I wish for a kind, peaceful, respectful Canada - and that will only be achieved when we embrace women as full human beings. Fully embracing our humanity in the law, involves accepting our ability and capacity to apply a moral compass to the decisions impacting on our bodies alone. The old adage, that your right to swing your fist, ends before my face, applies to women's control of our reproductive decisions. No law, and no man, has the right to force women and girls to give birth against our will. It is that simple.

Like men, we make decisions every day. Many of those decisions cannot be altered, and have life altering impacts. Some of those decisions prove to be life savers, allowing us to live full, productive, and happy lives. Some of those decisions we would have altered, could we have returned to rethink them with the benefit of hindsight. BUT ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS, made well or poorly, are ours to make.
To me that is the crux of this discussion. Abortion is not a wish, it is a necessary procedure for the exercising of a fundamental human right. I am curious as to why a CBC "wish List" for Canada was started with an invitation for an anti-abortion editorial.
As a mature nation, I believe that the majority of Canadians have moved past this issue, with an understanding of its human rights implications. This is a scewed debate starter which is out of touch with most Canadians.

Let's call a Spade a Spade.

No physician or scientist today will argue that a new human life does not begin at the moment of conception. The only way to have an abortion is to end (kill) the life of the already created totally innocent human being.

We need to call a spade a spade, or as Judge Judy would say, “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck!”. You are either in favour of ending that human life or you are not. If you are in favour, then you need to justify why it is acceptable to end the lives of some innocent human beings and not others.

The open dialogue encouraged by The Great Canadian Wish List is good. Readers should not forget that it has been the #1 issue on the wish list for some time.

Michael Vande Wiel
Pembroke Ontario

Joyce Arthur,

1988 was the year of R. v. Morgantaler. A year in which rural and urban shortages of obstetricians was reported widely. A year in which the medicalization of pregnancy was making us uncomfortable as we learned of increased rates of elective cesarian delivery. A national situation existed where there was a growing inaccessibility of primary care practioners for pregnancy while there was improved accessibility for abortion. At the same time, there was the first important challenge to our criminal law using the Charter.

I became pregnant for the first time in 1988. I was unmarried. I was offered abortion instead of pre-natal care. I fell victim to a new societal expection that women who cannot describe their pregnancies as planned, who cannot predict their future in any expected way, will face a particulary brutal ritual. They will be expected to entertain thoughts of killing their child using abortion.

What is the reason for this? It is that in the absence of religion our justice system is what we live by. If a Judge of the Supreme Court imposes a male idea, a violent idea, that a child in the womb is a security threat to a woman, then we have to take that into ourselves. We can't fight it until we know better, ouselves.

I will no doubt be vociferously attacked for this letter. Yet I also know, I'm right when I assert that Abortion is overdone and is a important womans issue again but for the reason that too many women lose their children to it. I am sure you cannot approve of 30 out of 100 live births ending in abortion.

If I may be permitted an extra comment.

You are known as choice joyce.

I'm glad I'm not barren karen.

Your view that abortion is the ultimate insult to male authority is one I would like to debate with you in an open forum. Please contact me and we can go head to head.

Joyce

Why is it wrong to kill a 5 month old premature baby, but not a 5 month old baby in the womb? Because one is wanted? You cannot determine the value of life based on wantedness. There are orphanages full of children who were "unwanted" by their parents. But we believe them to have value, do we not? We do not believe it is ok to kill these people. There is no correlation between wantedness and worth or humanness.

I'm glad you realize that only women get pregnant. But it appears that despite that knowledge, you are avoiding a key distinction. Men and women can be equal, but they will never be the same. The main difference is our reproductive systems. The simple fact that women can get pregnant does not, in any way, make women less then men. Acknowleding the women can get pregant is not discrimination. In fact, celebrating this difference is the essence of true feminism.

Additionally, The Charter is to protect all people -- and you cannot prove that the unborn is not a person. A law against abortion is not about limiting a women's rights, but rather ensuring the rights of the unborn.

Now, assuming that people will respong with the "you can't tell me what to do with my body argument", I will pre-emtively respond with this: There are many situations where we tell people what they can and cannot do when their actions may harm someone else. We do not let people drink and drive -- we limit their right to drive because their decision to do so may jeopardize their life, or the life of someone else.

I am the mother of seven children, born in eight years. I never considered abortion during my pregnancies, but I am fiercely pro-choice. I have no right to limit the choices of other women. I extend the same freedom I insist on myself: to choose what is best for me.

The antis hate and distrust women. It has been said that if men could become pregant abortion would be a sacrement. Absolutely yes.

Sheila Kieran

Greetings:
A society can shrink no lower than when it allows and engages in the murder of a people who have no way of self defense. We are abhored when we see the people dying in the streets as we watch the news but hearing of thousands and millions of unborn children being brutally murdered as they are aborted doesn't even deserve the bending of one's ear! How far we have fallen! How can we continue to sleep while the silent scream?

Greetings:
A society can shrink no lower than when it allows and engages in the murder of a people who have no way of self defense. We are abhored when we see the people dying in the streets as we watch the news but hearing of thousands and millions of unborn children being brutally murdered as they are aborted doesn't even deserve the bending of one's ear! How far we have fallen! How can we continue to sleep while the silent scream?

Greetings:
A society can shrink no lower than when it allows and engages in the murder of a people who have no way of self defense. We are abhored when we see the people dying in the streets as we watch the news but hearing of thousands and millions of unborn children being brutally murdered as they are aborted doesn't even deserve the bending of one's ear! How far we have fallen! How can we continue to sleep while the silent scream?

I think we need to figure out how to solve this language issue. I am sorry, but the bias of CBC is coming out clearly in the issue. You call those who are against abortion "anti-abortion" while you call those for abortion "pro-choice".

First off, I think the idea and understanding of the word "choice" in this context has huge pre-conceived notions built into it. The understanding of freedom in this context is to "do what we want, when we want, how we want, accountable only to our view of what is morally right and wrong".

Choice is based in freedom which, if we're going to go by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not that definition, but only to the limits defined by law.

Now, we know that the law does not have any say, at this moment, to what is acceptible by our Canadian Legal System. However, this idea of "freedom" is something essential to the Western Democratic expirement. Freedom, as defined by Lord Acton, is "the ability to do what we ought to do".

There is, right there, a moral obligation, something universal and not subjective.

Where am I going with this? I don't think that the term "pro-choice" is essentially a fair one. I am pro-choice, I am for the ability to choose what I ought to choose. But if I choose something that is contrary to that universal, I am free to do so, but it must be enforced.

Really, in the end, I wish that the bias of this blog weren't so blatent. I would prefer more neutral terms simply because I think the terms "pro-life" anger the other side as to "anti-choice" do for the other side. I think if we got the anger out of the way and could actually dialogue about the issue (something that is severely lacking in Canadian society), then we could really learn a lot and really grow to be a true Canadian Society united in principle and truth.

What terms do I propose? I would propose, since this is really an argument about whether the law should be enacted or not, that one side be known as "For the legality of abortion" as the other is "for the illegality of abortion". Because neither position, I think, are anti anything, they are for a position that they see to be true. However, only one position in a case like this can be true and the another not be true. Abortion cannot be both moral and immoral at the same time. The Law of the Principle of Contradiction proves that this is not possible.

One last point, in regards to the idea of choice. If we were really going to go with my idea of how choice is perceived in Canadian society, then I ought to be free to do whatever I want, when I want, how I want. Then, however, the force of law loses all grip on things. I think, deep down, everyone agrees with Lord Acton, the question is, how much are willing to allow the logic of such a principle follow through.

There is a lot in this editorial that I could respond to. I will choose only a couple of misconceptions.

In the July 1960 edition of the American Journal of Public Health, an article by Dr. Mary Calderon, then medical director of Planned Parenthood, which stated:
"90% of illegal abortions are being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists, or anything else, they are still physicians”

Also, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League, admits his group lied about the number of women who died from illegal abortions when testifying before the Supreme Court in 1972. "We spoke of 5,000 - 10,000 deaths a year.... I confess that I knew the figures were totally false ... it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?"

The law has been wrong before – women were not persons under the law, same with slaves and Jews at different points in history. Just because there is a wide range of opinion about something does not mean that there is no objective truth. It is only when society is selfish, that they determine personhood based on subjective claims. In the past this inhibited women, black and Jews’ rights.

My Canada includes the preborn children, born children, women and men.

Advances in pre-natal scientific knowledge obtained partly through ultrasonic imaging showing voluntary movements and reactions to external stimuli, have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt the integral humanity of the child before birth, also known as the foetus, allowing diagnoses of pre-natal health and pre-natal surgical procedures.

Abortion is the enforced termination of the pre-natal life of a person.

The protection of human life and the right to life of a person should not be dependent on his or her degree of maturity.

Two main comments that were unfortunately glazed over in this editorial.

"Anti-choice people assume that fetuses are full persons with rights, but there’s actually a wide range of opinion on this issue. Legally speaking, only pregnant women have rights, not fetuses"

The legalistic argument here makes no sense. Just because something is law doesn't mean that it's right. For example, if you believe that abortion should be legal, there was a point when it was prohibited by law, and you must therefore believe that the law was wrong. Laws can be wrong. You need a stronger argument for why the unborn doesn't have any rights. No just, "well, they don't now." There was a time when women didn't have rights as persons - clearly the law was wrong.

Second, it is important to note that there is NO LAW on abortion in Canada. Many Canadians who believe that abortion should be legal still have heavy reservations against allowing it right up until the moment of birth. There are laws which could limit late-term abortions, take a middle road between abolition and the current lack of regulation. Laws restricting abortion don't have to be laws abolishing abortion, and many pro-choice Canadians would be in favour of at least some modest restrictions (for example, at a point where the baby could survive outside the womb).

Anyways, thought those two points deserved a bit more attention.

ALL laws restrict choices.

It is illegitimate to suggest that a law should be disqualified simply because it restricts a choice.

Abortion is not about choice.

"Abortion was also legalized for compassionate reasons."

Oh yeah, right. I forgot that killing is an act of compassion. Then I remembered Tracy Latimer. What a sick and twisted country.

Thanks Karen Dean and Sheila for your great comments.

I've made a lot of comments under Editorial #1 that answer some of the other anti-choice points made above, but just to recap a couple most pertinent to this discussion: It's a logical fallacy to simply assume a fetus is a person or human being, then use that unproven assumption to say abortion is wrong. You can't assume the fetus is a person, let alone prove it (since we all have different, irreconciliable opinions about it).

But even if the fetus were deemed a legal person, a woman would still have the right to abortion because any pregnancy poses risks to a woman's health and life. An unwanted fetus is NOT "innocent" - of course it has no ill intent, but it's co-opting the woman's body against her will, and posing those health risks, so she has the right to defend herself with an abortion. Killing another person in self-defense is not unethical, nor is it murder.

This also means that the question of when life begins, or the degree of moral value of the fetus, is moot. Women need and have abortions regardless of laws, the risk to their health or life, or what the fetus may or may not be. Even some women who believe abortion is murder will have abortions.

Re laws and reproductive rights: In our society, women tend to be disadvantaged socially and economically compared to men, because of one fundamental difference: women have babies and do most of the child-rearing. Any law or policy that regulates pregnancy adds to that disadvantage, and is discrimination. Same with lack of social supports for child-rearing. I believe in order to achieve equality with men, women are entitled to a form of "extra" rights - access to pre- and post-natal resources and supports - because womens' reproductive capacities affect their lives much more profoundly than for men.

Sheila: I am offended by your comment that "anti-abortionists" hate women. I am a women myself, as are thousands of pro-life Canadians. I would challenge you to debate the issue, rather than making false claims about pro-life people.

Being pro-life is not about being anti-woman. It is about recognizing the rights of the unborn, and also recognizing that when women have to choose between life and death for their unborn children, it is evident that we have failed to meet the needs of women. Providing access to abortion will not empower women, nor bring them any closer to eqaulity with men.

As I said previously, women and men can and should always be treated equally, but they will never be the same. To be a true feminist is to recognize and celebrate the uniqueness of women, and the gift that is our ability to bring new life into the world -- and challenge the status quo, so that women will never have to make the decision to have an abortion.

Joyce,
It seems you support abortion because of your belief that pregnancy endangers a woman's health and so you want women to have the option of terminating that pregnancy (please correct me if I am wrong). So let's say that medical and technological advances some time in the future give us the ability to safely transfer a fetus from one womb to another. If another woman can be found who wants the baby, would you then support mandatory fetal transfer to the second woman and prohibit the first woman from having an abortion? (This would allow the first woman who does not want the child to be able to terminate her pregnancy without killing the child.)

Joyce said:
“It's a logical fallacy to simply assume a fetus is a person or human being, then use that unproven assumption to say abortion is wrong. You can't assume the fetus is a person, let alone prove it (since we all have different, irreconciliable opinions about it).”

Again, the humanity of the unborn cannot be left up to opinion, especially if there is an abortinist in close proximity ready to suck it out of its mother’s womb, or dismember it piece by piece with a large pair of forceps. (Things that we would not do to animals!) Let us not mince words. Abortion is the act of killing and in most cases the reality of abortion is gruesome.

You are assuming that the child will make the mother’s life unbearable, but that is an assumption that is impossible to prove. It could actually be that the child’s life turns out to be a tremendous blessing, with a myriad of hidden joys that were totally unforeseen at the time of her pregnancy. How many women are there that contemplated abortion because the law was not there protecting them from it, only to have the child and be totally amazed at the richness of experiences and love that the baby brought into their lives. Even if the child were to bring profound sorry, that is no sufficient reason to kill.

If , and only if, the mother’s very life is at stake, can a procedure be done to save her, and that in most cases would not necessitate the actual killing of her baby.

The burden of proof lies not on pro-life people advocating for the life of the unborn, but with pro-aborts who are willing to take it.

In order to kill something, one has to be 100% that whatever it is they are killing is, at the very least, not human. You claim to not know that the unborn is a human person (though a high school text book would prove it quite easily), but in order to actually carry out the act of killing, you would have to have 100% certainty that it was indeed some other species other than human. No one can, with 100% certaintly say that the unborn is not a human being. Because there is and will always be a question as to the humanity of the unborn, it is absolutely necessary that society act in the defence of life. Otherwise the risk to the common good of our culture is and has been that we dull the natural abhorrance to killing, we de-humanize, objectify, and use. When in fact the only way to treat a human being is with love.

Joyce said:
“It's a logical fallacy to simply assume a fetus is a person or human being, then use that unproven assumption to say abortion is wrong. You can't assume the fetus is a person, let alone prove it (since we all have different, irreconciliable opinions about it).”

Again, the humanity of the unborn cannot be left up to opinion, especially if there is an abortinist in close proximity ready to suck it out of its mother’s womb, or dismember it piece by piece with a large pair of forceps. (Things that we would not do to animals!) Let us not mince words. Abortion is the act of killing and in most cases the reality of abortion is gruesome.

You are assuming that the child will make the mother’s life unbearable, but that is an assumption that is impossible to prove. It could actually be that the child’s life turns out to be a tremendous blessing, with a myriad of hidden joys that were totally unforeseen at the time of her pregnancy. How many women are there that contemplated abortion because the law was not there protecting them from it, only to have the child and be totally amazed at the richness of experiences and love that the baby brought into their lives. Even if the child were to bring profound sorrow, that is not sufficient reason to kill.

If , and only if, the mother’s very life is at stake, can a procedure be done to save her, and that in most cases would not necessitate the actual killing of her baby.

The burden of proof lies not on pro-life people advocating for the life of the unborn, but with pro-aborts who are willing to take it.

In order to kill something, one has to be 100% certain that whatever it is they are killing is, at the very least, not human. You claim to not know that the unborn is a human person (though a high school text book would prove it quite easily), but in order to actually carry out the act of killing, you would have to have 100% certainty that it was indeed some other species other than human. No one can, with 100% certaintly say that the unborn is not a human being. Because there is and will always be a question as to the humanity of the unborn, it is absolutely necessary that society act in the defence of life. Otherwise the risk to the common good of our culture is and has been that we dull the natural abhorrance to killing, we de-humanize, objectify, and use. When in fact the only way to treat a human being is with love.

There was an earlier post by a woman describing how she was basically coerced into having an abortion back in 1988. I thought I would offer my own story, as a different perspective.

In the summer of 1995 I found out I was pregnant. I was fifteen years old. The boyfriend I was with broke up with me immediately, and suggested I get an abortion. Through resources at my high school and from the public health system I was given information on ALL my options; childbirth, abortion, and adoption. I feel that the system operated exactly as it should, and let me make my own choices. For the record, I opted to have my baby and she just recently turned 11.

I am grateful every day for the joy that my daughter brings to my life, but I am also grateful that I was allowed choice over my own body. I wish that every girl or woman who is faced with that choice is allowed to make it.

I just want to ask why my submission was not included.

It's a logical fallacy to simply assume a fetus is a person or human being

A logical fallacy?
Human beings can only produce other human beings Joyce. Women do not give birth to dogs or cats. Our DNA is simply impossible of doing so. A fetus is a person, a human being. This is an axiom, not a logical fallacy.

I think the bumper sticker "Aren't you glad your mother was pro-life" says it all. I sure am glad to be alive to enjoy this beautiful world! Hats off to Dave Thomas the Wendy's Founder who was adopted and encouraged others through his food chain to adopt (this weekend the staff are wearing their t-shirts). There is a huge number of couples who would like to adopt a baby.

Regarding my last post:

The book "Islamic Imperialism" was sent to every single registered clergy person in Halifax and others across the country have recieved it from "The Institute" so I am making an assumption that this has happened across the country. People with more research resources than I would have to ascertain if that assumption is accurate or not.

The problem is not the procedure of abortion, it is the common use of abortion as birth control, and the societal view that personal resposibility for one's actions is an archaic notion that are the problem.

Even if an abortion ban somehow passes into law, there will continue to be allowances for the procedure in cases such as miscarriages, or when imminent threat to the life of the woman is in peril. The procedure is not the problem.

The problem is a desire to have sex without consequences. Exercise some personal responsibility. If you have sex, and you get pregnant, carry the baby to term and raise it as your own or give it to someone who can. Killing another human being for convenience is a degradation of the person who undertakes it.

Just wondering why my last comment was not posted.

I'm always interested in the declarations of men that they would always carry their own pregnancies to term.

It's comfortable being able to call down righteous statements when you will never, ever have to make the same choice yourself. Oh sure, men are fathers too, etc - but ultimately it is always, always her decision. Because it's her body.

So maybe men should think about that for a bit. We need to take a close look at who can truly have "sex without consequences." Or at least pretend to - leaving her with the consequences.

And maybe instead of dismissing women as 'you did it, you deal with it' - think about how you can model for other men to take real responsibility for those babies. They are not made only by women. Being abandoned by the father is a key reason women have abortions.

If men taught other men how absolutely wrong and unmanly it was to not fully and completely support the woman they got pregnant and their child, we'd see a lot fewer abortions. If men taught other men that there is *no* sex without consequences, and that to seek sex without consequences is irresponsible and unmanly, we'd see a lot fewer abortions.

If men enforced that value of true responsibility through socially shunning men who abandon women and children; if men promoted a sense of true responsibility in boys and young men through education; if men used their disproportionate political, social, and economic power to ensure the rights and safety of mothers and children; if men lobbied hard for universal childcare; if men, in fact, accepted their true responsibilities to society and to all those 'unborn children' whether they were their own or not...

We could end abortion.

It's easy to say 'your problem, deal with it.' It's harder to face the fact that YOU are part of the problem.

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. Then what? I'm 22 and just starting school and all of a sudden I'd have a child to support for at least the next 20 years of my life. Abortion would be a rational decision for me to make, and if it were illegal, I'd go do whatever I could to have one anyway.

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 the pro-lifers 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.

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. Then what? I'm 22 and just starting school and all of a sudden I'd have a child to support for at least the next 20 years of my life. Abortion would be a rational decision for me to make, and if it were illegal, I'd go do whatever I could to have one anyway.

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 the pro-lifers 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.

A cognitive dog has more in common with a cognitive human than a pre-cognitive human has with a cognitive human. The dog feels pain, loss, euphoria and happiness, the precognitive human does not. Yet, many think it should be murder to abort a pre-cognitive human who would not give the time of day to even worry about the dog, let alone call it murder to kill one.

The Great Canadian Wish List;
Well as a proud Canadian I wish for health, wealth, peace and happiness for all! Why are we talking about a private matter (abortion) that is between a woman and her Physician? To everyone, think, wish for the greater good for all, sincerely Denise DuFault.

Liz - at least a couple of mine and some posts from other people, sent over the last couple days, have not been posted either. Maybe a glitch in this system? - as the moderator says she is posting everything.

True justice is not killing the 'unborn and innocent'. True justice is giving this baby an opprotunity for a Canadian couple to 'ADOPT'.....

Where are couples going now to adopt a child now, China.

Give Life a chance. >

As truly a thorny issue as abortion is, there remains a substantive reality that all people must come to accept about it: No amount of debate, dialogue, or demonstrations will amount to a sudden alignment of minds on this issue. It is divisive by nature, and people are very rooted in their choice.

As a man, this issue remains a grey area. We as men will never fully understand the process of childbearing. It is a simple fact that we are "ill-equipped" to do so. Thus, many men find themselves looking to their moral infrastructure for guidance on this matter, and sometimes I fear this makes this issue a bit too black and white.

I might interject into this debate that the issue is choice, and people make choices every day. One of those choices that both men and women are faced with is whether or not to engage in sexual conduct with a given individual. These choices, along with the appropriate planning and contraceptive measures are the ones oft neglected in today's highly sexually permissive society. Abortion is in many cases a fundamental way out from a poorly made or temporarily acceptable decision to have sexual intercourse. The social factors, demographical and economic factors influencing in this area should be examined and addressed to help prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Realistic sexual education programs that focus on methods of prevention rather than simply teaching abstinence (which remains the most effective means of preventing any such issue from coming up in the first place), ought to be enacted.

However, once a choice is made, there are times in which compassion for the situation in which that woman finds herself must be entertained. Should a teen whose family does not support the idea of pre-marital sex be shunned because of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy? Should a woman whose community's beliefs do not allow for childbearing outside of marriage be ostracized for her misfortune?

To be clear, I do not espouse the ideal that a child is a misfortune, but rather am simply trying to reinforce the concept that social circumstances play an important part in the way in which a woman decides whether or not to opt for abortion. And in this way, who is more qualified to make this ultimate decision? Only the person who must live the rest of their life with the reality of that choice, is, in my opinion, fully qualified to do so. As has been mentioned, abortions are sought out whether or not legal measures are in place to prevent it.

Medical advances in neonatal intensive care have allowed premature babies to live from ages as young as 4 and a half months. However, the health complications and developmental challenges the child will face must be weighed. Is it right to go to extreme lengths just to keep that child alive when it will certainly face a life of extreme challenges and difficulty?

I suggest that a middle ground had best be reached on this issue. By far, the most conspicious of issues for pro-life advocates is the partial birth abortion, which is indeed a fairly gruesome process. I personally do not support it, especially when there are thousands of good homes and families who are looking to adopt but cannot because of the small amount of babies who are actually carried to full term after it became clear the baby was not wanted by the birthmother.

I think that given greater support measures for mothers who wished to give their babies up for adoption would allow a good compromise, in addition to making numerous families across our great country incredibly joyful.

Ultimately, I admit, there is no final answer. No one single methodology or programme that will work in every single case. I hope that our country, through flexibility, compassion, understanding, and a disempassioned dialogue can come to a better way of handling the question of abortion.

Major changes need to happen in Canada, especially in New Brunswick. It all started in Moncton Hospital when two of the OB-Gyns out of moral objection decided that they would no longer perform abortions. The other two OB-Gyns decided that they would also stop because they didn’t want to be singled out. St John Hospital no longer performs abortions and neither does the DECH in Fredericton. This is illegal technically in this country, for a hospital or a physician to be able to choose to not perform a standard a legal medical procedure out of moral objection is outrageous in public health care. If a doctor is a Jehovah’s Witness would we stand by if he or she refused to perform a blood transfusion out of moral and religious obligation?
In order to receive an abortion in New Brunswick, you must have a referral from two doctors who believe you are mentally stable enough to make this decision. You will then have to get yourself to the location of the undisclosed hospital some where in the North of the Province, or you must pay a fairly exorbitant fee for one at a clinic.
Some doctors are saying they no longer want to perform abortions because they are tired of being harassed. I believe people should have a right to their opinions, but when the manor in which they are expressing their opinions is directly imposing upon the civil liberties of others and are causing harassment and fear or their personal physical safety should there not be a line drawn? I know of peaceful anti war demonstrators who've been beaten at Fredericton City hall for expressing a non-violent opinion, in a non fear-imposing manor. Why are we allowing the intimidation by these right wing, irrational, violent bigots?
One of the most irritating facets of these anti-abortion arguments is that, “Oh were killing a baby”. No you are not, you are expelling a zygote! Most womyn have miscarriages without even realising, and miscarriage before 3 months is extremely common, should we charge these womyn with involuntary manslaughter? Most of these pro-lifers promote child abuse anyway when they are prancing around in their Nike shoes, babbling nonsense at the top of their lungs. Wanting to bring an unwanted child into this world just because you have a closed mind and a guilt complex makes you very selfish indeed.
The positive thing about having abortion as a choice is that it is just that, a choice. If you feel negatively about abortions then there is no legal obligation for you to have one. Our world is far to over populated and there are far to many abused, unloved and starving womyn and children for this not to be an option. Especially when there is still no completely safe or fool proof forms of birth control, there is a need for abortion. As long as rape exists and is treated as a second rate felony with minimal jail time, there needs to be abortion. As long as we want to remain a democratic country, where womyn are considered equal there needs to be safe, legal abortion with support systems implemented for womyn who choose to have or not to have one! While we're at it, why don't we push the public health system in this country to do research into herbal emmenogogue and abortificant usage so that we have less traumatic forms of control over our reproduction systems? As long as abortion and a womyn's control over her body is allowed to be challenged in this country, we are truly not equal citizens which defies our rights and civil liberties as granted to us in Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms! Why is our Government not protecting us against these harassments, which constitute frankly as hate crimes! Our Government needs to stop listening to loonies and start acting like a real Democratic Government who protects the rights and civil liberties of it’s people, including the right to choose to have, or not to have an abortion. Shame on them for being so cowardly and lazy!

I couldn't agree more. Abortion is a health issue and must be safe, free and available as should birth control.

I read through more than half of the comments, and couldn't go on, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but there are other reasons for abortion to be legal (with some limits). For example, rape, severe (terminal) birth defects, and situations where the mother is at risk of death are all times when abortion should definitely be available if it is desired. Abortion is a choice, and should remain available. If you oppose it, you don't have to have it done.

And when the question of if a fetus is a human comes up, it's not meant to be a biological question, but a philosophical one. Can the fetus think? Does it have feelings? If so, at what point in the pregnancy? Surely not the point when it is a cluster of a few cells.

I read through more than half of the comments, and couldn't go on, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but there are other reasons for abortion to be legal (with some limits). For example, rape, severe (terminal) birth defects, and situations where the mother is at risk of death are all times when abortion should definitely be available if it is desired. Abortion is a choice, and should remain available. If you oppose it, you don't have to have it done.

And when the question of if a fetus is a human comes up, it's not meant to be a biological question, but a philosophical one. Can the fetus think? Does it have feelings? If so, at what point in the pregnancy? Surely not the point when it is a cluster of a few cells.

I would like to make a couple of comments and would dearly love for people like Joyce to respond.

1. When I was a younger woman, my best friend Becky got pregnant. She was in her early 20's, single and had just moved to our city from another town. She was on her own and knew practically no one except the father of her child. As it turned out he spurned her the moment she found out about the new life God had given her to carry. She became desperate as she sought out her answers. Then pure evil entered her life. A lady claiming to be a "doctor" managed to convince her that the new life that God had created was somehow a "threat" to her. She managed to coerce Becky that an abortion "was not murder, that there would be no complications and she could go on to have a more successful and fulfilling life". Sadly, in her desperation, Becky caved in to the ever increasing pressure that all murdering abortionists and planned parenthood types foist on their victims. When the so-called "procedure" was done a nurse was helping Becky to the recovery area. As she did so, Becky managed to glance over to one side. There in the garbage bin, still twisting and writhing in silent agony, were the chopped up body parts of the very human baby that she had just assisted in murdering. She very clearly recognized the head, legs and arms of her child. The doctors and staff attempted to assure her that she was mistaken, that she was "confused". She called me later to tell me all this and that she was terrified for her immortal soul for what she had done. Shortly after that she began bleeding profusely and went to an emergency center for care. She was in critical condition. I, and her parents, were contacted. Unfortunately, Becky died later that night. Cause of death? Complications due to a "recent miscarriage". She never told the doctors that one of their own had helped her to murder and innocent human being. Abortion is a safe procedure? I demand an answer that explains why millions of innocent women have died horribly due to this "safe procedure"!

2. I am a Catholic woman with several healthy children. Approximately 9 years ago I (very happily) became pregnant with my second child. My husband and I could ill afford any children but we knew it was the will of God and we gladly accepted His blessings in our lives. The gynecologist that I usually went to had moved out of the country but her replacement at the time was highly recommended. Upon my first, and ONLY, visit to this "woman" I was absolutely horrified, to the point of vomiting extensively, by what I experienced. This "woman" (no, I won't dignify her by calling her a "doctor"), while ushering me into her examination room, very ignorantly tried to dismiss my husband without even asking either of us if I wanted him with me. A very quick glance at my chart and her first comment was "you don't have to let him (referring to my husband) force you into this, there are very safe procedures that are now legal that will enable you to continue to have a healthy life without any threats". I asked if she was referring to an abortion and she replied that yes and that due to my age (I had just turned 40) she "highly recommended it", in order that I might "continue to live a normal, healthy life". She managed to say this, as many ignorant pro-murderers do, without asking about my religious or moral beliefs or without any regard as to what I might think. My husband and I left her office immediately and sought and found a more God-fearing human doctor that took excellent care of me up until the time of my delivery. Unfortunately, due to scheduling, the new doctor was in surgery when I went into labour. My daughter was in a hurry to greet the world and as I was being prepped the "doctor on duty" was called for. I was horrified to discover it was the first gynecologist (?) I had seen. I immediately went hysterical (yes, I admit this) because I knew that she would harm my child. While I was being calmed, my husband informed the staff of the reason and demanded that another doctor be brought as this murderer would not be allowed to touch our child at any time. He even went to the great length of making sure that our beautiful daughter was always in his view at all times as he did not trust the murderer not to return. Thankfully, she did not and a few days later our beautiful healthy daughter and I returned to our home. We have been gloriously blessed to have had two more wonderfully healthy children since then and my health, which was NEVER "threatened" by ANY pregnancy is excellent!

Joyce, you and many other uneducated "people" have much to answer for for the horrors and deaths that you would visit on innocent souls merely for your selfish "choices"! You really do need to learn more about the reality of life and how precious it is rather than shoving your selfish fantasies of an "overpopulated world" on innocent women and children. I, and many others, pray that selfish people such as you, and our cowardly politicians, will wake one day before the Judgment and repent of the genocide that the devil has tricked you into bringing to this world!

Jess, please! Do NOT be fooled by the devil and his ministers! All life is sacred and ordained by God Himself from the very moment of conception. NO human being anywhere has the right to end any life at ANY time! Only God has that right!

As for rape, how does murdering an innocent child in cold blood atone for the father's sin? It doesn't! So why murder it? If the mother doesn't want the child let her give it up for adoption. There are a great many adoption agencies with an equally great many applications from sterile couples who would love to adopt because they can't have children of their own. Why should an innocent child be murdered in cold blood for what someone else has done?

For the question of illnesses or diseases, there are NO guarantees at ANY point in life, from conception to death, so who are we to decide the quality of life an innocent child might have? What right have we to play God and murder that child so unnecessarily?

Let's face reality here. Yes, the devil would have his way and have a lot of people continue to postulate, albeit ignorantly and blindly, that abortion is a "right" and a "safe medical procedure". But that's part of his plan; to have all people fooled into following him. God, however, is far more powerful and come the Judgment Day His Judgment alone will stand. Is it really better to want an eternity in Hell simply because the devil convinced you to cave into a selfish desire and murder an innocent child? I, for one, would gladly suffer ANY and all sacrifices (YES! including death) to do God's Holy Will and let an innocent child live!

Many people who have commented seem to be forgetting one particular FACT: it is not only the woman's body; there is also the baby (and YES, it IS a baby!!!!) to consider. If a woman has a tumor growing; by all means, have it removed. Wisdom teeth bothering you? Yank away. Want to chop off all your hair! GO Britany! BUT....when we are talking about a developing, growing human being whose heart has been beating since 20 days conception, SORRY! That human being, who has a complete and separate DNA from its' mother also has a right to live? Don't want a baby?? There are THOUSANDS of people on adoption waiting lists who do!!!!!!!

My mitochondria also have different DNA than I do.

I am able to remove those. But then again, I would be dead. But it's okay. Because I never liked those darn mitochondria anyways!

Unless someone wants to adopt my mitochondria? But your body might reject them.

So I guess I'm stuck with having to raise my mitochondria against my wish.

Abortion should be restricted only to cases where the mother's health is at risk.
Abortion should not be used as a tool for birth control. Every life is sacred and God given.
Thank you for listening

My wish is for abortions be abolished.The beginning of a human life is too precious to be aborted.

Long before I was born, my mother had this procedure. There is a time in the year when she grows sad, and from a young age I knew that it was because she was thinking of the my dead brother or sister. It still saddens me to think of the child that might have been, and the pain it still causes her.

But my mother had no other option. My life may not have happened if her life had taken another course, or at the very lease would be dramatically different, filled with poverty and sorrow. And while I realize the choice had a profound effect that still cannot be measured, and while she feels that because of that pain, she no longer believes in that choice, I still believe it was her choice to make, not the white-male dominated government and the rich white people who do, in fact, have other options. Easy to judge from where you are.

This claim in the editorial is false: "Legally speaking, only pregnant women have rights, not fetuses, because you can’t have two entities in the same body competing for the same rights." Both have rights, the right to life. I could be speaking about abortion, but I'm talking about Siamese twins.

How can a fetus not be a human? It has a heart, brain and can breathe. We all were fetuses at some part in our life, so how is an "unwanted" fetus any different? Saying a fetus entered a woman without her permission is fallacious! Maybe we should all kill men off that way they can't "put an unwanted child inside a woman." The baby is innocent because it didn't no anything: it just wants a chance at life. We all were fetuses and humans start living the moment the sperm enters the egg.

Read "Women's Health After Abortion: The Medical and Scientific Evidence" by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles and tell me there aren't any side effects from abortion.

I am disappointed this blog is not updated more regularly. I feel there is more to report on than which groups are on the top 10.

It would be interesting to look at the combined wishes and analyze this list further than who makes the top 10. What kinds of trends are we seeing in this list as a whole?

Also, I feel the abortion discussion is an interesting case because I sense that there is a major influence of American media present here. Could this not be addressed? Isn't it interesting that a topic that has been forced into the limelight by special interests of a particular American conservatism has made its way into a Canadian wish list?

Clearly this group is mobilized. I would also like to speak to the fact that there are hundreds of interesting and meaningful wishes which cannot receieve the same amount of attention and mobilization. The web clearly is not anarchic, and is governed by the same hierarchies of power that shape the non-web world.

Another point I would like to add is that
there have really interesting, and critical (not to ignore the not so interesting and recycled) debates. The media has recently been analyzing the trend to seek affirmation in ones own beliefs. While certainly this has occurred in this wish list, people are also addressing difference. There are few platforms like this for discussion between people of many creeds. While I don't feel this has been wholly successful -- the nature of a competition (which this is) is to mobilize, strategize and often polarize debates-- is has been a bit of an interesting experiment.

It is disheartening to see that "certain views" are being upheld by these fly-by-night polls. Polls are merely random statistics taken from a small pool of "selected" people. I have no faith in polls whatsoever. What people should be doing is reading up on facts then making an intelligent decision on their own. Although the media tends to "control the facts", we have an obligation to seek alternative views. Does the meaning "a coin has two sides" mean anything? We are all intelligent human beings, we all believe in democracy, so why isn't it working? I think one crucial "wish" was left off the "wish list" and that would be to "end poverty now". The root of all the world's problem's is poverty... at all levels. We must acknowledge and fix this root problem in our society NOW!
If only we could all learn to work together istead of against one another!