Abortion, Modern Values and Politics

[original]

I was listening to a few sound bites on CBC this morning as I am sitting in traffic and was shocked to here Belinda Stronach criticze Cheryl Gallant for her stand on the abortion issue. Belinda claimed that she and other PCs have a more modern and progressive view and distanced herself from Cheryl Gallant. I have to wonder if she even knew the extent of Ms Gallants concerns. Ms Gallant raises an important issue and one that we cannot ignore. There are currently no limits on abortion rights, this includes live birth abortions. How many people know this. I certainly did not. What modern and progressive value supports live birth abortions. I am wholeheartedly a PC Supporter. I urge the PC's to use some common sense when it comes to this issue. I hear people say that looking at this issue is a threat to womens' freedom - what nonsense! Being ridiculed and laughed at for your own personal values is a bigger threat to womens' freedom. I urge Steven Harper to support Cheryl Gallant in her position. I urge Steven to take a stand on this issue. I would even go so far as to say that anyone who supports live birth abortions and claims that is proof of womens rights in Canada should vote for someone else! We don't need them.

Finally, welcome Senator Anne Cools! Perhaps you can shed some wisdom on this issue within the Party!

[Black Dog]

There are currently no limits on abortion rights, this includes live birth abortions. How many people know this. I certainly did not.

Can you back this up with a source?

I hear people say that looking at this issue is a threat to womens' freedom - what nonsense!

The right to choose is not just about abortion, not by a long shot. It comprises the right to have full access to family planning information, health care, and products; the right to have children or not; sex education for young people that goes beyond the abstinence-only education being promoted by the right wing; and the right to medically accurate information about sexuality for the general public

Having the right to choose determines whether women will find an equal place at life's table, whether children will be truly valued, and whether everyone's personal liberties, privacy, and bodily integrity will be safeguarded against ideology.

-Gloria Feldt "The War on Choice"

Being ridiculed and laughed at for your own personal values is a bigger threat to womens' freedom.

What a load. Ever heard the schoolyard phrase that starts with "Sticks and stones..."?

[Hugo]

There are currently no limits on abortion rights, this includes live birth abortions. How many people know this. I certainly did not.

Can you back this up with a source?

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Section 287 of the Criminal Code offended Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This made all abortion for any reason legal in Canada simply because it is no longer mentioned in the Criminal Code, much like typing or whistling. A bill to re-introduce legal oversight of abortion was struck down by the Senate in 1991.

If you want a source, try here. The case and bills in question can also be found in Parliamentary and legal archives.

[Sully]

We all know what women have to go through with childbirth. But what rights do men have in this issue.

Are we just sperm donors in every case, where we do not care about anything but the act of sex and would not want a kid under any circumstance.

What say does a man have in the abortion process, can he make the woman stop from having an abortion if he would take care of the kid, since he wants to raise it, nope. He has no say in that.

What say does a man have in the abortion process, can he make a woman stop from giving birth if he is in favour of abortion, since he does not want to take care of that kid, nope. Instead she can have the kid, even tho he is against it and then sue him later for child support.

Where is the input of men in this issue, do we have no say, or do we just get to sit on the sidelines. Do we get a voice, cause afterall women cannot have babies for the most part without us.

[Black Dog]

Where is the input of men in this issue, do we have no say, or do we just get to sit on the sidelines. Do we get a voice, cause afterall women cannot have babies for the most part without us.

How much say a man has depends on the individual relationships. However, it's the woman's body and, ultimately, her choice.

You have to realize where the right to choose fits in the broader context of women's rights. Reproductive freedom is fundamental to women's aspirations for education, financial stability and independance, and self-determination.

As Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun said:

"...Millions of women, and their families, have ordered their lives around the right to reproductive choice, and that this right has become vital to the full participation of women in the economic and political walks of American life."

—

[CanadianPatriot]

I personally am appalled that abortion ever became legal in the first place. Before people start attacking me about the women´s rights issues, I have to say I am female. I don´t think abortion is a women´s rights issue. We should be protecting the rights of the unborn, they are afterall, still children. Too many women today are using abortion as a form of birth control and getting these expensive and horrendous proceedures done on the governments bill. I feel if abortion is to be legal, the government should only pay for ONE abortion in a womans lifetime. I would much rather see abortion be made illegal again... I believe abortion is WRONG. Period. However, if I must live with it in my society I would like to see some serious restrictions applied to it.

[Sully]

No one is denying or trying to stop the fact that the ultimate choice will be the woman's to make. But men and society should have more rights based on the outcome of that choice, since in many cases the financial burden will be shifted to those two without any choice.

Men, if the women chooses to have baby, should be able to sign a legal agreement that will bar the woman from taking legal action against the paternal father, for monetary reasons, if he does not want the kid.

Society should not be there to support these women who choose to have kids and then want society to pay for it. PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT NOWADAYS IF THEY DO NOT WANT, PEOPLE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS AND NOT LEAVE IT TO SOCIETY AT LARGE (yes accidents do happen but not to the degree we see in society).

What happens to would be fathers, I guess they do not matter, maybe fathers who want the kids should be able to sue mothers who have abortions and that money can be held in trust for the father whenever they decide to have a kid. Maybe we will see unwanted births go down when women have to start paying for their actions.

I mean we do want to promote an equal society right, where mothers (who have the ultimate choice) and would be fathers (who as of now have no choice in the matter) would be able to benefit from a decision regardless.

[Black Dog]

I don´t think abortion is a women´s rights issue. We should be protecting the rights of the unborn, they are afterall, still children.

There's no scientific consensus as to whether or not a fetus is considered a living organism, so to call a unborn fetus a "child" is misleading.

Indeed, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all abortions - 98.6 percent -occur during the first half of pregnancy. Most (88 percent) take place during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Half of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks, during stages where the fetus is nothing but an undeveloped lump of tissue.

Too many women today are using abortion as a form of birth control and getting these expensive and horrendous proceedures done on the governments bill

Oh really? Can you cite me some examples, either from the media or personal experience? I suspect this is just one of those things that get repeated so often that it becomes conventional wisdom.

I've known women who've had abortions. It's not an experience any of them treat casually or would want to go through again.

It is true that we can reduce the number of abortions by insuring that everyone has all the reproductive health services and information they need, so that they can access and use contraception consistently and correctly. Don't forget, though, that many groups and individuals that oppose the right to choose abortion are also working to reduce the availability of contraception and sexuality education (like George W. Bush signing the first federal abortion ban while pumping money into wrongheaded absetinence only sex education programs).

Society should not be there to support these women who choose to have kids and then want society to pay for it. PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE TO GET PREGNANT NOWADAYS IF THEY DO NOT WANT, PEOPLE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS AND NOT LEAVE IT TO SOCIETY AT LARGE (yes accidents do happen but not to the degree we see in society).

So I trust you support government funded comprehensive sex education programs that discuss all aspects of sexual health, and all reproductive options, including abstinence, contraception, abortion, adoption, and childbirth starting at the elementary school level?

How about a national day care program so that single parents can find work to support their kids and stay off the welfare rolls?

Men, if the women chooses to have baby, should be able to sign a legal agreement that will bar the woman from taking legal action against the paternal father, for monetary reasons, if he does not want the kid.

What happens to would be fathers, I guess they do not matter, maybe fathers who want the kids should be able to sue mothers who have abortions and that money can be held in trust for the father whenever they decide to have a kid. Maybe we will see unwanted births go down when women have to start paying for their actions.

I find it interesting that you want women who get abortions to pay, while men who duck their responsibilites should be shielded by law.

Also, the idea that "women should pay for their actions" not only reeks of misogyny, but also of a twisted world where society punishes those for their mistakes and choices (even if those choices are within the boundaries of legally acceptable behavior). What's that about?

If a man doesn't want a kid, he should consider that before sleeping with someone. If he does, he should probably discuss it with the woman (seeing as how she, you know, would carry the thing for 9 months, as well as being the primary caretaker).

[Sully]

So I trust you support government funded comprehensive sex education programs that discuss all aspects of sexual health, and all reproductive options, including abstinence, contraception, abortion, adoption, and childbirth starting at the elementary school level?

How about a national day care program so that single parents can find work to support their kids and stay off the welfare rolls?

I do support any program that would be beneficial to society at large, I am firm believer in preventative measures that will provide benefits down the line, rather than being reactive.

As of right now, I do not support a national day care program unless it can be shown that it is more beneficial, with the numbers.

Personally I do not think we should be supporting single parents that chose to have kids, kids are the responsibility of the parents, not society. This is just more about people shirking their own responsibilities and expecting society to pick up the slack. No one forces anyone to have kids thesedays and no with half a brain should be unaware of the costs of raising a kid. Exceptions to the rule are not the case here.

I find it interesting that you want women who get abortions to pay, while men who duck their responsibilites should be shielded by law

Not at all you just read it wrong. Women have the CHOICE to have a child or not have a child. Thats a fact no disputing that. The man does not have the ABILITY to make the choice for the woman (he can try influence). Thats a fact no disputing that. Why should a mans future be so obviously in the hands of a woman.

At present a man who does not want a child, has no choice in the matter. The woman can have the child against his will might I add, and he will be stuck with a bill for the next 18 years of his life, cause of laws. A man who declares he does not want this child is forced into having his wages garnished for the child. Why should a man not have the option to opt out of that scenario, are you against men's rights.

At present a man who does want a child, has no choice in the matter. The woman can have an abortion against his will might I add, and he will lose what he believes to be his child. Do you find that fair.

So all I am saying is that the playing field should be EQUAL. Why should a woman who has a child against a man's will, be able to monetarily gain. Why should a man not be able to gain from the choice of a woman to have an abortion of his child. I not saying men can sue for just any arbitrary monetary gain, maybe the woman should have to pay a reasonable one time sum to be put into trust for the man's future childs education for example.

Also, the idea that "women should pay for their actions" not only reeks of misogyny, but also of a twisted world where society punishes those for their mistakes and choices (even if those choices are within the boundaries of legally acceptable behavior). What's that about?

Well that twisted world already punishes men for their mistakes and choices now doesn't it (even if those choices are within the boundaries of legally acceptable behavior). What's that about?

AND YES MEN ARE IRRESPONSIBLE ALL THE TIME.

If a man doesn't want a kid, he should consider that before sleeping with someone. If he does, he should probably discuss it with the woman (seeing as how she, you know, would carry the thing for 9 months, as well as being the primary caretaker).

Here is the thing you do not understand. WOMEN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE KIDS, SINCE THEY ARE THE CARRIERS. Men do not choose women do. Women can take all sorts of contraception or not have sex at all. Women choose to have children not men. When a woman wants a baby she chooses that time, not men. WOMEN CHOOSE. But the way you talk you seem to think men are on an even playing, well they are not.

Why would a government give more rights to men, it would only mean that the government will have to pay more for the mistakes of its citizens. As of right now its good for the government to have men flipping the bills for unwanted children, saves them money to waste elsewhere.

[DAC]

Black Dog wrote:

There's no scientific consensus as to whether or not a fetus is considered a living organism, so to call a unborn fetus a "child" is misleading.

Since when is scientific consensus required, or a statement is misleading? Scientific consensus in Galileo's time said the earth was the centre of the universe. Was Galileo's challenge to that misleading? Scientific consensus until Pasteur's time held to spontaneous generation of living creatures. Was Pasteur's denial of that misleading? Scientific consensus shortly before Einstein held to Newton's laws. Was Einstein's theory then misleading?

And actually, I have yet to hear of a scientist who would deny that the fetus is a living organism. They simply deny that it should be considered a human being with the attendant rights.

Indeed, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, almost all abortions - 98.6 percent -occur during the first half of pregnancy. Most (88 percent) take place during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Half of all abortions occur within the first eight weeks, during stages where the fetus is nothing but an undeveloped lump of tissue.

Let me suggest you upgrade your knowledge on this issue. The following website even includes fetal pictures. http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html. You can check the facts in any medical book.

Less than 4 weeks after conception that "undeveloped lump of tissue" has a beating heart. The brain, spinal column, ears, eyes and nose have begun to form. While there are tests which can detect preganancy before this, the normal tests are only effective at this time, about two weeks after the first missed period. And by the way, it is enzymes produced by that "undeveloped lump of tissue" which cause the woman not to go through the normal menstrual cycle.

By the sixth week the ears begin to be visible, and fingers are visible. By the eighth week, when the "embryo" becomes a "fetus", the unborn child is visibly a child a little more than an inch long. The primary sexual organs are already appearing. It is about this point that most early abortions take place.

I know it's easier to be "pro-choice" if you don't know the facts. That's why there are so many screams at suggestions that women should get full disclosure from their doctor or some other before their choice to abort is final.

[Alliance Fanatic]

How much say a man has depends on the individual relationships. However, it's the woman's body and, ultimately, her choice.

But then again it is the man's child. He helped bring the child about, and the child also has his blood. So why does'nt the man get a say in abortion. I don't think that restricting abortion will mean women will have less rights, I think that it will more likely mean that women who get pregnant will have to take responsibility for the child, or give it up for adoption.

[RB]

Choices, I like those.

It usually is not a right to abort but THE right of women to control their own bodies.

I do believe we need to give much more due credit to a women’s intelligence to decide when she is ready to reproduce

Just an observation - from the names you are quoting, so is it just mere coincidence that men and menopausal women have a some dedicated interest and take up platforms to dictate the affairs of those women who actually have choices.

yes, i did not think those choices are available to those two groups.

If it is then I am very fearful then, that our women of choices still live in ignorance and have not acheived any self-determination of their bodies even in these modern times. because folks it would still be about control and power of women

Suggestion now!! what if the government take up some responsibility in offering all those abortions .5 million dollars to raise a kid to age 18, see how that works out.

Of course, we can't leave the dedicated folks out so you will be contributing some maximum funds as perhaps taxes, yes.

Might very well reduced drastically number of abortions and then no one has to worry about abortion laws.

and then money can create havoc, maybe you’d have some slightly altered views?

[August1991]

What a thread! Let's go.

In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Section 287 of the Criminal Code offended Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This made all abortion for any reason legal in Canada simply because it is no longer mentioned in the Criminal Code, much like typing or whistling.

That quote comes from Hugo's post and so does this link. IMV, these raise the best points on this thread. At the end of the link, there is an interesting case which raises the critical question of the line between abortion and murder. (BTW, Kim Campbell was Justice Minister, not PM, when the legislation was introduced.)

How much say a man has depends on the individual relationships. However, it's the woman's body and, ultimately, her choice.

As a practical matter, I can't disagree with you BD.

It seems to me, first, that any abortion policy (law?)should be enforceable in practice. The last thing we want is a black market in abortions. Second, what role does the man have? Can a man sue a woman to prevent her from having an abortion? Third, why is murder bad? (I don't want a murderer to kill me.) Fourth, should the State condone abortion but not impose the death penalty? (A civilized State should never cause death except when it can't practically prevent it.)

Suggestion now!! what if the government take up some responsibility in offering all those abortions .5 million dollars to raise a kid to age 18, see how that works out.

What prevents a happily pregnant woman from claiming the money to stop an abortion she never intended to have? (Please, some clear thinking is merited here.)

[idealisttotheend]

I hate to get involved in the abortion debate but I think it is key to how the State ought to approach morality.

DAC said:

And actually, I have yet to hear of a scientist who would deny that the fetus is a living organism. They simply deny that it should be considered a human being with the attendant rights.

This is the key. People disagree. Some say the foetus ought to be considered a human being others say it should not. There is no reasonably objective method to conclude the True answer. The answer is a question of subjective values not empirical evidence.

Arguments for considering it human:

-See DAC's post

-Suggestions that the foetus feels pain, retains memory and makes decisions

-It is God's will to choose whether or not a person has a child.

-Sliippery slope argument, if we abort foetuses why not one week old children etc.

Each argument supposes that for that reason it is morally wrong.

Arguments against:

-Foetus cannot survive without mother's body so is part of mother, not independant life form.

-Every period a women has is a potential life had that egg been inseminated

-Foetus does not feed so cannot be considered life under the biological defination

All of these arguments are questions of theology, philospophy and morality not empirical fact or objective evidence of harm done to another 'person.' Therefore the State has no place deciding for people what is right. Individuals are responsible to decide for themselves whether or not the fetus is human and whether or not aborting it is murder or not.

I say this being a great supporter of adoption and being unsure if I would consider anything a good reason for abortion besides rape or physical harm to the mother. Nevertheless I cannot impose my morality on anyone else because whether the foetus is a "person" or not is a question of subjective morality. I can argue for adoption and against abortion but not pass a law against it.

At the end of the link, there is an interesting case which raises the critical question of the line between abortion and murder.

This is quite a kicker. If a women hurts her fetus, and the fetus is not a person is it her right to do so at that pront but not once the fetus is born? If you say no because the fetus will be a person than you argue against abortion (since the foetus will be a person). If you say yes then I can't imagine you being considered humane. I wonder how to resolve that one.

[caesar]

While I do believe that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control; I would not like to see them made unavailable again. Desperate young girls and women will find abortionists and attempt abortions themselves and die. We do not want to go back to back street abortions

[August1991]

We do not want to go back to back street abortions

I agree strongly.

[playfullfellow]

We do not want to go back to back street abortions

I also agree with this statement however I think that we can go about the abortion issue in different ways. Why is it that a woman can get an abortion paid for by healthcare but a mna has to pay for a vasectomy. They are both choices to do with our own bodies. I also do not feel that it is wrong to request a woman to get counselling before an abortion exploring the alternatives. We offer counselling for everything else under the sun nowadays. This should also be an issue decided by referendum but put it in the terms of "do you support publically funded abortions"? Am I radical, maybe but I would like to see an end to this argument.

[Remus]

When a woman chooses to have sex is this not also a choice to have a child. With the act of procreation come's a finite probability of the woman becoming pregnant. And pregnancy is essentially the womans responsability and if any woman chooses to end her pregnancy I wish she would do this without the help of my tax dollars because I want nothing to do with preventing the birth of a child.

Everyone who posts on these boards was at one point a fetus in their mothers womb. And I for one am glad that my mother chose not to abort me.

[caesar]

Women/girls who wish an abortion need not be subject to counselling other than that of their doctor unless they wish it. This would not necessarily be "counselling"; what you are really asking for is a lecture.

Many of this elective abortions are to prevent the birth of a child that would have serious health defects and therefore heavy financial costs to taxpayers and family and in many cases a life of pain and difficulties for the child.

this issue has been decided; It is those who oppose abortions that keep dragging it out again and again.

[Hugo]

We do not want to go back to back street abortions

The back-street abortion is largely a myth and a scare tactic.

15 years before abortion was legalised in the USA, 85% of abortions were done by "reputable physicians in good standing in their local medical associations" (Alfred Kinsey as cited by John Willke, Abortion Questions and Answers, 1988).

In 1960, Planned Parenthood estimated that 90% of illegal abortions were performed by physicians (Mary Calderone, Illegal Abortion as a Public Health Problem, 1960).

Reports of illegal-abortion-related deaths were falsely publicised at about 5,000-10,000 per year. Bernard Nathanson, the former head of NARAL who invented this figure, confessed that it was "totally false" in his own words. In reality, about 250 women each year died from illegal abortions (Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, 1979).

Between the legalisation of abortion and 1985, about 300 women are believed to have died as result of legal abortions (Dawn Stover, Cause of Death: Legal Abortion, 1991). The actual figure is probably higher because abortion clinics are notorious for not reporting the death statistics accurately, and public health officials no longer seek out abortion death cases. For example, the Chicago Sun-Times found 12 cases in the Chicago area in 1978 where the woman had died as a direct result of an abortion procedure, but the case had been reported as an unrelated death. The acuteness of this problem is accentuated when you see that the US Center for Vital Statistics reported that total abortion deaths in the entire country for that year only counted 21.

[Hugo]

Many of this elective abortions are to prevent the birth of a child that would have serious health defects

Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute finds that less than 1% of abortions are performed because the parents have been informed by their doctor that the child has congenital disease or defect. These "defects" also include very minor and easily treatable problems such as cleft palate and club foot.

[caesar]

many times parents with genetic problems that could be passed on to the child would abort prior to any problem reported by the doctor and possible not even detectable.

Other times; it is sometimes necessary due to the mother's health problems or medications she is taking that could produce a child with severe health problems. Many times the mother is just too young. Some are the result of rape. Other than those cases; I have no problem with expecting women with no valid reason for seeking an abortion to pay for the procedure as long as it is not demanded up front. I do think counselling should be offered; I am sure there are many couples who would love to give the child a wonderful home.

[August1991]

The back-street abortion is largely a myth and a scare tactic.

Call it illegal or back-street, the idea is ultimately the same. A woman under stress must somehow find someone (in most cases a physician) who will perform an illegal act.

[DAC]

Is the unborn child human?

Arguments against:

-Foetus cannot survive without mother's body so is part of mother, not independant life form. ...

-Foetus does not feed so cannot be considered life under the biological defination

The answer is a question of subjective values not empirical evidence.

Actually, there is considerable objective evidence.

The pictures referred to in my previous post show it rather plainly. One little girl, shown a picture of an aborted foetus at about 8 weeks immediately asked, "Mommy, who hurt the baby?"

However, let's go from perceptions to something more direct. We live in the day of genetics. One of the great achievements of our time has been unravelling of the workings of DNA and RNA in our reproduction. From the moment of conception, the egg, then blastosphere, then embryo, then foetus ... have a unique genetic code. That genetic code NEVER matches the mother's. What she carries in her womb is NOT her body; we know that every part of her body has her genetic code, excepting only her unfertilized eggs, which have only half of her genetic code.

Though the unborn child, up to about 23 weeks, cannot survive outside the womb, it is clearly not part of the mother's body.

The foetus cannot feed? The foetus does feed through the placenta. It doesn't eat through its mouth, but then neither does any plant - but we don't deny that plants are living.

As far as evidence goes, the hard scientific evidence is that from the moment of conception you have a new being. It needs a lot of care to survive, but you know, a three month old baby also needs a lot of care to survive.

Let's be honest about this.

[Black Dog]

Personally I do not think we should be supporting single parents that chose to have kids, kids are the responsibility of the parents, not society. This is just more about people shirking their own responsibilities and expecting society to pick up the slack. 

Hey you know what a good way to reduce the number of single-parent homes? Easy access to abortion and contraceptive information, thing is right now there's no such things.

As for society punishing individuals for choices by witholding support, well, I think a dog-eat-dog society like that is not worth living in.

I also find it sad how quickly people turn on the less fortunate members of society and blame them for many ills. Like you've never made bad choices?

No one forces anyone to have kids thesedays and no with half a brain should be unaware of the costs of raising a kid. Exceptions to the rule are not the case here.

Contrary to what you might think, it's not that easy. Look at the States, where sex ed is predominately faith-based, with a focus on abstinence, which fails to give kids the knowledge they need. Meanwhile the media is full of conflicting messages and false information on sexuality, making it hard for kids to get an education. So I don't think the right information is getting out.

So all I am saying is that the playing field should be EQUAL. Why should a woman who has a child against a man's will, be able to monetarily gain. Why should a man not be able to gain from the choice of a woman to have an abortion of his child. I not saying men can sue for just any arbitrary monetary gain, maybe the woman should have to pay a reasonable one time sum to be put into trust for the man's future childs education for example

I don't think it should be. If a man gets a woman pregnant, the child is his responsibility too, whether he wanted it or not.

If a woman chooses to end the pregnancy, what is the man responisble for? No rights exist without responsibility.

The idea of punishing women for making reproductive choices is not creating a level playing field. I don't understand how you could justify making women pay for children they didn't or won't have. It's ridiculous.

Here is the thing you do not understand. WOMEN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE KIDS, SINCE THEY ARE THE CARRIERS. Men do not choose women do. Women can take all sorts of contraception or not have sex at all. Women choose to have children not men. When a woman wants a baby she chooses that time, not men. WOMEN CHOOSE. But the way you talk you seem to think men are on an even playing, well they are not.

There's good reasons women have the ultimate say in whether or not to have kids. First, it's their body and no man should be able to dictate what she does with it. As well, women are the ones who have to carry the kids and raise them: so yeah, I think they should get more say. As for the rest, ae you saying men have no choice in contraception or abstinence? Men have choices and responsibility fo rpreventing unwanted pregnancies too.

And actually, I have yet to hear of a scientist who would deny that the fetus is a living organism. They simply deny that it should be considered a human being with the attendant rights.

You are correct. Fetuses are living organisms, in much the same way as single cells are living organisms.

Let me suggest you upgrade your knowledge on this issue.

Your link is full of errors, such as the contention that a fetus canfeel pain at 12 weeks. At 12 weeks, the brain and nervous system are still in a very early stage of development. The beginnings of the brain stem, which includes a rudimentary thalamus and spinal cord, is being formed. Most brain cells are not developed. Without a cerebral cortex (gray matter covering the brain), pain impulses cannot be received or perceived.

That's why there are so many screams at suggestions that women should get full disclosure from their doctor or some other before their choice to abort is final.

No, much of the "screaming" is because of the profusion of anti-abortion "counselling centres".

I don't think that restricting abortion will mean women will have less rights, I think that it will more likely mean that women who get pregnant will have to take responsibility for the child, or give it up for adoption.

You should try carrrying a child for 9 months, since you figure its such a piece of cake. Abortions will still happen, legal or not. Legal abortion safeguards women's health and safety.

Why is it that a woman can get an abortion paid for by healthcare but a mna has to pay for a vasectomy

In Alberta, at least, vasectomy's are covered by health care.

I also do not feel that it is wrong to request a woman to get counselling before an abortion exploring the alternatives

That should be up to the individual, not the state, to seek counselling.

. And pregnancy is essentially the womans responsability and if any woman chooses to end her pregnancy I wish she would do this without the help of my tax dollars because I want nothing to do with preventing the birth of a child.

I'd be willing to bet that the costs of abortion pales in comparison to the costs society would incur if abortions were not legal.

If abortions weren't publically funded, it would drive

women, especially those with low-incomes, to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions, while wealthier ones can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion.

In reality, about 250 women each year died from illegal abortions (Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America, 1979).

Between the legalisation of abortion and 1985, about 300 women are believed to have died as result of legal abortions (Dawn Stover, Cause of Death: Legal Abortion, 1991).

So abortions do save lives. By your numbers, illegal abortions, cost thousands of lives. If abortion had not been legalised in 1973, as of 2004, 5,250 women would have died as a result of obtaining abortions, versus about 525 deaths from the legal variety.

As far as evidence goes, the hard scientific evidence is that from the moment of conception you have a new being.

And when is that? Is it the instant the sperm fertilizes the egg? When the fertilized ovum implanted on the uterine wall? At what magic point does a single cell becoem a full-blown human life, complete with all inherent rights?