Yeah we live in Canada and considered to the countries where religion dominate, I think we are doing pretty good.

We live in educated countries or more so unbiased(democratic) dmocracy around the world has a different meaning...

Read up on the pros/cons of pregnancy and abortion, then you will understand why abortion was made legal for the same reaosn pregnancy is.

I think drugs should be legal, also. It is an abomination that they aren't. You can thank fellow anti-choicers for drug laws, especially the drug laws that keep pain relieving medicine away from cancer patients.

Anti-choicers are the ones solely responsible for drugs being illegal? You think cocaine and other DANGEROUS drugs should be legal? Do you want more children to get a hold of these substances or what?

Legalising actually makes it easier to control something. I certainly think that any of these drugs should be legal -- it is entirely up to people if they want to abuse their bodies. Those who want to take drugs can already find them easily enough -- including children -- and the rest of us wouldn't take them even if they were legal.

There would probably be more drug use because there would be no fear of being arrested and taken to jail. So, if it was legal, how would you stop the people who are abusing certain drugs from hurting OTHER people in the process? Would it really be easier to control? Good things DO NOT happen from using dangerous drugs even if it was regulated. I'm not talking about something like marijuana, I'm talking about the kind that make you go crazy.

Maybe I should stop talking about this now. It doesn't have anything to do with abortion!

Fear of arrest and jail time are not deterrants to drug users -I know, I work with them.

Legalizing them would also decrease the incidence of violence. Go to the store to purchase your regulated cocaine instead of buying it from the gang on the corner.

Alcohol is legal. It's one of the most harmful, dangerous substances that causes the deaths of thousands of innocent people every year. It's not so extreme to advocate for legal drugs, we are just desensitized to believe that alcohol isn't so bad because we can buy it in a store.

So, if you are mentally retarded, or in a coma, or unable to communicate, etc. then others should be allowed to kill you - because if they have to feed you and care for you, then it is their CHOICE - right?

Actually, no - we are talking about all unborn babies. However, to answer your question. By definition an embryo, in humans, is what a baby is from the time of implantation until 8 weeks (after 8 wks it is called a fetus). According to modern science an embryo by 8 weeks can feel pain. Sir Albert Lilley, widely considered the "Father of Fetology", and unabashedly pro-life (as anyone with his vast knowledge of fetal development should be) makes some remarkable statements about fetal pain in an interview he conducted for the book The Tiniest Humans.

Question: In the case of an 8- to-10-week fetus, if you apply pressure will it tend to try to get out of the way?

Answer: Normally it would be extremely difficult, apart from putting a foreign instrument or needle into the uterus to apply pressure, but with a fetus at that maturity you have a very small fetus in a larger capsule of fluid. However, as the famous work of Dr. Davenport Hooker shows, in his many thousands of feet of film, babies at this maturity are responsive to touch.

The fetus also responds violently to painful stimuli-needle puncture and injection of cold or of hypertonic solutions- stimuli which you and I find painful, children will tell you are painful, and the neonate, to judge from his responses, finds painful.

---

I have been told by advocates of abortion that we have no proof that the fetus actually feels pain. Strictly, they are quite correct. Pain is a peculiarly personal and subjective experience and there is no biochemical or physiological test we can do to tell that anyone is in pain - a phenomenon which makes it very easy to bear other people's pain stoically, which is an important point for obstetricians to remember. By the same token we lack any proof that animals feel pain. However, to judge from their responses, it seems charitable to assume they do. Were this not so there would be no point in having an organization like the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and I for one would be unhappy to think we would withhold from the human fetus a charitable consideration we were prepared to extend to animals.

Question: The question, then, of pain felt by the fetus - it is your personal opinion, I gather from what you say in your paper, that in effect the fetus does feel pain?

Answer: I can only say that the fetus responds violently to stimuli that you and I would find painful. Bertrand Russell once remarked that a fisherman had told him that fish had neither sense or sensation, but how he knew that the fisherman would not tell him.


(By the way, according to modern science - fish do feel pain).

The notion of "feeling pain" is inane, unless you argue that any creature that feels pain must be protected at all costs. Enjoy your dinner.

I'm a raw vegan, so I will - thanks!

I admittedly haven't read the whole thread...shame shame since I did start it!
So my thoughts from these past few posts may make NO sense at all:)
But they are my first thoughts missing 2 pages in between.

Why is it that it's acceptable to go to such great lengths to try and "spare" an unborn fetus pain that ant-choicers proclaim that fetus will suffer due to abortion but for those of us who are scientifically functioning with brain function, feelings, and physical sensation are made to suffer in pain due to impossible regulations on narcotic pain medications?
I don't have cancer but I do have Interstitial Cystitis which is research has proven is as painful as cancer and equal to end stage renal failure. I know at any moment I could be kicked out of pain management and left to suffer because I'm not gonna die. Oh no, I'm just going to suffer in an amount of pain that would welcome death.
But god forbid we don't cause a fetus that we haven't even proven has enough brain activity to be aware of that fact that it exists. They don't even let dogs suffer like they do people.

My point is that it's all the same. Take away a persons own choices when it comes to the treatment of their own body. Everything we do is regulated and we risk suffering condemnent if we go against societies majority.
You have no idea what it's like for everyone to assume your taking pain pills by the handful because you must of course be an a-moral addict who's stealing and dealing from the streets.
The same for going into an abortion clinic, that your morally curupt and a terrible person for making your own choices that have only to do with you and noone else.

This country is getting bad when it comes to it's proclimation of freedom. If you ask me church and state are getting a little to close for comfort. Everyone needs to stop making things a moral issue and make these issues about what this country was built on.

Yes they should IF they are inflicting physical harm against you - which IS what a ZEF does to a pregnant woman

Absolutely, Milan. If someone attached themselves to my body and was sucking the life out of me, I don't care if it's a fetus, a deaf-mute or a Nobel prize winner -- I've got the right to get rid of that sucker!

It is amazing anyone has ever survived these attacks from a ZEF Sounds incredibly dangerous for the human race, enjoy your asexual reproduction.

Actually it IS amazing, as many pregnant women DON'T survive their pregnancy. What's wrong, cat got your tongue?














* My apologizes to all cats

Really? I have read up on that but I would love to see some statistics and a link to your sources. If you aren't sure you should look up "maternal mortality rate." Also stats by country would be swell. You think the W.H.O. would have looked into this pandemic and warned the world.

Have no fear about the cats, I don't believe in imprisoning animals by keeping pets.

The issue is choice. You have the choice to let it stay there, or the choice to have it removed. And sexual nonreproduction is what we are after, not asexual reproduction. Sex good -- unwanted pregnancy bad.

You've read up on it huh? Sorry but comic books and anti-choice websites don't count. Try actually buying a real MEDICAL book on the topic, opening it up and actually READING it. You'd learn that women who get a hysterectomy are at a far greater risk of getting (but not limited to):

• A 60 percent greater risk of being incontinent
  
• Heart palpitations
  
• Depression, Mood swings
  
• Vaginal dryness
  
• Stroke
  
• Arthritis
  
• Memory lapses
  
• Osteoporosis
  
• Hair loss
  
• Increased risk of developing certain kinds of cancer
  
• Thyroid deficiency
  
• Heart Attacks
  
• Blood Clots
  

And we haven't even talked about their higher mortality rate from an ectopic pregnancy which could grow large enough to rupture and cause the woman to suddenly bleed to death. And why should a woman put herself at risk for all of these terrible things? All because some misinformed, uneducated anti-choicer "thinks" a hysterectomy is the cure-all for abortions

First of all, I said I had read up on pregnancy mortality rates - not hysterectomies - so you are barking up the wrong tree. As for uneducated - I'm a nurse, dear - what are you? I've probably read more medical journals than you can count - assuming you can. As for "ectopic pregnancies" - if you get a complete hysterectomy (which is what I was referring to) then you have no eggs, nor fallopian tubes - therefore you cannot have an ectopic pregnancy. Only women with their fallopian tubes and eggs intact (including those who've had a tubal ligation, those with only a partial hysterectomy, and those who are fully intact). You are obviously confused about a tubal ligation vs. complete hysterectomy. I don't think it is a cure all - just a logical choice. Funny - the complications you just described are the same as with most birth control. To use a colloquialism, that's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Enjoy your comic books, misinformed, uneducated, anti-lifer. By the way - I'm not anti-choice. I'm anti-homicide (call it what you like).

What's your point?


And we know this because....

People are not mind readers and only know what you write. Imagine that.


Red herring.


To use another colloquialism, your logic is as dead as a doornail.


You're not Pro-Choice either.


There you go being anti-American again putting down our troops.