Pro-life considers both woman and child The Sheaf April 10, 2014 12:00 am Opinions KATRINA BURNS The pro-life stance promotes solidarity for women through presenting concerns for both the woman and her unborn child. The pro-life position is often perceived to be all about the fetus. While there may be some individuals within the pro-life movement who think that way, the vast majority of us — including those who sit at the Students for Life table in the Arts Tunnel — see a much bigger picture. When I spoke with some of the volunteers at the pro-choice table — who were all lovely people — there was a lot that we agreed on. At the end of the conversation, one of them made the observation that I sounded very “pro-woman” — a comment I agree with. A lot of individuals who stop to talk to us at our table inevitably ask the hard questions about the life of the mother, rape and poverty. They often leave satisfied that we are empathetic human beings who do in fact care about the woman, not just about her unborn child. My heart breaks for women confronted with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy that they feel they cannot handle and it breaks all the more for women who are violated in the latter case through rape and sexual assault. These women have been the victims of a heinous crime and the offender deserves to be in prison. I can’t imagine being in their shoes and I have no doubt that when rape results in pregnancy it is accompanied by feelings of resentment and anger. The pro-life approach aims to eliminate the crisis, not the child. Abortion does not undo the rape. Instead it adds another crisis for the woman to deal with. A woman in this situation needs our utmost compassion and support as she works through the trauma of the rape, her pregnancy and whichever option she chooses after the birth. As a club, we aim to support women by directing them to resources for the mother and the child. Abortion is a procedure that can have a multitude of grave effects on the health and well-being of a woman. These effects are often shrugged off as a myth, but research suggests otherwise. No medical procedure is without risks and it would be absurd to suggest that something as invasive as an abortion would be the exception to that. The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research offers a comprehensive look at the health implications related to abortion. Their book Women’s Health After Abortion, written by Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles, includes the possible after-effects of abortion. Some of these are an increased risk of suicide, psychiatric problems, breast cancer and pre-term births in subsequent pregnancies. I would not wish any of these risks on any woman. Women should, at the very least, be informed of these and other risks associated with abortion so as to make a fully informed choice, as they would for any other medical procedure. I truly believe that carrying an infant to term — either to mother or to be mothered by another — is in the best interest of any woman. I further trust that it is in the best interest of the other human in question — the pre-born child. The question of whether or not the mother’s life is in danger is inevitable. In these cases we must always remember that there are two lives we must work to save. There is a difference between prescribing an abortion when a mother’s health is at risk and prescribing treatment that may as a side-effect terminate the life of the fetus. Medical attention striving to save both lives, even when it fails to save the life of the child, is certainly not morally objectionable in the same way that open heart surgery resulting in a death on the operating table is not. The pro-life position is naturally and fundamentally pro-child — the pre-born is human too. Just like the women who sit at the pro-choice table, I am pro-woman and support a woman’s right to choose. I respect every human’s right to choose pertaining to any aspect of their life. However, an individual’s freedom to choose ends where it infringes upon the rights or property of another. The right to life is a fundamental human right and choosing abortion infringes upon that right of the pre-born child. – Photo: Katherine Fedoroff DaVinci “The pro-life approach aims to eliminate the crisis, not the child. Abortion does not undo the rape. Instead it adds another crisis for the woman to deal with.” So instead, a woman should choose to deal with a permanent reminder of the rape? Kailee If you have not conceived a child due to rape then maybe you shouldn’t speak for the women who have. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/raped-women-who-had-their-babies-defy-pro-choice-stereotypes DaVinci now you are using a logical fallacy called “Courtier’s reply”, the “were you there” argument, which doesn’t apply here. DO YOU HAVE TO BE RAPED TO KNOW THAT RAPE IS WRONG? DO YOU HAVE TO BE MURDERED BEFORE YOU CAN SPEAK ON HOW MURDER IS WRONG? You were not aborted but you are saying abortion is wrong. You haven’t been in the place where you must make the decision of having or not having an abortion, so you shouldn’t speak for women who are in that position of predicament. Kailee You literally just did the same thing lol, and how do you know that I haven’t been in that position? I am not speaking for the women who have dealt with pregnancy from rape, I am letting them speak for themselves. The article I posted in my previous comment talks about what these women have to say. I’m not saying rape isn’t wrong, I just don’t think people should use the fact that pregnancy can occur from rape as an excuse to have elective abortions for any reason. And I’m sure if the millions of aborted babies each year could speak they would say that abortion is wrong. DaVinci So are you going to be raising those millions of potential babies that would’ve been born if they were not aborted? If not, then all your words are garbage. Regardless of the reason of why the women chose to terminate the pregnancy, it is her choice because she has the right to use her uterus anyway she wants and if the fetus can’t live outside of her body on its own, then it’s too bad for the fetus, or baby as you like to exaggerate it. You have the right to say you don’t want an abortion if you were raped and got pregnant or however you choose to get pregnant, but you have to impose your choice on other women. Guest Let me try to understand your argument. You’re suggesting that, unless a pro-life advocate is willing and able to adopt “millions” of babies that would otherwise be aborted, that her reasons for being against abortion are false? That doesn’t seem right. If I threatened to kill all of the children in foster care unless you personally adopted all of them, your being unable or unwilling to do so wouldn’t justify me going through with it. Surely there are some things we shouldn’t let a woman do with her uterus. For example, no doctor who wants to stay out of jail and continue practising medicine will give a pregnant woman thalidomide. Although we respect her right to autonomy, that does not mean she gets to do whatever she wants. We’ll ban a sleeping pill because it sometimes causes severe birth defects (including shortened or missing limbs, blindness, and damage to vital organs). If pro-life advocates are correct about the status of the unborn, we shouldn’t allow abortion either (which is fatal almost 100% of the time). DaVinci “Surely there are some things we shouldn’t let a woman do with her uterus. For example, no doctor who wants to stay out of jail and continue practising medicine will give a pregnant woman thalidomide. Although we respect her right to autonomy, that does not mean she gets to do whatever she wants.” Excuse me, but people are allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. Sex change operations are legal in Canada, hysterectomies are legal in Canada, so if removal of the uterus is legal, how is removing a fetus not legal? Oh, and by the way, in case you don’t know, SUICIDE IS LEGAL!!! There are people who are terminally ill and suffering while nothing can be done about it, it is legal for them to kill themselves, so we are free to do what we want to our bodies. There are enough people in the world that we don’t even have enough resources to take care of all the children in foster care and not all children who were put up for adoption will get adopted. If you choose to worry about the unborn when there are children already born that needs taken care of, then your priorities are out of whack. “You’re suggesting that, unless a pro-life advocate is willing and able to adopt “millions” of babies that would otherwise be aborted, that her reasons for being against abortion are false? That doesn’t seem right. If I threatened to kill all of the children in foster care unless you personally adopted all of them, your being unable or unwilling to do so wouldn’t justify me going through with it.” A woman is free to get an abortion and choose to not get an abortion…AS LONG AS SHE DECIDES IT FOR HER OWN BODY. A PERSON CAN’T FORCE A WOMAN TO GET AN ABORTION, SAME AS A PERSON CAN’T FORCE SOMEONE TO NOT GET AN ABORTION. You idea is to let those fetuses be carried to term, be born, get abandoned because the mother can’t afford it, add to the population of foster children who are being abused and being improperly treated in foster homes, which contributes to more suffering while abortion can save future suffering from happening. Guest I’m sorry, but that doesn’t really address what I said. There are certainly lots of things that people are allowed to do with their bodies. But if there’s even one thing that shouldn’t be permitted, then you cannot defend abortion by (loudly) declaring that “people are allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies” and calling it a day. As it stands, pregnant women do not have the right to take thalidomide because of the severe harm it can cause to their children. It’s interesting and peculiar that abortion proponents are clamouring for RU-486 to be made available in Canada, despite the fact that it almost always brings about lethal harm (by design, not by accident). (as an aside, nobody in Canada is allowed to smoke crack cocaine or heroin whether or not they’re pregnant. Though my point about thalidomide would still stand if that were not the case) You idea is to let those fetuses be carried to term, be born, get abandoned because the mother can’t afford it, add to the population of foster children who are being abused and being improperly treated in foster homes, which contributes to more suffering while abortion can save future suffering from happening. Please at least try to come to terms with where I’m coming from. I think it’s unfortunate and tragic that so many foster children are abused and mistreated. We have common ground there. However, I don’t think it’s acceptable to kill foster children to spare them from suffering. That would violate their right to life, and a just society ought to do better. And because I don’t have reason to believe that an unborn child isn’t human, or should have less of a right to life than a born child, or that abortion would not violate the unborn child’s right to life, I cannot agree that abortion should be legal in order to spare a child from (potential) suffering. themusicgod1 > SUICIDE IS LEGAL  themusicgod1 > And I’m sure if the millions of aborted babies each year could speak they would say that abortion is wrong. Good, you’re capable of understanding the consequence of a million lives lost. Just so you know, every second that you do not prevent unnecessary lives from keeping us from getting off this planet, well over a million babies will never be born. That includes time you spent reading this post, and any time you spend rebutting it. If you are truly interested in the fate of the unborn, and ‘pro-life’ you would cease at once all attempts to control the minuscule amount of human beings that exist today, and devote every waking second, and every dollar you have to the pursuit of making humanity into a spacefaring species. http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html DaVinci “Women should, at the very least, be informed of these and other risks associated with abortion so as to make a fully informed choice, as they would for any other medical procedure.” How do you know they don’t know what they’re getting into? Abortion is just like any other procedure where doctors must tell patients what they are going to do before the procedure. DaVinci “I respect every human’s right to choose pertaining to any aspect of their life. However, an individual’s freedom to choose ends where it infringes upon the rights or property of another. The right to life is a fundamental human right and choosing abortion infringes upon that right of the pre-born child.” What you just said right here is you agree with a woman’s freedom to choose as long as she chooses to keep her fetus to term. That’s almost like saying DaVinci almost like saying you agree with Canada should allow women to work as long as their workplace remains in the home. Jimbo It’s too difficult to come down on one side or the other in the abortion debate. On the one hand, I’m really against women’s liberties, but on the other hand, I’m in favor of killing babies. There’s just no winning. DaVinci “A lot of individuals who stop to talk to us at our table inevitably ask the hard questions about the life of the mother, rape and poverty. They often leave satisfied that we are empathetic human beings who do in fact care about the woman, not just about her unborn child.” You say you are empathetic human beings, remind me how many unwanted children are you willing to adopt from these women are not in a place to raise a child? Do you know how many children are currently in foster care and being placed placed up for adoption without any luck? How about taking care of those children first if you are so “pro-life”. Leacock That is a fallacious argument it is like saying that you should have to be willing to raise your family in Sudden Valley if you are of the view that sex offenders should not be executed. There are many people in this country who deeply want to adopt, have you ever noticed how many people adopt children from overseas? It is in no small part because there so many people in this country choose abortion. themusicgod1 It is also in no small part because adoption is risky: abuse does happen, and there is a great amount of bureaucracy surrounding the ordeal, some of it justifiable by said risk(including other risks including those involved with borders). If we only looked at the rate of birth and adoption wrt abortion we would miss the bigger picture and tractable, albeit difficult problems in the adoption system. Ya right Another golden nugget of stupidity from the Sheat. A Sheaf Contributor Be the change you wish to see in the world. http://thesheaf.com/contribute/ PSK I’m on the other side of the argument posed by this article (i.e I am “pro-choice”). That being said I am irritated by this comment. Get off your high horse, kudos to the Sheaf for trying to present both sides of the argument. First you people freak out on the Sheaf for being one-sided, and then when they try to combat that one-sidedness, you freak out on them for posting “stupid articles”????? Seriously, what do you people want??? Steele_83 We want articles that are PROPERLY cited with solid evidence. I would be happy to listen to any pro-life person if they made valid claims. Not sensationalist garbage that appeals to peoples emotions. Emotion is important, but there is more to look at, especially with regards to such a controversial issue. Lane The Sheaf publishes submissions from any student with an interest in writing. The opinions expressed in these articles are not necessarily that of the Sheaf staff themselves. Few articles are rejected unless they are offensive or libelous. For this reason, there will be articles on a range of heavily biased topics – especially considering that this is the OPINIONS section. It is a student paper that struggles to find volunteers as it is. If they turned away a submission simply because it was about a scandalous topic, what kind of newspaper would it be? You can’t attack the media outlet for the opinions expressed by its writers. Anonymous This may sound backwards, but I used to be in favour of the “pro-choice” argument until I became a parent myself. After having my own baby, I understood the loss of personal freedom when you become a parent. It’s like having your whole life taken apart — you never get to sleep or eat or shower whenever you want anymore. You can’t go to the pharmacy to get supplies or groceries whenever you want. You can’t go to school or have a job unless you can access child care, which is expensive and difficult to find. You are responsible for another human life for 18 years until they become an adult. Eighteen years is a BIG commitment. This should always, always, always be chosen. That’s why I am pro-choice. No government or religious group should make that decision beforehand because each person’s situation is different. I trust every person with a uterus to make this own decision for themselves. That’s why I’m pro-choice. Leacock Adoption is an option, there are frankly many childless people in this country that want a baby and would be happy to adopt. CC Last time I looked there are many, many homeless and apprehended children to adopt into “good god fearing homes”. Anonymous Destroying a fetus is a sad thing. However, in order to avoid this sadness, should we really force people to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and impose forced childbirth? It’s like the pro-life position has an abstract ideal in their mind that destroying the fetus is always bad, and nothing else matters. Well, the human being who is pregnant matters. The mother’s life and freedom is valuable. Although adoption can be a great thing, to suggest that this is an easy breezy solution in all cases is to ignore the mother’s thoughts and feelings. To say that the mother should “toughen up” and put the baby’s life before their own and go with adoption is to ignore the mother’s thoughts and feelings. This might be surprising, but most pregnant people would take this decision very seriously. Just because abortion is legal doesn’t mean that every pregnant person will choose that option just for the fun of it. Abortion should be available in those (hopefully rare) times that it is needed, when it is the lesser of two evils. Kailee What is more evil: giving a child life where they will have a chance at experiencing the good in this world or tearing them apart limb from limb and taking away any chance to do anything? I know not all kids have a great childhood but is that enough of a reason to put them out of potential misery they might have later in life? Some people can come from horrible homes full of abuse or neglect and really make something of their life, and also some people from loving homes decide to take their own life. The fact that we don’t know how someone’s life is going to turn out is why we can’t assume an unborn baby will have a horrible one just because of circumstances in the parent’s lives. Will a woman dealing with an unplanned pregnancy really hate or abuse her child once it’s born? Of course some probably would but the to vast majority I would say no. And unfortunately, most abortions are done on healthy mothers with healthy babies, so they are not done when they are “needed.” You should never need to kill someone just to suit your life better. C This article makes several false claims. 1. Abortion does NOT cause breast cancer. This has been studied by the American Cancer Society. (http://bit.ly/1imn2bA) 2. The American Psychological Association found that “severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress,” and “[abortion] does not pose a psychological hazard for most women.” (http://bit.ly/1h1AELL) 3. Reuters Health wrote an article citing various studies which showed that abortion is not a risky procedure and is actually 14 times safer than childbirth. (http://reut.rs/1qcCU5s) The author of this article also fails to mention some things about her only source: 1. The authors of the book mentioned both work for Christian/Catholic Universities (http://bit.ly/1fXrizR and http://bit.ly/1emrXHg) 2. The deVeber Institute’s mission statement would suggest that the group has a pro-life bias. (http://bit.ly/1gyqvl5) “The right to life is a fundamental human right and choosing abortion infringes upon that right of the pre-born child.” Would you also support forcing people to donate their organs or bone marrow so that someone else could live? The Canadian justice system has said no to this question, thereby putting an individual’s right to bodily autonomy ahead of an individual’s right to life. You cannot be compelled to give up an organ, even if your refusal to do so means that someone (an undeniably fully-formed human being) might die. “I truly believe that carrying an infant to term—either to mother or to be mothered by another—is in the best interest of any woman. I further trust that it is in the best interest of the other human in question—the pre-born child.” In a study done of women who had given up a child for adoption it was found that, up to 20 years later, 75% of these women still experienced grief over their actions (http://1.usa.gov/1qomcOB).Women who give up children for adoption often experience guilt and shame, and may have difficulty forming new relationships. (http://1.usa.gov/1qomcOB).Children who are placed in foster care can develop Reactive Attachment Disorder, a condition which results from being unable to form a bond with a caregiver (http://bit.ly/1epISIT). Women who carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and keep the child are up to 3.6 times more likely to develop postpartum depression than women who wanted to have a baby (http://bit.ly/1iv4bez). Young children who were the result of unintentional or unwanted pregnancies have significantly less positive relationships with their mothers, score lower on vocabulary tests, and are found to be more fearful than children who were the result of intentional pregnancies (http://bit.ly/1lJfmmE). Unwanted children are more likely to be abused, do poorly in school, and engage in criminal activity (http://bit.ly/1hf2nst). Jenna At least you know the biases of the sources used. All people have a world view and set of beliefs, whether that includes organized religion or not. All scientists – religious, secular, what have you – are trained to recognize and put aside their beliefs when using the scientific method. Maybe possible biases are something that should in included in scientific findings. “I am pro-choice and find minimal evidence of negative after-effects of abortion”. Also nothing definitively causes cancer. The article says “possible after-effects” include “increased risk of”. It’s just as vague as “[abortion] does not pose a psychological hazard for most women”. Sounds like for some women it does pose a psychological hazard. Whether or not there should be legislation regarding abortion is an on going discussion. JMG The point here is that the article makes rediculous claims without backing anything up with evidence. In fact, the evidene available is contrary to everything the author has claimed. Yes, available evidence can be ambiguous and oftentimes evidence simply does not exist. However, I’d rather side with the objective facts and not just make claims that I hope support my position because it makes me feel better. JMG This is a fantastic evidence-based rebuttal to the extremely dubious claims made in this article. The author of the article is basically lying to themselves and others in order to justify their position and vilify abortion. I am shocked such a disingenuous article could even get published. Oh wait, it’s the Sheaf… asd wikipedia evidence based lol Guest I don’t think the author endorsed requiring anyone to donate organs or bone marrow to an unborn child. On the other hand, most opponents of abortion would support requiring parents to provide food and shelter to their children, even if the only way to do that is to use an intimate body part (ie breastfeeding after the child is born, or gestation before). The Canadian justice system also requires a much stronger justification for dismembering someone with forceps or a suction tube than refusing to give them your kidney. http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_techniques/ T “I respect every human’s right to choose pertaining to any aspect of their life. However, an individual’s freedom to choose ends where it infringes upon the rights or property of another. The right to life is a fundamental human right and choosing abortion infringes upon that right of the pre-born child.” I don’t think you understand the meaning of “every” and “any”. You support the right to choose YOUR way of thinking. The pro-life movement seeks to force their moral beliefs on others – grounded in their own religion or personal philosophy. The pro-choice movement doesn’t make claims on the morality of abortion – we leave that as an individual choice for every woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy. If they feel abortion is wrong and they want to give their child up for adoption, or keep it, we will support their decision. Pro-life people say “Abortion is wrong;” we only say “Abortion is.” no Sometimes moral beliefs are forced on others. “Murder is wrong” is a moral belief, and yet nobody is saying that you should be allowed to choose whether or not you murder people and then escape punishment. Many pro-life people seem to feel that abortion is murder, and shouldn’t occur, which is in line with legal precedent. Of course, that argument relies on the idea that abortion and murder can be equated, which is the question at stake when deciding whether abortion should be legal or not. In fact, that would even serve as a valid argument against “abortion to save the mother” – legally you can’t kill someone else to save yourself, even if that person would probably die if you do nothing and you will certainly die if you do nothing. One life = any other life in the legal context. Of course, I don’t intend to say that law = morally correct 100% of the time. My point is just that suggesting that abortion is only a moral issue and banning it therefore has no legal bearing or basis in reality is stupid. I’m pro-choice but that is a shitty argument. a What an awful, inconsiderate article. Your only answer to peoples concerns about “the life of the mother, rape and poverty” is that it would be hard to deal with. You say you will try to introduce them to programs that will help their situation when you have never experienced that situation yourself. The programs you speak of supply the bare minimum to get by if they are lucky. You don’t even mention babies of people with drug or alcohol problems. You go on to suggest that giving the baby up for adoption is the best solution. That will often make things even harder for the mother. She then has to have the experience of a full 9 month term of pregnancy and childbirth. She has to see her baby and then give it up and live with knowing her baby is out there and has to live without knowing the condition of the life that child has. You say you are pro-woman and pro-child. But you don’t consider anyone other than yourself. Kailee No one is saying adoption is easy. It is arguably one of the most selfless acts someone can do, putting someone else’s life above their own. Unlike abortion which is the exact opposite. Jenna Thank you Katrina for being courageous enough to voice an opinion that is counter to mainstream views. I really appreciated your article and the information it contained. close reader The deVeber Institute is a laughably biased source to cite on the medical outcomes of abortion, and it is intellectually dishonest of the author to selectively reference their discredited report. (From the Institute’s website.”In undertaking this work the Institute believes that a sense of the inherent value and dignity of human life and of the human person as an end and not a means is a foundational perspective to bring to bear on its work.”) The author could have chosen to cite any one of many rigorous scientific reviews examining true research on this topic, but of course each and every one of these review finds that abortion is much safer than childbirth. Shame on the author for this intentional deception. Seriously? You’re trying to spread anti-choice at a university? You know this is a place of higher learning, right? Ant If you extend personhood to a 3 month old fetus, you’re required to also extend personhood to other brains of the same complexity or more. This includes cows, pigs, sheep, some birds, etc. If you think an abortion is murder, then you are obligated to admit that pork is murder too. lol Do you support murdering newborns? They are, after all, significantly less developed than an elephant (at least in terms of comprehension and self-recognition). And yet oddly enough the newborn is granted personhood and the elephant is not. I wonder why that is. Perhaps because the newborn will eventually be an adult? Kailee Or that the newborn is a human being, just like an unborn child? http://batman-news.com AB One of the stupidest articles I have ever read on the Sheaf. Can the author quote one article that demonstrates the link between breast cancer and abortion. I am interested as I am a physician and a health researcher myself. (V)(;,,;)(V) Why not Zoidberg? Not anything substantial and that hasn’t since been discredited by a mountain of more comprehensive, higher quality studies. Here is a good summery of the ridiculous breast cancer-abortion proposed link. Interesting that anti-abortion proponents never bring up the handful of studies which show a slight positive correlation between early abortions and decreased rates of breast cancer. Yes those do also exist, but seem to be just as statistically insignificant. I hate it when bad science is repeated by laypeople with an agenda over and over as if the repeating of fictitious claim will eventually make it true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion%E2%80%93breast_cancer_hypothesis SaraLynn This is a very well-written article that articulates how many people feel and I applaud The Sheaf for publishing a viewpoint that differs from the one it has already publicly described to . An article was published not long ago that consisted of nothing but unprofessional, opinionated attacks at the pro-life movement and this is the perfect rebuttal. Absolutely no portion of this pro-life editorial was disrespectful, the author merely attempted to explain her stance to those who chose not to engage the individuals at the table. Props to you, Miss Burns, for being professional, respectful and mature in light of the opposite being shown to you (as clearly illustrated by the comments). Both sides of the debate could stand to have more people like you. JMG I certainly can respect politeness but being polite does not mean the claims you make are true. Everyone is free to voice their opinion but it is unethical to spread false medical claims to support your argument like this article does. Anon I do not feel that this article is pro-women, or that the discussion brings about the fact that pro-life is also pro-woman and not just pro-fetus. We all have opinions, and by this stage in our life our opinions should be formulated on some sort of research/foundation of knowledge, and so regardless of the situation (whether positive or negative) when someone goes to make a decision (life or choice), they are usually already informed on what they deem to be “right” for them, and can talk to health professionals and use google etc to ensure the right choice does in fact get made. You may agree or disagree with the final decision, but it’s not a decision that involved you or affects you in any way, and you will probably never know, and ignorance is bliss. So be blissful! Leacock Are you blissful about this? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/meredith-borowiec-says-she-wasn-t-normal-when-she-left-babies-in-dumpster-1.2515932 She went to jail for that. But these babies had already left the womb so it is completely different right? disqus_KQ7gUikiB3 Im sorry but where is the mans say in this? It takes two to get pregnant. I understand that it is the woman’s body but its unfair to the man who really wants the child. (V)(;,,;)(V) What about the man who really doesn’t?… Are you saying he should have a say too? Leacock Well considering that he could be on the hook for paying childsupport and yet it is entirely the mother’s decision whether to have the baby one would think he should have a say. The mother can just give the child up for adoption, meaning he cannot have contact with his child. Yet if she so chooses he could instead be expected to pay her child support. Allison Ooooh wow, one way men to not get to choose! What a bunch of privileged bullshit. Life isn’t fair?? Get the hell over it because it’s not fair that women have to give EVERYTHING up for a child. Get an education, seriously. Poor poor privileged men!!! Idiots. Stilldrankduringprohibitontoo I think sometimes that people forget that this issue of abortion concerns law. Although you may not ‘wish any of these effects on any woman’ and not be able to imagine how she feels, that doesn’t mean that laws should be changed so that it will Be illegal for her to have any choices. Abortions still happen when it is illegal, but it is DANGEROUS AND TRAUMATIC in far worse ways than when done in a clinic, under medical supervision and with counselling available. Just because someone ‘shouldn’t get an abortion doesn’t mean she won’t. So how would you rather it happen? Leacock Why don’t we just declare shop lifting to no longer be a crime so as not to traumatise poorly behaved youths? Emily Shoplifting is not equatable to an invasive medical procedure. Mary D Thank you for writing about this challenging topic Miss Burns! Although some of the comments below clearly do not agree, I believe that very few women would choose abortion if they believed they had another option available to them. Abortion is a last resort, and I hope that we can continue to work together to find a better solution for women.