds of medical conditions - risks - time in bed for mths - a huge commitment & risk to my health to have a child & to give it up for adoption. I'm sorry its about the women here men -- we need to be the ones that are in control of our bodies - you should never have the right to tell me I have to have a baby even though I could die w/some of these medical conditions - it is my body & I will make the decision about it - not my government or any of you pro-lifers in anyway shape or form - forget it - it doesn't matter if abortions were banned - when it comes to society telling women what they can & cannot do with their bodies - we will always find a way to combat that & find another way to have that said abortion - often however they are un-safe ways of ending a pregnancy & we do not need to go back there - now do we ? So please consider the stand you take on a issue - especially when you yourself have never had to make a decision surrounding that issue.

"Mass abortion is the price Canadian women are led to believe they must pay in order to have equality with men. Women are told they must forget who they are and submit their social problems to a typical male solution: mechanistic, controlling, destructive."

I thought we were over the sexist, chauvinistic and juvenile comments like this. Obviously, the writer blames men for everything that goes wrong in her life. What crap! This kind of gender-hating rhetoric has no place in a socially-advanced country like Canada. Why does the writer even make it sound like abortion is something new? The only thing new about abortion is that there are now safer and healthier procedures which can be used to ensure the well-being of women.

And do I have the right to tell the writer what to do with their body, how they should eat? Maybe if they're overweight, I can tell the writer that they HAVE to lose the excess because they're costing the health system a bundle or they can die. We are talking about human lives there too, right?

Is that where we're at? More choices and less fascism, please.

Steamy, this debate. Steamy but it is a rehash and no one will be converted. Why then Am I putting in my 2¢? Because this is an emotional exercise, and I am feeling emotion. Not logic. This has nothing to do with logic. It is logical that the 2 persons most intimately effected should be the ones to decide. Alas the blastocyst has no thought process so the one most logically to decide is the female carrying the blastocyst. TO bad it doesn't happen that way.
I am not in favour of abortion. I am male a so will never be in position to make that so-intimate decision. It is (I believe, and I believe logic dictates) the sole decision of the female who is pregnant.
Dale, you were never given that choice - you were railroaded. I once lived across the street from a public school. Because I was young and dressed in a cool fashion, some of the grade 8's would come over and talk to me. I got to hear the stuff their parents didn't hear. I heard about "Susie" who got pregnant. Then I heard she took "a whole bunch of aspirin but she didn't die" and "had a miscarriage" (all this from a 13 year old) Should she have had the baby? Doesn't matter - she did make a choice.
Problem most of the Pro-lifers have is they think it should be all rules. God comes down and breathes the spirit of life into the unborn. When does that happen? A whole bunch of old men (some of them declared lifelong celibate) argued for centuries to decide that. Men.
Made the rules.
If men got pregnant the morning after pill would be available at convenience stores, and birth control pills would be handed out in public school.
The problem with abortion is it is public and open, and those who are in the most need are the least able to deal with it on their own. The poor, children, the dispossessed. The rich have always been able to take care of their "problems".
We should not be talking about abortion, we should be talking about how to make it unnecessary, or rare. Take a chunk of money, actively search for a male birth control method. Yes, little Christians, I know that abstinence is the best way, but I grew up in a Christian community, and our high school had the highest rate of pregnancy in the province.
A True Story:
Someone who became a very good friend not long after this happened, had an abortion. She was 18, living away from home for the first time. She was raped and beaten in the foyer of the apartment building she was living in, one afternoon as she came home from work. She was made pregnant.
Scared and far from home, she and her roommate turned to a neighbour. The neighbour found her someone who could help. She had a coathanger abortion on a kitchen table in the east end of Montreal. After, she started to bleed. her roommate called the ambulance service. The police came first, and because they figured she and her roommate were hookers, they beat her. Then her roommate took her to the hospital by cab. She was lying in the ER hallway on a gurney, when, just by chance a doctor, in town from Boston to lecture on ectopic pregnancy, stopped and asked her how she was. She told him, in detail. He examined her and found her pregnancy was possibly ectopic, and she had an infection from the abortion. He saved one ovary and one fallopian tube. Should she have had the abortion? Without the second one (the one to remove the ectopic pregnancy) she would have died. Was that god's plan? Ten years later, after Henry Morgentaler fought the fight,she might not have lost the ovary and fallopian tube.
When does your God breath the Spirit into the possible human? You don't know. he never told you. You only have some old man's opinion.
In the Bible, Genesis 17:13 says that, as a covenant with God, men must be circumcised, and in the next verse "Steamy, this debate. Steamy but it is a rehash and no one will be converted. Why then Am I putting in my 2¢? Because this is an emotional exercise, and I am feeling emotion. Not logic. This has nothing to do with logic. It is logical that the 2 persons most intimately effected should be the ones to decide. Alas the blastocyst has no thought process so the one most logically to decide is the female carrying the blastocyst. TO bad it doesn't happen that way.
I am not in favour of abortion. I am male a so will never be in position to make that so-intimate decision. It is (I believe, and I believe logic dictates) the sole decision of the female who is pregnant.
Dale, you were never given that choice - you were railroaded. I once lived across the street from a public school. Because I was young and dressed in a cool fashion, some of the grade 8's would come over and talk to me. I got to hear the stuff their parents didn't hear. I heard about "Susie" who got pregnant. Then I heard she took "a whole bunch of aspirin but she didn't die" and "had a miscarriage" (all this from a 13 year old) Should she have had the baby? Doesn't matter - she did make a choice.
Problem most of the Pro-lifers have is they think it should be all rules. God comes down and breathes the spirit of life into the unborn. When does that happen? A whole bunch of old men (some of them declared lifelong celibate) argued for centuries to decide that. Men.
Made the rules.
If men got pregnant the morning after pill would be available at convenience stores, and birth control pills would be handed out in public school.
The problem with abortion is it is public and open, and those who are in the most need are the least able to deal with it on their own. The poor, children, the dispossessed. The rich have always been able to take care of their "problems".
We should not be talking about abortion, we should be talking about how to make it unnecessary, or rare. Take a chunk of money, actively search for a male birth control method. Yes, little Christians, I know that abstinence is the best way, but I grew up in a Christian community, and our high school had the highest rate of pregnancy in the province.
A True Story:
Someone who was a very good friend, not long after this happened, had an abortion. She was 18, living away from home for the first time. She was raped and beaten in the foyer of the apartment building she was living in, one afternoon as she came home from work. She became pregnant. Scared and far from home, she and her roommate turned to a neighbour. The neighbour found her someone who could help. She had a coathanger abortion on a kitchen table in the east end on Montreal. After, she started to bleed. her roommate called the ambulance service. The police came first, and because they figured she and her roommate were hookers, they beat her. Then her roommate took her to the hospital by cab. She was lying in the ER hallway on a gurney, when, just by chance a doctor, in town from Boston to lecture on ectopic pregnancy, stopped and asked her how she was. She told him, in detail. He examined her and found her pregnancy was possibly ectopic, and she had an infection from the abortion. He saved one ovary and one fallopian tube. Should she have had the abortion? Ten years later, after Henry Morgentaler fought the fight, yes if she had chosen that. And I will fight for her choice.
When does your God breath the Spirit into the possible human? You don't know. he never told you. You only have some old man's opinion.
In the Bible, Genesis 17:13 says that as a covenant men must be circumcised, and in the next verse"14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.'"
Let us suggest that we make a law that any male who is NOT circumcised is not allowed to vote, and further, that circumcision by a physician without proper rites is not valid, so any male who wishes to vote, or hold public office not only must be circumcised, but circumcised in a public ritual. Look in the Bible, folks - it tells you that! Gotta get a new chunk sawed off with the ritual blade. No wincing.
Foolish? Just as foolish as the desire to use religious rational to stop someone who may not believe as you do from having and abortion. It's none of your business. Make contraception universally available, make counseling available for women with an unwanted pregnancy, but don't make it a law. It's none of your business."

I'm not going to back up my arguments with inane facts because for every study that shows one thing, there's always another that will say otherwise.

But I will say this. Abortion has been around since the beginning of time. There have always been women who for one reason or another did not want to proceed with a pregnancy. So they found all kinds of ways to end it. Using soap filled sponges, coat hangers, and all sorts homemade remedies.

So as far as I'm concerned I'd rather have it legalized then go back to the back room abortion days.

One does not know what they will do until they are faced with a situation. Some of these women didn't want to deal with another mouth feed, some were rape victims whose families were unsympathetic to their situation. There were millions of reasons these women would subject their bodies to the horrors of a back room abortion.

Women should have the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies. It is their body that will be taken over for nine months, so they have to decide for themselves whether this is the route they need to take.

Pro-lifers can come up with one million studies that say one thing or another, but history speaks louder then words. Abortion was around even before Jesus Christ walked the face of the earth.

It is interesting using religious arguments about God breathing the soul into the foetus at some point in pregnancy. Mmm not really great theology and not too helpful to a great discussion. Let’s not forget our history, when we want to kill something human, Black, Jews, women, children and most often our enemies(Gooks, Japs Huns) they must be redefined as sub human or non human. This helps us more easily violate our intrinsic taboos about killing. This is convenient fiction but ignores what women have always know about the pregnancy, they never call their child the foetus. Try watching a video of an abortion (You Tube) and see what you gut tells you. Moving killing from medical quack offices into hospitals does not make it right and women are still dying from “safe medical abortions”

Women’s rights are very important and long overdue but they can not be won at the sacrifice of human rights anymore than sexism could be eradicated by promoting anti Semitism. We need to wake up and spend the time and money to reconstruct society not women.

I pray that more people will see the TRUTH concerning the issues of abortion, contraception etc. and their negative impact on the whole of Canadian society. Pro-life is Pro-women, children and family!!

It may be a woman's right to choose, but what about a child's right to live? It has a heart, brain and a fetus can breathe. How can that not be considered a human? We all were zygotes and we all were fetuses at some part of our lives. You can't have a human without fertilisation.

There is always adoption for those who don't want children. I have family members who fostered a child because the birth mother was a teenager and adopted the child later on. They gave the child a loving life that's way better than a "choice." I read inthe Toronto Star that adopted parents spend more money on their children than their biological ones. So what's wrong with adoption? Sure, the woman still has to go through with the pregnancy but even though they may not be able to raise a child there are others that can.

If there was a way for a woman to have an abortion but a way to preserve the fetus then I think the government should fully support it.

I agree that women who do have abortions do have depression because why wouldn't there be post-abortion counselling? (I also know some who had abortions and they haven't been the same) However, I don't think 'all' would commit suicide.

I will assume pro-life means totally against abortion; pro-choice is somewhere in between and pro-abortion is totally for abortion.

First of all, Canadian taxpayers should not be funding abortion. Abortion is bad and by funding it, Canada is pro-abortion, not pro-choice. It should be delisted and treated as cosmetic surgery, which it is for the most part (abortion on demand). It is vanity of the highest degree. Even the removal of common warts (which are contagious) are not covered by OHIP unless they are on your feet.

There is a Morgentaler Clinic in Ottawa and I have seen drop-dead beautiful couples going in for an abortion or coming out. I have seen the sly look on their faces as they look around outside to see if anyone saw them either going in or coming out.

If you are pro-choice or pro-abortion out there, please say why you would want to vehemently support the killing of a baby unless you have some financial stake in the whole situation, or deep down, you actually hate people in general. In an increasingly ageing society, why would it bother you to have some young Canadians being born? Come on, you are not really doing it for the women. Search the Internet, the overwhelming majority of women who have had abortions deeply regret it, or are in denial.

This is in response to Lily on June 20 as well as to other pro-choice people. But Lily from Ottawa especially. It is no wonder you don't have an argument. You can't even put one down which makes sense. You contradict yourself all over the place. In short - your comment tells readers that babies in the womb are alive, but that's it still ok to kill that person. And also that a baby goes from not having a soul to having a soul in a matter of weeks. Also, in Canada abortion is not illegal throughout a pregnancy. If you and other pro-choice people do not want to be labelled as not only wrong, but unresearced and ignorant - at least try to do some learning on what you so desperately want to oppose.

CBC chose a terrible way to seek the opinions of Canadians. Highly motivated religious extremists from all parts of the world will mobilize to take over this poll. Ever hear of the Bible Belt? Americans will have incredible influence over the poll results by sheer force of their numbers.

I am ashamed that Canada's public broadcasting corporation would allow anti-abortion and religious extremist wishes to stand. Freedom of religion and freedom of reproductive choice for women are so very important to Canadians, as I don't suppose any christian activist would appreciate being forced to live under the policies of some other religion.

Interesting arguments.

I still don't see how restricting someone's choices makes things better.

Prohibition didn't stop people consuming alcohol.
Despite being illegal, illicit drugs are still consumed.
Whether legal or not, women "submit" to abortions everyday around the world.

I believe the choice debate (choice to terminate a pregnancy, choice to have sex before marriage, choice to marry a partner of the same sex...) is about control.

No choice = Control.

I don't for one moment believe the spin that a woman can and does feel good about herself after having had an abortion.

Whether one is pro-abortion or pro-life, I think that we can all agree that abortion is not very pretty, and is really a tragic thing, especially when it is legal in Canada right up a the last moment before birth, right through the third tri-mester of the babe in the womb.

Far too many women experience post-abortion syndrome, and later regret the decision, especially when there are so many families who would have been willing to give a loving home to their child.

Even many pro-abortionists like Elizabeth May will say that "abortion should be legal, safe and rare." We are doing precious little, if anything, to limit abortions in Canada, however.

Can anybody think of even one thing that any politician is doing in Canada today to make abortions "rare"? How about making sure that every woman is counselled about creative alternatives before making her final decision?

Women who want to produce a child by reproductive technology are required to get counselling? Why is counselling not needed when a woman, often under emotional stress, decides to end the life in her womb?

Where is the equality for women who want to produce a life in the womb with reproductive technology with those who want to end a life in the womb?

Further, when one considers the low birth rate in Canada not even sustaining our present population, are we really moving in a "progressive" direction?

Pro-choice people claim to know all of the risks of raising children - abuse, violence, unlove, low self-esteem etc. They claim they know all of this more than anyone else in the world. Yet they themselves are the most helpless over such things it seems and kill their unborn because they feel so helpless. All of their knowledge and all of their wisdom doesn't end up in action of any kind. Why? What is wrong with the intellectual elite of our country "who know the risks" better than anyone else and then do nothing about it?

The comment that best sums it up is if you do not trust me with the right to choose how can you trust me with a baby. I personally am pro-choice but I do not agree that anyone has the right to tell you what you can and can not do with something that is supposed to be the one thing in life you truly own your body.

To all those people who are pro-life. Consider this senario. Imagine you are brutally raped, and get pregnant from this assault. I understand that you would consider this a human life and that it still deserves to live and all, but put yourself in that position. Would you want that child growing inside you for 9 months hating every minute of it because it reminds you of what happened? And if you do go through it and give it up for adoption and that child comes back to find you years later and asks why you gave it up, how do you think that child is going to feel knowing the truth, and how the only reason it is alive is because of a vicious attack and not because of a loving union (no matter how short). I personnally feel that is an instance a child should not be brought into this world and is deserving of an abortion. A woman should not have to go through life re-living this crime due to a child she never consented to creating. For this reason alone it should be a womans right to choose. No one, and I mean NO ONE has the right to force a woman to go through that. I know this is not the common reason for abortion, but you don't know what the real reason a woman has chosen to terminate the pregnancy is, and you can't draw a line to say, well you don't have a good enough reason, so we can't let you do this. You also can't force a woman to endure 9 months of what could amount to torture if she really does not want the child. I personnally hope I never have to choose an abortion, but I want to have the choice if I need it. I would hope that most women would not make that choice lightly, especially considering the medical consequences that may follow.

This is a dead issue. It was dealt with effectively in the 80s and nothing, NOTHING is going to change that, right-wing propanganda notwithstanding.

It's not a child until it can survive outside the uterus. Period.

Women have rights. Women have the right to choose. No one else can make this choice for them. And until the first man gets pregnant, everyone with a penis needs to sit down and shut up.