To: Greg or e who wrote (111) 11/2/2005 10:29:09 AM From: Solon Read Replies (5) of 2133 "Your position is irrational unscientific and morally bankrupt."



Aw..c'mon now. You can't mean that. What a terrible thing to say.



This might help you. I surely hope so. You don't have a leg to stand on. All of your (cough) arguments are red herrings, false premises, and irrational conclusions. Your (cough) arguments are simply emotional tirades and moral sermons. You should get a grip.



78% of Canadians believe that the abortion decision is a private one that should rest with the individual woman in consultation with her doctor.



caral.ca



ABOUT THE FETUS



"Life begins at conception. At that moment a new human being with a unique genetic blueprint has come into existence."



1) There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins, a point made by such institutions as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Medical Association.1 These scientists say that the point at which a new person comes into existence cannot be scientifically discovered; it is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief, not scientific fact. It requires a judgment of what we consider a human being to be. For instance, does a human being consist of genetic information, or a disembodied soul, or a consciousness in a body? Or is it a separate, social being who has been born?



2) Biologists tell us that all life comes from pre-existing life. In other words, life does not begin, it is transmitted. The human egg and sperm are both living, human cells. At conception, two previously existing living things come together to form another living thing. Therefore, fertilization is not the beginning of human life, but is a significant step in its continuity.2



3) There is no "moment of conception"; conception is not a momentary event but a multi-step process which happens over a 24 hour period.3 Up to two weeks later, a twin zygote can form by breaking away from the first. Pregnancy is not considered to begin until the fertilized egg implants in the woman's uterus, approximately two weeks after fertilization.4



4) At least two-thirds of all human conceptions are spontaneously aborted by nature.2,5 In other words, most "unique genetic blueprints" stop developing naturally, and no one seems to consider these to be "human beings".



5) As the discussion document of the Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics points out, the claim that a human being exists at conception equates a potential with an actual: it assumes that because a fertilized egg has the biological potential to develop into a human being, it is one already.6 This is like saying that an acorn is the same as an oak tree or a fertilized hen's egg is the same as a chicken.7 This ignores the very fundamental difference between the present material natures of the two. The difference between the potential of an early pregnancy and an actual person was traditionally recognized by the Judaeo-Christian Islamic religions.6



6) Only genetic individuality - a set of inherited tendencies or predispositions - is present at conception.4 (Genetic individuality is a characteristic not only of humans but of all living things.) A human genotype is not the same as a person; tumours that grow in the human body carry as "unique" a "genetic blueprint" as does a new conception.2



7) There does not seem to be any "blueprint" for the development of the embryo. The fertilized egg may follow many different paths; each step in its development depends upon the pattern of cells and molecules just reached in the preceding step. Identical twins, for instance, grow from the same egg, have exactly the same DNA and develop in the same womb, yet they are different - they even have different fingerprints. In rare instances a second or third embryo will start to develop one body part but not others, and end up as a cyst with remnants of body parts, such as teeth, bones or other organs.8 The fertilized egg is clearly not a prepackaged human being.9



8) According to embryologist Clifford Grobstein, there are five other essential aspects of individuality still to come after fertilization: developmental, functional, behavioural, psychic and social. This means that full individuality emerges in stages over time.4



9) The human brain is considered central to what it means to be human and alive. Scientists state that the nature of our cerebral cortex, or the thinking portion of our brain, is what makes human beings different from other animals.2



The Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics,6 as well as many international scientists and theologians,2 have identified the birth of fetal 'brain life' as the beginning of the life of a new human person. Fetal brain life has been defined as the capacity of the cerebral cortex "to begin to develop consciousness, self-awareness, and other generally recognized cerebral functions as a consequence of the formation of nerve cell circuits".10 This process is usually defined as occurring sometime after the 24-26th week of pregnancy,2,4,10 although the Canadian Medical Association's discussion paper sets a more conservative date of 20 weeks.6



Also, 23-24 weeks is about the same stage at which a fetus may potentially survive outside the womb if born prematurely.11,12 Scientists say that the threshold of survivability has stabilized and will not change in the foreseeable future (despite a massive increase in medical capability), due to the timetable of fetal development.12



10) The transition of childbirth is different in quality from previous stages of development. The fetus leaves the woman's body in a multi-stage process, enters the world, breathes for the first time, uses new senses and organs, and exists independent of its mother. When a baby is born its voice is heard, and within hours of being born there is a necessity to communicate.



Birth marks a critical point in the biography of an individual; it is the moment of social membership into the family, community, culture, and, ultimately, history. Professor Thelma McCormack points out that the difference between "unborn" and born is not a slight developmental change, but an enormous existential one. This is true for both infant and mother. "Life truly begins."13



11) Even if it could be shown that human life begins at conception, that finding would not entail the further moral judgment that life at that stage ethically merits full protection. When human life begins and when human life, once begun, merits or requires full respect are two different questions.14



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The embryo is human and alive, therefore abortion is murder."



1) An embryo or fetus is a living organism of the species Homo sapiens. But so is every human egg and sperm cell. There is a difference between being genetically "human" and being a person in the moral sense.



According to the Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics, the possession of certain capacities has become widely accepted as necessary for a person to exist.6 Specifically, a nervous system capable of some level of self-awareness and conscious perception ("sapient cognitive awareness").



An embryo or fetus at the early stage at which abortions in Canada are customarily performed has no consciousness or self-awareness - its rudimentary body pre-dates a mind.15 According to the Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics, it has not yet met the criteria for personhood that must be met by all other human beings.6



2) People who use inflammatory words like "murder" to describe abortion are equating an embryo - something which has the potential to become a person - with an actual person. Potentialities are certainly important but they are not the same as actualities. Ending the biological life of an embryo through abortion is morally very different from taking the life of a full human being.



3) Most people treat babies differently from fetuses, and late fetuses differently from early ones. As former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Bertha Wilson pointed out in R. v. Morgentaler, a miscarriage often has a different meaning when it occurs in the first or second month of pregnancy (when it may not even be noticed), than when it occurs in the fifth or sixth month. Most people recognize that fetuses become closer to being human in a moral sense as they come closer to birth.



4) Through our laws, our society formally recognizes the moral distinction between potential and actual people. In Canada the law is clear: legally, a fetus is not a person until it has been born.20 This was recently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decisions in Daigle and Sullivan and LeMay. And abortion is legal.



5) Different cultures, religions, and philosophies take different positions on when a new soul comes into being or when abortion is morally justified. "Personhood" may be granted before birth, at the moment of birth, or, as in some non-Western cultures, some time after birth.16



For example, several schools of Islam teach that human life begins after 120 days of pregnancy and accept abortion up to various stages of pregnancy for various reasons. The Jewish view is that a fetus becomes a person at birth, and that the life and health of the pregnant woman always takes priority. Many Protestant churches, such as the United Church of Canada, consider abortion to be a moral choice under a range of circumstances.



6) The Roman Catholic Church has not always held its current position that a person exists from the moment of conception and therefore any abortion is wrong. The Catholic moralist St. Thomas Aquinas claimed that there is no human being at all during the first weeks of pregnancy. St. Augustine said, "There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation."



In 1869 Pope Pius IX changed the Catholic Church's teaching to make conception the moment when the soul arrives. However, not all Catholic moralists today agree with this teaching. Catholic theologian Joseph Doncel states, "There can be no mind before the organism is ready to carry one and no spirit before the mind is capable of receiving it...".



7) The moral value that someone places on a human embryo is a product of one's personal religious or philosophical perspective. Does a fertilized egg have greater moral value (because it is human) than a mature great ape? Is killing a fish "murder"? How about a mouse? A dog? A cow? A great blue whale? An orangutan? How far up the hominid tree do we go before we use the word "murder?" When people call abortion "murder", they are really describing how they feel about abortion.



8) If abortion is "murder", what about those methods of birth control which work after conception has taken place? Most people do not regard the "morning after" pill as a murder weapon.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"In an abortion, the fetus is capable of feeling pain."



1) There is no evidence that the embryo or fetus, at the early stages at which abortions are performed, can feel pain. In order to feel pain, the brain must be sufficiently functional to perceive and interpret a stimulus as painful.



Some sensory receptors are found early in fetal development, but until the higher brain structures come "on line," all responses to stimuli are by reflex.17 Biological studies of fetal brain development show that the fetus is simply incapable of perceiving anything, including pain, until sometime after 20-26 weeks gestation.2,18



2) Similarly, while fetuses may exhibit a biochemical response to stimuli, such a hormonal stress response cannot be equated with the perception of pain. Human bodies without consciousness (such as anaesthetized patients during surgery) also exhibit the stress response. The perception of pain, however depends on having consciousness.2



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The fetus is not part of the pregnant woman, but a separate and distinct human being."



1) The fetus is in and "of" the pregnant woman; pregnancy is an active process in which a woman's body sustains the life of a fetus in the most intricate ways possible. The fetus is physically connected to her uterus by the placenta and umbilical cord, and all of her body's systems, including her mind, are affected by her pregnancy. For example, the load on her heart alone is increased by 40%. Pregnancy always involves some costs to women's health, ranging from shortness of breath, backache, nausea, insomnia, hypertension, and edema, to risk of eclampsia, obstructed labour, injury, and death in childbirth.



2) The fetus is a living and developing organism which has no existence independent of the pregnant woman. In the course of the nine months of its life in the uterus, the embryo does not inhale air, nor does it digest food. All this is done by the pregnant woman. The health of the fetus is directly related to the health of the pregnant woman.



3) As the final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies pointed out, we are usually shown images of the fetus as an isolated entity which appears to be floating somewhere in space; the pregnant woman's body is nowhere in view. This new way of conceptualizing the fetus depersonalizes pregnant women by objectifying their bodies as mere containers which the fetus has a right to use. (In a society which habitually objectifies women's bodies as things, this is particularly insidious.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The right to life of the fetus takes priority over any right of a woman to control her own body."



1) The right to decide what is done with or to one's body is part of the fundamental human right. Our "bodily integrity" is part of our personal autonomy and inherent human dignity. This is the same principle that defends us all from invasions of our body by medical, security, or other authorities against our will. It protects our minds as well as our bodies.



If the pregnant woman does not have the right to decide whether her body is to be used to nurture a new life--if someone else can force her to carry a fetus to term against her will--then she is less than human.



2) Fetuses do not have a right to life under Canadian law.20 In order to enjoy rights, it is legally recognized, a fetus must be born alive and have a separate existence from its mother.



3) Even if the fetus had the right to life, it does not follow that it has the right to use the pregnant woman's body.21 No human in any stage of development has an essential right to make use of someone else's body without that person's consent. For example, no one can force you to donate a lifesaving kidney or some bone marrow to one of your relative because your right to bodily integrity takes priority over their "right to life." A fetus cannot have more rights than any actual human being has.



4) If a woman does not have control over her own body, she has virtually no control over her own life, because whether, when and with whom she will bear a child is something that alters a woman's life more than anything else. It affects her health, her education, her employment, her relationships, her ability to care for her family, and her future. Without the right to control her own reproduction, her other rights become useless.



5) The woman is an adult human being, a person with feelings, self-awareness, a history, social ties. The fetus, on the other hand, changes daily, rapidly acquiring new characteristics and properties. The rights of someone who has acquired personhood prevail over those of a fetus or embryo that has not. There is no logical reason to demand that something which can become must be treated as one now.



6) Being born is a gift, not a right.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"There is no protection for unborn children. What about the rights of the fetus?"



1) You can't give embryos and fetuses rights without taking away the rights of the woman. As the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies pointed of, "society cannot care for a fetus, in the absence of the pregnant woman's cooperation, without taking control of the woman herself."20



2) The most appropriate and effective way for society (and our governments) to support the health and well-being of the fetus is by supporting the health and well-being of pregnant women. Positive social support for pregnant women would include universal prenatal, maternity and parenting programs, improved maternity benefits, child care funding, housing and nutrition support, and programs to target the increased risk of violence which pregnant women face. Attempting to give "rights" to the fetus by criminalizing abortion and forcing women to bear unwanted children against their will is neither effective nor appropriate.



3) Feminist analysts like Donna Greschner point out that fetal rights began to be discussed only after women began to gain more independence. "Consider, for instance, that while all advocates of fetal rights state that someone must represent and speak for the fetus, they refuse to allow the mother to be the representative, proving the point that fetal rights are a method of controlling, not empowering or valuing, the women who create, nurture, and deliver fetuses."22



4) Pregnant women are very aware of the potential of the developing fetus or embryo, and the fetus' potentiality can make moral or emotional claims on the pregnant woman. But for the woman considering an abortion, any claim that the fetus may have on her may be of a quality quite different from the rights of her children, or her other family members, or another dependant who needs her care, or her own rights.13



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Endnotes:



1. Ellen Switzer, "The Scientific View: When Does Human Life Begin?", Vogue, September, 1981.

2. Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil, The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992, pp.47-51, 62, 80, 119, 157-9.

3. Michael J. Flower, "Coming into Being: The Prenatal Development of Humans", in Abortion, Medicine and the Law (Fourth Edition, Completely Revised), J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, eds., Facts On File, N.Y., 1992, pp. 437-451.

4. Elizabeth Hall, "When Does Life Begin? An embryologist looks at the abortion debate: A conversation with Clifford Grobstein", Psychology Today, September, 1989, pp. 43-45.

5. Eventually, 80% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted, according to "Social Studies", Globe and Mail, December 9, 1994.

6. "The Status of the Human Fetus: A Discussion Document", Committee on Ethics, The Canadian Medical Association, August 1990. (c.f.footnote 4)

7. J. Stan Rowe, "Clearing away the fog on conception", Globe and Mail, April 16, 1985.

8. Mara Gulens, "Fetuses found in baby boy's stomach", Medical Post, Jan. 24, 1995.

9. Charles A. Gardner, "Is an Embryo a Person?", in Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (Fourth Edition, Completely Revised), J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, eds., Facts on File, New York, 1992, pp. 453-456.

10. (American neuroscientist Dominick P. Purpura as quoted in) Roger Bissell, "A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments", Reason, September, 1981, pp.27-31.

11. Canadian Paediatric Society (Fetus and Newborn Committee) and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (Maternal-Fetal Medicine Committee), "Management of the woman with threatened birth of an infant of extremely low gestational age", Canadian Medical Association Journal, Sept. 1, 1994, Vol. 151, No. 5, pp. 547-551.

12. "Public Health Policy Implications of Abortion", Kathryn G. Moore, ed., American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1990, p. 17.

13. Gary Crum/Thelma McCormack, Abortion: Pro-choice or Pro-life, The American University Press, 1992, pp. 121ff.

14. Daniel Callahan, "Abortion: Some Ethical Issues", in Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (Fourth Edition, Completely Revised), J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, eds., Facts on File, New York, 1992, pp. 694-702.

15. Maria Costa, Abortion: A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO Inc. Santa Barbara, CA, 1991, p.123.

16. Lynne M. Morgan, "When Does Life Begin?', in Abortion Rights and Fetal 'Personhood' (second edition), Edd Doerr and James W. Prescott, eds., Centreline Press, California, 1990, pp.89-107.

17. Dr. David Andrew, "Fact and Fiction in the Abortion Debate", letter to the editor, Globe and Mail, November 16, 1994.

18. K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, "Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus", New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 317, No. 21, Nov.19, 1987.

19. D.A. Clark, "Stress without distress; the intrauterine perspective", The Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, pp. 73-4.

20. Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Minister of Government Services Canada, 1993, Vol. 2, pp.956-960.

21. Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion", in The Problem of Abortion, Joel Fineberg, ed., 2d ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1984.

22. Donna Greschner, Abortion and Democracy for Women: A Critique of Tremblay v. Daigle (1989), 35 McGill G.R. 633 at 662.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ABOUT MORALITY AND THE LAW



"Abortion is morally wrong"



1) This argument takes the absolutists approach, which does not take the individual situation or consequences into consideration. The abortion issue is more accurately described as many moral issues.



2) People have different moral views about what circumstances justify an abortion. But according to a 1998 Environics poll, 78% of Canadians believe that the abortion decision is a private one that should rest with the individual woman in consultation with her doctor.1



3) Many Canadians believe it is morally wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world. They consider abortion a responsible and humane decision by people who cannot welcome and properly care for a child because of their life circumstances.



4) Many Canadians consider forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is morally wrong.



5) Abstract declarations of the morality of abortion by theologians or philosophers are very different from the moral decision made by a pregnant woman. Her decision is specific to that pregnancy; her coordinates are the here and now.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Abortion is a sign of the modern moral decay that is destroying family life and society."



1) Abortion has always been with us. It is not a modern invention. It has been practiced universally since before recorded history.2 Abortion has been called "a fundamental aspect of human behaviour."3



Up to the nineteenth century, abortion was legal and not regarded by western society as a moral problem. Historians tell us that the modern practice of allowing abortion is actually a return to an old tradition.4



2) Legal abortion helps to strengthen the family by:



a) enabling couples that are at risk for genetic complications to start families they might not have considered otherwise.



b) helping to prevent childbearing by teenagers who are not ready to be parents.



c) allowing parents to choose the number and spacing of their children. Pro-choice is definitely pro-family.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Abortion undermines the value of all human life."



1) Forcing women to give birth undermines the value of human life, most notably by devaluing women.5



2) Typically, the outlawing of abortion and respect for human life do not go hand-in-hand. In fact, voting patterns in many countries, including Canada, have shown a strong relationship between being anti-abortion and being in favour of the death penalty. 6,7 Further, in some South American countries, where abortion is illegal or severely restricted, thousands of people have been imprisoned, tortured or killed by the state for political reasons.



3) Suggesting that a woman who has an abortion does not value life is illogical and cruel. It ignores the value she places on her life, the life of any children she may have in the future, and the lives of the members of her family today.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The abortion mentality leads to euthanasia of disabled and elderly persons and infanticide."



1) Linking abortion to other issues that raise strong reactions or fears in people is a kind of emotional manipulation that does nothing to further the discussion of important social concerns.



2) There is no evidence to support a "domino theory" of this kind.5 In countries where abortion has been legal for years, there is no evidence that respect for life has diminished or that legal abortion leads to killing of any kind.8 Infanticide, however, is prevalent in countries where abortion is illegal and the overburdened poor cannot control their childbearing.8,9



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"There are too many abortions. The laws must be changed to restrict abortion."



1) Restrictive do not stop abortion. When it is banned, history has shown that it simply goes underground where it becomes unsafe.10



Before abortion became legal in 1969, experts estimate that between 35,000 and 120,000 Canadian women a year had illegal abortions.11 These illegal abortions injured or killed many Canadian women.12 The number of these illegal abortions is quite consistent with the 106,000 legal abortions performed per year in Canada today.13



Statistics show that in places like Latin America, where abortion is illegal, the rate of abortion is much higher than in countries like Canada and Western Europe, where abortion is legal.10



2) The abortion rate is lowered when people have access to quality contraceptive services and sex education is increased.14



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Without an abortion law women can have abortions at nine months pregnancy."



1) Abortion is regulated by the Canadian Medical Association. It defines abortion as the active termination of a pregnancy up to 20 weeks gestation.15 90% of abortions in Canada are performed during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. About 9% of abortions take place between twelve and twenty weeks of gestation, usually because the pregnancy was not diagnosed earlier, abortion services were not available, or the pregnancy had become unhealthy or unmanageable. About 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation, usually because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman' s life or health is at risk, or both.13



2) This argument is a true "red herring." There is no such thing as an abortion at nine months; inducing labour at this point in a pregnancy is called childbirth.



People use this "red herring" to distract from their position, which is that there is no point during a pregnancy when abortion should be allowed, regardless of how early the procedure is performed or how serious the reasons for it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Women would not have abortions if they realized what they were doing. We need laws to require "informed consent" to abortion."



1) Informed consent is a legal requirement applying to anyone obtaining any medical procedure. Informed consent means that a patient has been given enough information about the medical procedure's risks, complications and possible alternatives so that they can make a safe and healthy decision about it.



Under the informed consent process we have now, abortion providers make sure each patient is certain about her decision and any woman who is not is referred for decision-counselling.



2) Current legal requirements and medical standards ensure that women are provided with accurate and unbiased information about their health care options. We know that our current informed consent practice works because studies show that women who have had an abortion remain satisfied with their choice.16



3) Informed consent laws are not designed to help women make informed choices, but to discourage them from having an abortion. They require women to undergo a biased counselling process designed to increase anxiety. This results in abortions being delayed, which increases the risk and expense and decreases the availability of the procedure. In addition, by forcing doctors to discourage women from having an abortion, they deny women their doctor's best medical judgement, care and support.



4) No one, including an abortion provider, wants a woman to have an abortion unless she is sure about her decision.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Abortion exploits women."



1) Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them the right to decide whether or not to bear a child. It enhances the autonomy, equality and inherent dignity of women.



2) It is widely acknowledged that the option of safe, legal abortion benefits women and their families.17 Legalization improves the health of women who would otherwise seek illegal abortion, prevents premature or dangerously late childbearing, and allows families to have babies they want and can afford to raise.14 It also enables couples who are at risk for genetic complications to begin pregnancies they might not have considered.



3) Without the option of legal abortion, women are often sterilized before they are ready or are forced to continue a pregnancy that carries dangerous health risks.18



4) Illegal abortion causes injury, family disruption and death. When Romania went through a 23 year long period of dictatorship (ending in 1989), contraception and abortion were banned. More than 10,000 women died from illegal abortions and about 200,000 children were placed in orphanages during this period.19 Worldwide, about 78,000 women die as a result of complications from an illegal abortions.20



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"What about the father's rights?"



1) In healthy relationships, responsibility and decision-making are shared and women depend on their partners' support in deciding whether or not to have an abortion.



2) In those case where a relationship breaks down and the partners cannot agree, it must be the one who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy whose decision prevails. Although men clearly have a strong interest in these decisions, no one should be able to force a woman to continue a pregnancy and bear a child against her will. This would be slavery. By the same token, a man's interest in whether or not he becomes a father does not justify permitting him to force a woman to have an abortion against her wishes.



3) Men who have initiated legal proceedings barring their former girlfriends or wives from having abortions are not "fathers", but are seeking to become fathers by forcing a woman to bear a child against her wishes. In the Daigle case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the right of what it called the "potential father" to veto the decisions made by the woman about the fetus she is carrying.21



4) Fathers have equal rights to mothers once a child is born and social parenting begins.



5) Supposed concern for "father's rights" by anti-abortion activists is part of an attempt to deny the right of anyone - women, men and couples - to decide to terminate a pregnancy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Endnotes:



1. Environics Research Group Limited, poll conducted for the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, January, 1998.

2. George Devereux, "A Typological Study of Abortion in 350 Primitive, Ancient and Pre-Industrial Societies", in Therapeutic Abortion, ed. Harold Rosen, Julian Press Inc., New York, 1954.

3. Nan Chase, "Abortion: A Long History Can't Be Stopped", Vancouver Sun, May 1, 1989.

4. James C. Mohr, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1978.

5. Daniel Callahan, "Abortion: Some Ethical Issues", in Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (Fourth Edition, Completely Revised), J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, eds., Facts On file, New York, 1992, pp. 694-702.

6. James W. Prescott, "Personality Profiles of `Pro-Choice' and `Anti-Choice' Individuals and Cultures", in Abortion Rights and Fetal `Personhood'(second edition), Edd Doerr and James W. Prescott, eds., Centerline Press, California, 1990, pp.109-110, 143-151.

7. Don McGillivray, "`Pro-life pro-death' MPs must explain", Toronto Star, August 10, 1989.

8. National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), "Choice: Legal Arguments Pro & Con, 1983.

9. Aleksandra Filipowicz, AA year after abortions were banned, death from infanticide and botched operations have gone up, while social pressure discourages contraception@, Warsaw Voice, May 29, 1994.

10. Jodi L. Jacobson, "Worldwatch Paper 97: The Global Politics of Abortion", Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, July, 1990, pp.47,29-30.

11. Cope W. Schwenger, "Abortion as a public health problem and community health measure",in Family Planning in Canada:A Source Book, Benjamin Schlesinger, ed., University of Toronto Press, 1974, p.240.

12. Angus McLaren and Arlene Tigar McLaren, The Bedroom and the State, McClelland & Stewart Inc., Toronto, 1986, p.51.

13. Statistics Canada, Therapeutic Abortions, 1995.

14. Rachael N. Pine, "Achieving Public Health Objectives through Family Planning Services", Reproductive Health Matters, No.2, November, 1993, pp. 77-83.

15. Canadian Medical Association, Policy on Induced Abortion, 1988

16. Elizabeth Belsey, "Psychological Consequences of Abortion", Family Planning Association Newsletter, April 1976, Vol. 60, p.5.

17. International conference on Population and Development, (Cairo, September, 1994), Programme of Action, New York, United Nations, 1994.

18. Montreal Health Press, "Birth Control Handbook, Fall 1994", Montreal, 1994.

19. Patricia Stephenson et al, "Commentary: The Public Health Consequences of Restricted Induced Abortion-- Lessons from Romania", American Journal of Public Health, October 1992, Vol. 82, No. 10, pp.1328-1331.

20. Sharing Responsibility: Women, Society and Abortion Worldwide, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, 1999, p.35.

21. Tremblay v. Daigle [1989], 2 S.C.R. 530



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ABOUT THE NEED FOR ABORTION



"Women use abortion as birth control."



1) Studies prove that women do not use abortion as a substitute for contraception.1 In fact, studies show that the majority of women seeking abortions were using some form of contraception.2,3 Women who have abortions tend to be the most highly motivated to control their fertility and to use contraception.4 Sometimes, however, contraception fails - the condom, for instance, fails to prevent pregnancy for between 8 and 12% of users during a one-year period5 - or people fail to use it properly due, for example, to poverty, ignorance, embarrassment, religious prohibitions and drugs or alcohol.



2) Statistically, women who have more than one abortion are a group that is at greater risk of becoming pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.3 This is because they are more likely to be fertile, sexually active, and in their prime reproductive years - not because they are morally degenerate.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Women have abortions for their own convenience or for frivolous reasons."



1) Abortion is a consideration for women who become pregnant under difficult circumstances. Such circumstances commonly include illness, problems with (or absence of) a male partner, poverty, lack of social support, the need to care for other young children, the possible loss of educational and job opportunities, the diagnosis of fetal anomaly, and/or pregnancy by rape or incest.6



2) Pregnancy, childbirth and mothering a child for twenty years can hardly be characterized as mere inconveniences. This argument trivializes childbearing and motherhood. Women have abortions because they take the responsibilities of motherhood seriously. The decision to have an abortion involves as much of a woman's heart and mind as the decision to have a child.



3) Even if we don't agree personally with the reason why a particular woman chooses abortion, the decision is hers to make. She is the expert on her own life. According to former Supreme Court Justice Madame Bertha Wilson writing about abortion in the Morgentaler decision: "Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve the personal decisions made by its citizens; it does, however, require the state to respect them."7



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"She made her choice when she had sex"



1) A woman does not choose to become a mother by choosing to have sex. She is simply choosing to have sex. The idea that she does stems from a belief that sex for pleasure is bad and that intercourse is only to be had in order to procreate. This is not true, sex is a human need. Women have the right to their sexuality without giving up their claim to self-determination.



2) Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Children should be wanted. Being someone's punishment is not a good reason for being born.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Contraception and sex education promote sex and cause abortions."



1) On the contrary, studies prove that high quality sexual health education helps delay the first act of sexual intercourse, reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and gets teenagers who do engage in sexual intercourse to use more effective contraception.8 In Canada, teen pregnancy, abortion and birth rates have decreased to the greatest extent in those provinces where comprehensive family planning services have been implemented.9 Despite this, adequate school-based sexual health education in not universally available in Canada.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Women change their minds, and an unwanted pregnancy becomes wanted once the baby is born. There is no such thing as an unwanted child."



1) This is wishful thinking. Although an unwanted pregnancy does not always result in an unwanted child, research on women whose requests for an abortion were turned down reveals the unhealthy consequences of unwilling motherhood and of unwanted children.



In one study of women who were refused abortions and who kept their babies, 34% reported that the child was a burden they frequently resented, despite the taboo against admitting this.10 "There is reason to be concerned that significant numbers of these women will continue to harbor quite negative feelings toward their children," writes a doctor studying unwantedness.11



Studies show that unplanned childbearing increases the risk of child abuse.12 In a study of world literature on infanticide, 83% of the newborns killed had been born of unwanted pregnancies.13



Studies have shown that children born to women whose request for an abortion was denied have poorer relationships with their mothers and were more likely to have social, psychological, medical, educational and criminal problems and to be generally unhappy with their lives.14,15 When the unwanted children grew up and began having their own children these problems were repeated in the next generation.



2) A pregnant woman is an adult who has the right to make, as well as the responsibility for making, the decision whether to continue an unwanted pregnancy. No one is in a better position than she to know whether or not the child will be wanted.



3) Studies of women who chose abortion show that most would make the same choice again if put in the same position and do not regret their decision.16



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Adoption instead of abortion."



1) Adoption is not a simple "cure-all." Studies show that adoption is by no means the right answer for everybody. Betsie Norris, President of the Adoption Network of Cleveland, says "Adoption should not be pushed as the 'solution' to an unplanned pregnancy".17 Bearing a child and then placing the infant for adoption is an enormous decision. This choice may, depending on the circumstances involved, pose psychological risks for some women. Risks that can persist over long periods of time.18,19,20 In fact, women who have experienced both giving up a child for adoption and having an abortion say that abortion is less traumatic.21 This is why most women either decide to parent, or have an abortion.



2) A woman has the right to decide for herself. Some young, single women do choose childbirth followed by adoption, but it is inappropriate to suggest that all women should do so. Women should not be forced to have babies for others to adopt.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"An increase in abortion is the reason why there are no longer any babies to adopt."



1) According to the 1993 National Adoption Study, this assumption is "wrong". In fact, the study shows the dramatic fall in adoption figures is directly related to the increase in the number of single women who have chosen to raise their child. This, not abortion, is the main reason why few healthy newborns are now available for adoption.22



2) There are older children available for adoption, some of whom have come into care because their young, immature mother could no longer cope.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Abortion should only be allowed for rape or incest."



1) This argument says, in effect, if you enjoyed sex you cannot have a abortion but if you did not enjoy it (as in the case of rape or incest) you can. It's a very shaky argument because it reveals those who make it to be punishers. It also demolishes the argument that every fetus has equal value because it places less value on a fetus conceived through rape or incest. That is why hard-line opponents of abortion would not allow abortion for any reason.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Rape prevents conception because of the trauma. Therefore we shouldn't worry about rape victims when making our abortion laws."



1) This statement is completely false. Any rape crisis centre can refute this argument. American studies reveal that from 2% to 5.4% of rape victims become pregnant.23



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Abortion should not be permitted for rape because it is wrong to 'punish a child for the sin of the father'."



1) This position is utterly cruel and inhumane. Forcing a woman to bear a rapist's child is further torture for the victim of a heinous crime. Should the innocent victim of incest be made to suffer further because of the beliefs of some people?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Rape is violent but abortion is more violent."



1) Ask any victim of rape, ask any women who has had an abortion, which is violent. Women know the difference between rape and abortion, and this "big lie" technique won't work on them.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"What if your mother had aborted you?"



1) Some people are here because their mother had an earlier abortion which allowed her to have a wanted pregnancy later on.



2) Anti-choice proponents will say that if Beethoven had been aborted the world would have missed his genius. Yet we don't know how many Beethovens have not been born and never will. One may also wonder what would have happened had Adolf Hitler been aborted.



3) A woman at birth has about 400,000 eggs in her ovaries. If she bears 3 children in her lifetime, is there any meaningful sense in which we can say that humankind has suffered a loss of these other hundreds of thousands of unfertilized eggs? And what of all the sperm that are not used to fertilize?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Endnotes:



1. The Abortion Experience: Psychological and Medical Impact, ed. H.J. Osofsky and J.D. Osofsky (New York, 1973) and J.D.Osofsky and J.H. Osofsky, "The psychological reaction of patients to legalized abortion", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1972, Vol.42, pp. 48-60; and J.D. Forrest and S.K. Henshaw, "What U.S. Women Think and Do About Contraception", Family Planning Perspectives, 15:157, 1983.

2. Stanley Henshaw and Jane Silverman, "The Characteristics and Prior Contraceptive Use of U.S. Abortion Patients," Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 20 (N.Y.: Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1988): pp. 158, 165.

3. Marion Powell, Report on Therapeutic Abortion Services in Ontario, Jan. 27, 1987. Study commissioned by the Ontario Ministry of Health, p.18-20.

4. John A. Ross and Eliz. Frankenberg, Findings from Two Decades of Family Planning Research, The Population Council, N.Y., 1993, Chapter 9.

5. Health Watch, Globe and Mail, Sept. 22, 1994.

6. Nada L. Stotland, "The Myth of the Abortion Trauma Syndrome", Journal of the American Medical Association, October 21, 1992, Vol. 268, No. 15, pp. 2078-9.

7. Madame Justice Bertha Wilson in Morgentaler, 1988, 1.S.C.R. 30, pp. 161-183.

8. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, Statement to the Press, June 16, 1992.

9. Advisory Committee on Family Planning, Toward Sexual and Reproductive Health in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan Health, June 1993, p. 14-15.

10. C.M.B. Pare and H. Raven, "Psychiatric sequelae to therapeutic abortion: follow-up of patients referred for termination of pregnancy", Lancet, 1970: Vol.1, pp.635-638.

11. Paul K.B.Dagg, "The Psychological Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion - Denied and Completed", American Journal of Psychiatry, May, 1991, Vol. 148, No. 5, pp.578-585.

12. Susan J. Zuravin, "Unplanned Childbearing and Family Size: Their Relationship to Child Neglect and Abuse", Family Planning Perspectives, July/Aug. 1991, 23(4), pp.155-161.

13. P.J. Resnick, "Murder of the newborn: a psychiatric review of neonaticide", American Journal of Psychiatry, 1970, Vol. 126, pp. 1414-1420.

14. Hans Forssmann & Inge Thuwe, "One Hundred and Twenty Children Born After Application for Therapeutic Abortion Refused", Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, XLII (1966), pp. 71-79.

15. Z. Dytrych, Z. Matejcek, V. Schuller, "The Prague Cohort: Adolescence and Early Adulthood" in Born Unwanted: Developmental Effects of Denied Abortion. Edited by H.P. David, Z. Dytrych, Z. Matejcek, et al, New York, Springer, 1988.

16. Elizabeth Belsey, "Psychological Consequences of Abortion", Family Planning Association Newsletter, April 1976, Vol. 60, p.5

17. Betsie Norris, "Attack from the Right", American Adoption Congress, Autumn, 1993.

18. Burnell et al. in J.D. Osofsky et al., "Psychological Effects of Abortion with Emphasis Upon Immediate Reactions and Follow-up", The Abortion Experience: Psychological and Medical Impact, ed. H.J. Osofsky and J.D. Osofsky (New York, 1973) pp. 193f.

19. Paul Sachdev, Sex, Abortion and Unmarried Women, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1993.

20. Nancy Felipe Russo, "Psychological Aspects of Unwanted Pregnancy and its Resolution," in Abortion, Medicine and the Law (4th ed.), J. D. Butler and D. F. Walbert, eds, Facts on File, New York, 1992, pp. 593-626.

21. G. Bouma & W. Bouma, "Fertility Control: Canada's Lively Social Problem", Canadian Social Problems Series (Don Mills, 1975), p. 83.

22. Kerry J. Daly and Michael P. Sobol, Adoption in Canada: Final Report, Guelph:University of Guelph, National Adoption Study, 1993.

23. National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, "The Facts About Rape and Incest", Washington, D.C.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







ABOUT FUNDING AND HEALTH ISSUES



"Abortions shouldn't be paid for by provincial health insurance plans."



1) The World Health Organization defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity." This definition was recognized by the Government of Canada and the Canadian Medical Association.



Women who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy face increased health risks, and they must have equal access to medical care that includes abortion services.



2) Not providing coverage limits and delays access to the abortion procedure. According to the Supreme Court of Canada's Morgentaler decision, delay contributes to the ill health (mental, emotional and physical) of women. Publicly-funded abortion services benefit the public health.



3) If abortions are not covered by medical insurance then poor women will not be able to afford them. To deny poor women abortion coverage while paying for pregnancy and childbirth is unfair. It removes reproductive freedom and traps women in the poverty/welfare cycle.



4) The cost to provincial health insurance plans are far greater for the delivery and care of an unwanted child than for a first trimester abortion. For instance, direct costs associated with single pregnancies in Ontario have been estimated at $2,000 for medical care and $11,500 per year for support of one mother and child.1 A first trimester abortion costs $300-$500. De-insuring abortion does not save society money. It only adds to the burden of the woman faced with an unwanted, unhappy pregnancy.



5) Government expenditures cannot be based on the personal beliefs or objections of some taxpayers. The taxes of most citizens are used for some purposes they believe are inappropriate or even immoral. For example, the taxes of pacifists go to the military and the taxes of Christian Scientists go to medical programs.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"The government funding of abortion is the reason that legitimate health services have been cut."



1) There is no evidence whatsoever of any connection between the funding of abortion and health care cutbacks.



2) Abortion is not an expensive procedure. It need not be performed in a fully-equipped and staffed hospital's operating theatre. It is the anti-abortion movement that keeps the cost of providing abortions artificially high through their efforts to delay the release of the abortion pill, mifepristone, and the opening of private abortion clinics. Both of these are much more cost effective alternatives to hospital abortion procedures.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Twenty-five years of abortion in Canada has caused a low birthrate, a poorer economy, job losses for teachers, loss of income tax revenue, an aging population, and threatens social security for the elderly."



1) This argument, again, suggests that events are causally connected when in fact no such connection has been established. The occurrence of one event prior to another, does not imply causality.



2) Further, abortion existed in Canada for much longer than twenty-five years. Prior to 1969, abortion was illegal and underground, but it still occurred in approximately the same numbers as after it was legalized.2



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Abortion causes psychological damage to women. They suffer "post abortion syndrome" for years afterward."



1) Research evidence says not. Studies of women who have had abortions have been reviewed extensively by experts like the World Health Organization,3 the U.S. Surgeon General's Office,4 and the American Psychological Association.5 These experts have consistently found that abortion is not a psychologically risky procedure, despite the fact that it occurs in the stressful context of unwanted pregnancy.



Canadian researchers have found the same results,6,7 and the Canadian Psychiatric Association supports legal abortion.



2) Research shows that the majority of women who have an abortion feel relief after the procedure.5 Psychological problems from abortion are rare, more rare even than those following childbirth.8 A woman's mental health is at greater risk when she is refused a wanted abortion than if she is granted one.9



3) A recently published study of a particularly large sample of over 5,000 U.S. women, who were followed for eight years, concluded that the experience of abortion did not adversely affect their well-being.10



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Abortion is dangerous and makes women infertile."



1) Abortion is an extremely safe medical procedure. Early abortion is 25 times safer than pregnancy and childbirth11 less risky even than a shot of penicillin.12



2) Recent studies confirm that having a legal abortion does not have any significant effect on a woman's ability to have a healthy baby in the future.13



3) Legalized abortion has a positive impact on women's health.14 When abortion is criminal and pushed underground, it becomes an extremely unsafe procedure performed in secret by non-professionals.15 In Canada, abortion was against the law prior to 1969. Injuries and deaths from illegal abortions were very common during this period.16



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Abortion causes breast cancer."



1) Breast cancer is a very complex disease, and researchers don't know what causes it.17 At this point, there is not enough evidence on the effects of abortion on the risk of breast cancer to produce any scientific consensus.22



2) Studies investigating whether abortion affects the risk for breast cancer have shown conflicting results: some studies have shown no association, some have shown positive associations, and others have shown inverse associations.18 Scientists say that it is difficult to reach definitive conclusions from these studies because of the inconsistency of results, the inaccuracies in reporting of both spontaneous and induced abortion, the failure to control for other factors, as well as other problems in research design which affect results.17



The largest - and most comprehensive - study to date is a 30-year Swedish study of 49,000 women, which found no overall risk of breast cancer after an induced abortion.19 Likewise, a 1994 Harvard study of data from seven countries concluded "These results do not support a large overall association between abortion and breast cancer."21 Even if they did, the two may be related to something else.



Cancer researchers at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and major universities agree that the research on this issue, so far, is inconclusive.20



4) Some anti-abortion organizations have worked hard to stir up fears that abortion causes breast cancer, even though this claim has not been proven. Anti-choice activists don't support abortion, whether it is safe or not. When they proclaim that abortion should be banned because it might be linked to breast cancer, they are using this issue to further their political agenda - preventing women from having legal choices about how to deal with unplanned pregnancies. Anti-choice people are not worried about women's health.



5) According to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, "Whatever future results show, the decision to continue or terminate an unplanned pregnancy will still need to be based on a balanced consideration of the entire range of relevant issues-- personal ethical considerations, the desire for a child, the ability to care for it, and the total health implications of continued pregnancy versus induced abortion."17



7) Mifepristone (formerly know as RU 486) is considered to have a potential role in the treatment, and perhaps even in the prevention, of breast cancer.17



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Endnotes:



1. Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, Bulletin: July, 1991. Updated by contacting the Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, Feb. 1, 1996.

2. Cope W. Schwenger, "Abortion as a public health problem and community health measure",in Family Planning in Canada: A Source Book, Benjamin Schlesinger ed., University of Toronto Press, 1974, p.240.

3. World Health Organization, 1978, as quoted in C. Tietze and S. Henshaw, Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1986, Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, p. 100.

4. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, "The Federal Role in Determining the Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion on Women", Tenth Report, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 1989, p.14. and "More On Koop's Study of Abortion", Family Planning Perspectives, Jan/Feb. 1990, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.36-39.

5. Psychological Sequelae of Abortion. A Research Review on Behalf of the Public Interest Directorate of The American Psychological Association. March, 1989, p. 19.

6. Paul K. B. Dagg, "The Psychological Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion--Denied and Completed", American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol.148, No.5, May 1991.

7. Paul Sachdev, Sex, Abortion and Unmarried Women, Greenwood Press, Westport, Ct., 1993.

8. Nada L. Stotland, "The Myth of the Abortion Trauma Syndrome", Journal of the American Medical Association, October 21, 1992, Volume 268, No. 15, pp.2078-79.

9. Wendell Watters, Compulsory Parenthood, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto, 1976, p.223.

10. Nancy Felipe Russo and Kristin L. Zierk, "Abortion, Childbearing, and Women's Well-Being", Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 1992, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 269-280.

11. Kathryn G. Moore, ed., Public Health Policy Implications of Abortion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Jan. 1990.

12. Dr. David Grimes as quoted in "More on Koop's Study of Abortion", Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 22, No.1, Jan/Feb 1990, p.36.

13. Peter I. Frank et al, "The effect of induced abortion on subsequent fertility", British Journal Of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, June 1993, Vol. 100, pp. 575-580 and "The effect of induced abortion on subsequent pregnancy outcome", British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, October 1991, Vol. 98, pp. 1015-1024.

14. Rachael N. Pine, "Achieving Public Health Objectives through Family Planning Services", Reproductive Health Matters, No.2, November, 1993, pp. 77-83.

15. Patricia Stephenson et al, "Commentary: The Public Health Consequences of Restricted Induced Abortion-- Lessons from Romania", American Journal of Public Health, Oct 1992, Vol. 82, No.10, pp.1328-1331.

16. Angus McLaren and Arlene Tigar McLaren, The Bedroom and the State, McClelland & Stewart Inc., Toronto, 1986, p.51.

17. Lynn Rosenberg, "Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer: More Scientific Data Are Needed", Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 86, No. 21, November 1994, pp. 1569-70.

18. Jennifer L. Kelsey et al, "Reproductive Factors and Breast Cancer", Epidemiologic Reviews, The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Vo. 15, No. 1, 1993, p.41.

19. Britt-Marie Lindefors Harris et al, "Risk of cancer of the breast after legal abortion during first trimester: a Swedish register study", British Medical Journal, Vol. 299, Dec. 9, 1989, pp.1430-2.

20. "Abortion and Breast Cancer: What You Need to Know to Make an Informed Choice", National Abortion Federation, Washington, D.C., 1994.

21. Karin B. Michels et al, "Abortion and breast cancer risk in seven countries", Cancer Causes and Control, 1995, Vol.6, pp. 75-82.

22. Kim Painter, "Abortion may be cancer risk factor", USA Today, Jan. 24, 1996.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ABOUT NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES



"Abortions should not be permitted for sex selection."



1) "Sex selection" is used by the anti-abortion movement as a smokescreen designed to trivialize the serious reasons why women really have abortions. Anti-abortion proposals to ban abortions for "sex selection" are attempts to make all abortions - requested for any reason - more difficult to obtain.



If abortion motivated by sex selection were to be made illegal in Canada, all abortion decisions would be called into question. If only a single reason for abortion were prohibited, every woman seeking an abortion would need to prove that she was not motivated by that reason. Thus all women seeking abortion would have their reasons scrutinized.



The anti-choice movement would then attempt to use this law to install intrusive government policies that monitor the actions of pregnant women who chose abortion under the guise that they must rule out sex preference as the sole reason behind a woman's request for an abortion. The ultimate gaol of such policies, however, will be to delay or stop entirely women from obtaining abortions for any reason.



2) Sex selection abortions occur in countries and cultures where girls are treated as economic and social burdens. In Canada, abortions for the reason of sex selection are extremely rare and isolated occurrences. A survey conducted for the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies found that genetic centres counselled 14 women in 1990 whose reason for requesting prenatal testing was sex selection. "In all but one case, which involved unusual circumstances, the centre refused to provide testing."1



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Prenatal testing of fetuses for birth defects are 'search and destroy' missions that lead to abortion."



1) Prenatal tests like amniocentesis allow people at risk of bearing an unhealthy child to learn whether a fetus has some genetic abnormalities.



2) Research shows that Canadians are not seeking prenatal diagnosis for trivial reasons.1 When a serious fetal disorder is detected by prenatal diagnosis and no treatment is available, research indicates that women and couples consider carefully the severity and consequences of the disorder before making a decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy.1 Approximately 80% of women in such cases decide to terminate the pregnancy, and 20% decide to carry on with it.1 Evidence also shows that the likelihood of termination is related to the severity of the disorder identified.1



3) Before prenatal tests were available, at-risk parents often aborted all pregnancies or did not get pregnant. These tests give those at risk options and the same chance as other Canadians to have a healthy family. Less than 3% of such tests result in abortion.2



4) There is a great deal of Canadian public support for having the option of prenatal diagnosis available to couples at risk of having an affected fetus.1



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Having an abortion for reasons of fetal disability sounds like eugenics and promotes prejudice against disabled people."



1) A lack of commitment to continue a pregnancy where an anomaly has been detected does not diminish the commitment to value and nurture an existing child or person with a disability. It does not imply the devaluing of people with disabilities, any more than any abortion implies the devaluing of children and people generally.



2) Many people referred for prenatal diagnosis are already caring for an affected child. They may feel unable to cope with raising another affected child and so seek prenatal diagnosis for future pregnancies. To assume that this desire to avoid having another child with severe disabilities represents hostility or prejudice toward existing children or adults with disabilities is not fair.



3) There is a need to improve social support for disabled people, not to end women's self-determination.3 Conditions often make it difficult or impossible to be the mother of someone with a severe disability: limited family or community resources; obligations to other children; or the pregnant couple's sense of the limits on their capacity for parenting.4



4) An individual woman's decision cannot be compared to governmental eugenics laws to "improve" or "purify the race". Attempts to make women feel guilty about choosing abortion transfers the weight of how society cares for disabled people onto the backs of individual women already making difficult decisions.



5) The status of people with disabilities would not be improved if prenatal diagnosis and abortion were less available. Most disabilities are not genetic and cannot be diagnosed prenatally, but are caused by premature births, diseases, accidents, acts of violence, etc. Evidence suggests that in countries where prenatal diagnosis is practised, there is greater rather than less interest in the welfare of people with disabilities and increased medical and social awareness of their needs and rights.5



6) Disabled children, too, deserve the right to be wanted.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Medical experimentation with fetal tissue increases the incidence of abortion and should be banned."



1) There is no empirical evidence that permitting research using fetal tissue encourages abortion. For example, there has been no changes in the incidence of abortion in locations where well-publicized transplantation trials are underway.1



Claims that women will deliberately become pregnant in order to donate fetal tissue or will be pressured to abort are simply groundless.



2) Fetal tissue obtained from aborted fetuses, which would otherwise be disposed of, is used to learn about normal and abnormal fetal development and the causes of congenital diseases. It is used to diagnose viral diseases and to develop vaccines; to test new pharmaceutical products; and to educate and train medical and health professionals. Experimental research using fetal tissue shows tremendous promise for alleviating the suffering of people with Parkinson's disease and other serious illnesses.1 This likely why in an 1990 telephone survey, 84% of respondents stated that the use of fetal tissue to treat fatal diseases should be allowed, while only 12% opposed it.1



In Canada, the abortion procedure is completely separate from fetal tissue transplant therapy and the method or timing of a woman's abortion is not being changed to help recover fetal tissue. Present research and therapeutic use of fetal tissue involves only about 1% of induced abortions performed in Canadian hospitals.1



3) Opposition to fetal tissue transplantation often comes from people who oppose abortion. These people do want to limit the benefits of legal abortion because they fear this may further de-stigmatize abortion in the public eye.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Endnotes:



1. Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Ottawa, 1993, Vol.2, pp. 798-805, 893, 967-8, 973-5, 989, 996

2. Dorothy Lipovenko, "Tests for fetal defects pose ethical dilemma", Globe and Mail, March 19, 1988.

3. Christine Overall, Human Reproduction: Principles, Practices, Policies, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1993.

4. Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, Abortion and Woman's Choice: The State, Sexuality, and Reproductive Freedom, Northeastern Univ Press, Boston, 1985,p. 349.

5. B. Modell, "The Ethics of Prenatal Diagnosis and Genetic Counselling," World Health Forum 11 (2), 1990, p. 184. Aw..c'mon now. You can't mean that. What a terrible thing to say.This might help you. I surely hope so. You don't have a leg to stand on. All of your (cough) arguments are red herrings, false premises, and irrational conclusions. Your (cough) arguments are simply emotional tirades and moral sermons. You should get a grip."Life begins at conception. At that moment a new human being with a unique genetic blueprint has come into existence."1) There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins, a point made by such institutions as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Medical Association.1 These scientists say that the point at which a new person comes into existence cannot be scientifically discovered; it is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief, not scientific fact.2) Biologists tell us that all life comes from pre-existing life. In other words,The human egg and sperm are both living, human cells. At conception, two previously existing living things come together to form another living thing. Therefore, fertilization is not the beginning of human life, but is a significant step in its continuity.23)conception is not a momentary event but a multi-step process which happens over a 24 hour period.3 Up to two weeks later, a twin zygote can form by breaking away from the first. Pregnancy is not considered to begin until the fertilized egg implants in the woman's uterus, approximately two weeks after fertilization.44)5) As the discussion document of the Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics points out, the claim that a human being exists at conceptionThe difference between the potential of an early pregnancy and an actual person was traditionally recognized by the Judaeo-Christian Islamic religions.66) Only genetic individuality - a set of inherited tendencies or predispositions - is present at conception.4 (Genetic individuality is a characteristic not only of humans but of all living things.)7) There does not seem to be any "blueprint" for the development of the embryo. The fertilized egg may follow many different paths; each step in its development depends upon the pattern of cells and molecules just reached in the preceding step. Identical twins, for instance, grow from the same egg, have exactly the same DNA and develop in the same womb, yet they are different - they even have different fingerprints. In rare instances a second or third embryo will start to develop one body part but not others, and end up as a cyst with remnants of body parts, such as teeth, bones or other organs.8 The fertilized egg is clearly not a prepackaged human being.98) According to embryologist Clifford Grobstein,This means that full individuality emerges in stages over time.49)Scientists state that the nature of our cerebral cortex, or the thinking portion of our brain, is what makes human beings different from other animals.2The Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics,6 as well as many international scientists and theologians,2 have identified the birth of fetal 'brain life' as the beginning of the life of a new human person. Fetal brain life has been defined as the capacity of the cerebral cortex "to begin to develop consciousness, self-awareness, and other generally recognized cerebral functions as a consequence of the formation of nerve cell circuits".10 This process is usually defined as occurring sometime after the 24-26th week of pregnancy,2,4,10 although the Canadian Medical Association's discussion paper sets a more conservative date of 20 weeks.6Also, 23-24 weeks is about the same stage at which a fetus may potentially survive outside the womb if born prematurely.11,12 Scientists say that the threshold of survivability has stabilized and will not change in the foreseeable future (despite a massive increase in medical capability), due to the timetable of fetal development.1210) The transition of childbirth is different in quality from previous stages of development. The fetus leaves the woman's body in a multi-stage process, enters the world, breathes for the first time, uses new senses and organs, and exists independent of its mother. When a baby is born its voice is heard, and within hours of being born there is a necessity to communicate.Birth marks a critical point in the biography of an individual; it is the moment of social membership into the family, community, culture, and, ultimately, history. Professor"Life truly begins."1311) Even if it could be shown that human life begins at conception, that finding would not entail the further moral judgment that life at that stage ethically merits full protection. When human life begins and when human life, once begun, merits or requires full respect are two different questions.14--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The embryo is human and alive, therefore abortion is murder."1) An embryo or fetus is a living organism of the species Homo sapiens. But so is every human egg and sperm cell. There is a difference between being genetically "human" and being a person in the moral sense.According to the Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics, the possession of certain capacities has become widely accepted as necessary for a person to exist.6 Specifically, a nervous system capable of some level of self-awareness and conscious perception ("sapient cognitive awareness").2) People who use inflammatory words like "murder" to describe abortion are equating an embryo - something which has the potential to become a person - with an actual person. Potentialities are certainly important but they are not the same as actualities. Ending the biological life of an embryo through abortion is morally very different from taking the life of a full human being.3) Most people treat babies differently from fetuses, and late fetuses differently from early ones. As former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Bertha Wilson pointed out in R. v. Morgentaler, a miscarriage often has a different meaning when it occurs in the first or second month of pregnancy (when it may not even be noticed), than when it occurs in the fifth or sixth month.4) Through our laws, our society formally recognizes the moral distinction between potential and actual people.And abortion is legal.5) Different cultures, religions, and philosophies take different positions on when a new soul comes into being or when abortion is morally justified. "Personhood" may be granted before birth, at the moment of birth, or, as in some non-Western cultures, some time after birth.16For example, several schools of Islam teach that human life begins after 120 days of pregnancy and accept abortion up to various stages of pregnancy for various reasons.Many Protestant churches, such as the United Church of Canada, consider abortion to be a moral choice under a range of circumstances.6) The Roman Catholic Church has not always held its current position that a person exists from the moment of conception and therefore any abortion is wrong. The Catholic moralist St. Thomas Aquinas claimed that there is no human being at all during the first weeks of pregnancy. St. Augustine said, "There cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation."In 1869 Pope Pius IX changed the Catholic Church's teaching to make conception the moment when the soul arrives. However, not all Catholic moralists today agree with this teaching. Catholic theologian Joseph Doncel states,7) The moral value that someone places on a human embryo is a product of one's personal religious or philosophical perspective. Does a fertilized egg have greater moral value (because it is human) than a mature great ape? Is killing a fish "murder"? How about a mouse? A dog? A cow? A great blue whale? An orangutan? How far up the hominid tree do we go before we use the word "murder?" When people call abortion "murder", they are really describing how they feel about abortion.8) If abortion is "murder", what about those methods of birth control which work after conception has taken place? Most people do not regard the "morning after" pill as a murder weapon.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"In an abortion, the fetus is capable of feeling pain."1) There is no evidence that the embryo or fetus, at the early stages at which abortions are performed, can feel pain. In order to feel pain, the brain must be sufficiently functional to perceive and interpret a stimulus as painful.Some sensory receptors are found early in fetal development, but until the higher brain structures come "on line," all responses to stimuli are by reflex.172,182) Similarly, while fetuses may exhibit a biochemical response to stimuli, such a hormonal stress response cannot be equated with the perception of pain. Human bodies without consciousness (such as anaesthetized patients during surgery) also exhibit the stress response.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The fetus is not part of the pregnant woman, but a separate and distinct human being."1) The fetus is in and "of" the pregnant woman; pregnancy is an active process in which a woman's body sustains the life of a fetus in the most intricate ways possible. The fetus is physically connected to her uterus by the placenta and umbilical cord, and all of her body's systems, including her mind, are affected by her pregnancy. For example, the load on her heart alone is increased by 40%. Pregnancy always involves some costs to women's health, ranging from shortness of breath, backache, nausea, insomnia, hypertension, and edema, to risk of eclampsia, obstructed labour, injury, and death in childbirth.2)The health of the fetus is directly related to the health of the pregnant woman.3) As the final report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies pointed out, we are usually shown images of the fetus as an isolated entity which appears to be floating somewhere in space; the pregnant woman's body is nowhere in view.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The right to life of the fetus takes priority over any right of a woman to control her own body."1)6) Being born is a gift, not a right.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"There is no protection for unborn children. What about the rights of the fetus?"1)"202) The most appropriate and effective way for society (and our governments) to support the health and well-being of the fetus is by supporting the health and well-being of pregnant women. Positive social support for pregnant women would include universal prenatal, maternity and parenting programs, improved maternity benefits, child care funding, housing and nutrition support, and programs to target the increased risk of violence which pregnant women face. Attempting to give "rights" to the fetus by criminalizing abortion and forcing women to bear unwanted children against their will is neither effective nor appropriate.3) Feminist analysts like Donna Greschner point out that fetal rights began to be discussed only after women began to gain more independence. "Consider, for instance, that while all advocates of fetal rights state that someone must represent and speak for the fetus, they refuse to allow the mother to be the representative, proving the point that fetal rights are a method of controlling, not empowering or valuing, the women who create, nurture, and deliver fetuses."224) Pregnant women are very aware of the potential of the developing fetus or embryo, and the fetus' potentiality can make moral or emotional claims on the pregnant woman. But for the woman considering an abortion, any claim that the fetus may have on her may be of a quality quite different from the rights of her children, or her other family members, or another dependant who needs her care, or her own rights.13--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Endnotes:1. Ellen Switzer, "The Scientific View: When Does Human Life Begin?", Vogue, September, 1981.2. Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil, The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992, pp.47-51, 62, 80, 119, 157-9.3. Michael J. Flower, "Coming into Being: The Prenatal Development of Humans", in Abortion, Medicine and the Law (Fourth Edition, Completely Revised), J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, eds., Facts On File, N.Y., 1992, pp. 437-451.4. Elizabeth Hall, "When Does Life Begin? An embryologist looks at the abortion debate: A conversation with Clifford Grobstein", Psychology Today, September, 1989, pp. 43-45.5. Eventually, 80% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted, according to "Social Studies", Globe and Mail, December 9, 1994.6. "The Status of the Human Fetus: A Discussion Document", Committee on Ethics, The Canadian Medical Association, August 1990. (c.f.footnote 4)7. J. Stan Rowe, "Clearing away the fog on conception", Globe and Mail, April 16, 1985.8. Mara Gulens, "Fetuses found in baby boy's stomach", Medical Post, Jan. 24, 1995.9. Charles A. Gardner, "Is an Embryo a Person?", in Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (Fourth Edition, Completely Revised), J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, eds., Facts on File, New York, 1992, pp. 453-456.10. (American neuroscientist Dominick P. Purpura as quoted in) Roger Bissell, "A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments", Reason, September, 1981, pp.27-31.11. Canadian Paediatric Society (Fetus and Newborn Committee) and Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (Maternal-Fetal Medicine Committee), "Management of the woman with threatened birth of an infant of extremely low gestational age", Canadian Medical Association Journal, Sept. 1, 1994, Vol. 151, No. 5, pp. 547-551.12. "Public Health Policy Implications of Abortion", Kathryn G. Moore, ed., American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Washington, D.C., Jan. 1990, p. 17.13. Gary Crum/Thelma McCormack, Abortion: Pro-choice or Pro-life, The American University Press, 1992, pp. 121ff.14. Daniel Callahan, "Abortion: Some Ethical Issues", in Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (Fourth Edition, Completely Revised), J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, eds., Facts on File, New York, 1992, pp. 694-702.15. Maria Costa, Abortion: A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO Inc. Santa Barbara, CA, 1991, p.123.16. Lynne M. Morgan, "When Does Life Begin?', in Abortion Rights and Fetal 'Personhood' (second edition), Edd Doerr and James W. Prescott, eds., Centreline Press, California, 1990, pp.89-107.17. Dr. David Andrew, "Fact and Fiction in the Abortion Debate", letter to the editor, Globe and Mail, November 16, 1994.18. K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey, "Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus", New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 317, No. 21, Nov.19, 1987.19. D.A. Clark, "Stress without distress; the intrauterine perspective", The Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994, pp. 73-4.20. Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Minister of Government Services Canada, 1993, Vol. 2, pp.956-960.21. Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion", in The Problem of Abortion, Joel Fineberg, ed., 2d ed., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1984.22. Donna Greschner, Abortion and Democracy for Women: A Critique of Tremblay v. Daigle (1989), 35 McGill G.R. 633 at 662.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ABOUT MORALITY AND THE LAW"Abortion is morally wrong"1) This argument takes the absolutists approach, which does not take the individual situation or consequences into consideration. The abortion issue is more accurately described as many moral issues.2) People have different moral views about what circumstances justify an abortion. But according to a 1998 Environics poll,3) Many Canadians believe it is morally wrong to bring an unwanted child into the world. They consider abortion a responsible and humane decision by people who cannot welcome and properly care for a child because of their life circumstances.4) Many Canadians consider forcing a woman to bear a child against her will is morally wrong.5) Abstract declarations of the morality of abortion by theologians or philosophers are very different from the moral decision made by a pregnant woman. Her decision is specific to that pregnancy; her coordinates are the here and now.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Abortion is a sign of the modern moral decay that is destroying family life and society."1) Abortion has always been with us. It is not a modern invention. It has been practiced universally since before recorded history.2 Abortion has been called "a fundamental aspect of human behaviour."3Up to the nineteenth century, abortion was legal and not regarded by western society as a moral problem. Historians tell us that the modern practice of allowing abortion is actually a return to an old tradition.42) Legal abortion helps to strengthen the family by:a) enabling couples that are at risk for genetic complications to start families they might not have considered otherwise.b) helping to prevent childbearing by teenagers who are not ready to be parents.c) allowing parents to choose the number and spacing of their children. Pro-choice is definitely pro-family.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Abortion undermines the value of all human life."1) Forcing women to give birth undermines the value of human life, most notably by devaluing women.52) Typically, the outlawing of abortion and respect for human life do not go hand-in-hand. In fact, voting patterns in many countries, including Canada, have shown a strong relationship between being anti-abortion and being in favour of the death penalty. 6,7 Further, in some South American countries, where abortion is illegal or severely restricted, thousands of people have been imprisoned, tortured or killed by the state for political reasons.3)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"The abortion mentality leads to euthanasia of disabled and elderly persons and infanticide."1) Linking abortion to other issues that raise strong reactions or fears in people is a kind of emotional manipulation that does nothing to further the discussion of important social concerns.2) There is no evidence to support a "domino theory" of this kind.58,9--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"There are too many abortions. The laws must be changed to restrict abortion."1) Restrictive do not stop abortion. When it is banned, history has shown that it simply goes underground where it becomes unsafe.10Before abortion became legal in 1969, experts estimate that between 35,000 and 120,000 Canadian women a year had illegal abortions.11 These illegal abortions injured or killed many Canadian women.12 The number of these illegal abortions is quite consistent with the 106,000 legal abortions performed per year in Canada today.13102) The abortion rate is lowered when people have access to quality contraceptive services and sex education is increased.14--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Without an abortion law women can have abortions at nine months pregnancy."1) Abortion is regulated by the Canadian Medical Association. It defines abortion as the active termination of a pregnancy up to 20 weeks gestation.15About 9% of abortions take place between twelve and twenty weeks of gestation, usually because the pregnancy was not diagnosed earlier, abortion services were not available, or the pregnancy had become unhealthy or unmanageable. About 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation, usually because the fetus is gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman' s life or health is at risk, or both.132) This argument is a true "red herring." There is no such thing as an abortion at nine months; inducing labour at this point in a pregnancy is called childbirth.People use this "red herring" to distract from their position, which is that there is no point during a pregnancy when abortion should be allowed, regardless of how early the procedure is performed or how serious the reasons for it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Women would not have abortions if they realized what they were doing. We need laws to require "informed consent" to abortion."1) Informed consent is a legal requirement applying to anyone obtaining any medical procedure. Informed consent means that a patient has been given enough information about the medical procedure's risks, complications and possible alternatives so that they can make a safe and healthy decision about it.Under the informed consent process we have now, abortion providers make sure each patient is certain about her decision and any woman who is not is referred for decision-counselling.2) Current legal requirements and medical standards ensure that women are provided with accurate and unbiased information about their health care options. We know that our current informed consent practice works because studies show that women who have had an abortion remain satisfied with their choice.163) Informed consent laws are not designed to help women make informed choices, but to discourage them from having an abortion. They require women to undergo a biased counselling process designed to increase anxiety. This results in abortions being delayed, which increases the risk and expense and decreases the availability of the procedure. In addition, by forcing doctors to discourage women from having an abortion, they deny women their doctor's best medical judgement, care and support.4) No one, including an abortion provider, wants a woman to have an abortion unless she is sure about her decision.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Abortion exploits women."1) Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them the right to decide whether or not to bear a child. It enhances the autonomy, equality and inherent dignity of women.2) It is widely acknowledged that the option of safe, legal abortion benefits women and their families.17 Legalization improves the health of women who would otherwise seek illegal abortion, prevents premature or dangerously late childbearing, and allows families to have babies they want and can afford to raise.14 It also enables couples who are at risk for genetic complications to begin pregnancies they might not have considered.3) Without the option of legal abortion, women are often sterilized before they are ready or are forced to continue a pregnancy that carries dangerous health risks.184) Illegal abortion causes injury, family disruption and death.20--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"What about the father's rights?"1) In healthy relationships, responsibility and decision-making are shared and women depend on their partners' support in deciding whether or not to have an abortion.2) In those case where a relationship breaks down and the partners cannot agree, it must be the one who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy whose decision prevails. Although men clearly have a strong interest in these decisions, no one should be able to force a woman to continue a pregnancy and bear a child against her will. This would be slavery. By the same token, a man's interest in whether or not he becomes a father does not justify permitting him to force a woman to have an abortion against her wishes.3) Men who have initiated legal proceedings barring their former girlfriends or wives from having abortions are not "fathers", but are seeking to become fathers by forcing a woman to bear a child against her wishes. In the Daigle case, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the right of what it called the "potential father" to veto the decisions made by the woman about the fetus she is carrying.214) Fathers have equal rights to mothers once a child is born and social parenting begins.5) Supposed concern for "father's rights" by anti-abortion activists is part of an attempt to deny the right of anyone - women, men and couples - to decide to terminate a pregnancy.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Endnotes:1. Environics Research Group Limited, poll conducted for the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, January, 1998.2. George Devereux, "A Typological Study of Abortion in 350 Primitive, Ancient and Pre-Industrial Societies", in Therapeutic Abortion, ed. Harold Rosen, Julian Press Inc., New York, 1954.3. Nan Chase, "Abortion: A Long History Can't Be Stopped", Vancouver Sun, May 1, 1989.4. James C. Mohr, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1978.5. Daniel Callahan, "Abortion: Some Ethical Issues", in Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (Fourth Edition, Completely Revised), J. Douglas Butler and David F. Walbert, eds., Facts On file, New York, 1992, pp. 694-702.6. James W. Prescott, "Personality Profiles of `Pro-Choice' and `Anti-Choice' Individuals and Cultures", in Abortion Rights and Fetal `Personhood'(second edition), Edd Doerr and James W. Prescott, eds., Centerline Press, California, 1990, pp.109-110, 143-151.7. Don McGillivray, "`Pro-life pro-death' MPs must explain", Toronto Star, August 10, 1989.8. National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), "Choice: Legal Arguments Pro & Con, 1983.9. Aleksandra Filipowicz, AA year after abortions were banned, death from infanticide and botched operations have gone up, while social pressure discourages contraception@, Warsaw Voice, May 29, 1994.10. Jodi L. Jacobson, "Worldwatch Paper 97: The Global Politics of Abortion", Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, July, 1990, pp.47,29-30.11. Cope W. Schwenger, "Abortion as a public health problem and community health measure",in Family Planning in Canada:A Source Book, Benjamin Schlesinger, ed., University of Toronto Press, 1974, p.240.12. Angus McLaren and Arlene Tigar McLaren, The Bedroom and the State, McClelland & Stewart Inc., Toronto, 1986, p.51.13. Statistics Canada, Therapeutic Abortions, 1995.14. Rachael N. Pine, "Achieving Public Health Objectives through Family Planning Services", Reproductive Health Matters, No.2, November, 1993, pp. 77-83.15. Canadian Medical Association, Policy on Induced Abortion, 198816. Elizabeth Belsey, "Psychological Consequences of Abortion", Family Planning Association Newsletter, April 1976, Vol. 60, p.5.17. International conference on Population and Development, (Cairo, September, 1994), Programme of Action, New York, United Nations, 1994.18. Montreal Health Press, "Birth Control Handbook, Fall 1994", Montreal, 1994.19. Patricia Stephenson et al, "Commentary: The Public Health Consequences of Restricted Induced Abortion-- Lessons from Romania", American Journal of Public Health, October 1992, Vol. 82, No. 10, pp.1328-1331.20. Sharing Responsibility: Women, Society and Abortion Worldwide, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, 1999, p.35.21. Tremblay v. Daigle [1989], 2 S.C.R. 530--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ABOUT THE NEED FOR ABORTION"Women use abortion as birth control."1) Studies prove that women do not use abortion as a substitute for contraception.1 In fact, studies show that the majority of women seeking abortions were using some form of contraception.2,3 Women who have abortions tend to be the most highly motivated to control their fertility and to use contraception.4 Sometimes, however, contraception fails - the condom, for instance, fails to prevent pregnancy for between 8 and 12% of users during a one-year period5 - or people fail to use it properly due, for example, to poverty, ignorance, embarrassment, religious prohibitions and drugs or alcohol.2) Statistically, women who have more than one abortion are a group that is at greater risk of becoming pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.3 This is because they are more likely to be fertile, sexually active, and in their prime reproductive years - not because they are morally degenerate.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Women have abortions for their own convenience or for frivolous reasons."1) Abortion is a consideration for women who become pregnant under difficult circumstances. Such circumstances commonly include illness, problems with (or absence of) a male partner, poverty, lack of social support, the need to care for other young children, the possible loss of educational and job opportunities, the diagnosis of fetal anomaly, and/or pregnancy by rape or incest.62) Pregnancy, childbirth and mothering a child for twenty years can hardly be characterized as mere inconveniences. This argument trivializes childbearing and motherhood. Women have abortions because they take the responsibilities of motherhood seriously. The decision to have an abortion involves as much of a woman's heart and mind as the decision to have a child.3) Even if we don't agree personally with the reason why a particular woman chooses abortion, the decision is hers to make. She is the expert on her own life. According to former Supreme Court Justice Madame Bertha Wilson writing about abortion in the Morgentaler decision: "Liberty in a free and democratic society does not require the state to approve the personal decisions made by its citizens; it does, however, require the state to respect them."7--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"She made her choice when she had sex"1) A woman does not choose to become a mother by choosing to have sex. She is simply choosing to have sex. The idea that she does stems from a belief that sex for pleasure is bad and that intercourse is only to be had in order to procreate. This is not true, sex is a human need. Women have the right to their sexuality without giving up their claim to self-determination.2) Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Children should be wanted. Being someone's punishment is not a good reason for being born.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Contraception and sex education promote sex and cause abortions."1) On the contrary, studies prove that high quality sexual health education helps delay the first act of sexual intercourse, reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and gets teenagers who do engage in sexual intercourse to use more effective contraception.8 In Canada, teen pregnancy, abortion and birth rates have decreased to the greatest extent in those provinces where comprehensive family planning services have been implemented.9 Despite this, adequate school-based sexual health education in not universally available in Canada.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Women change their minds, and an unwanted pregnancy becomes wanted once the baby is born. There is no such thing as an unwanted child."1) This is wishful thinking. Although an unwanted pregnancy does not always result in an unwanted child, research on women whose requests for an abortion were turned down reveals the unhealthy consequence