Reason,
I agree chemical abortion is certainly ugly as the woman gradually destroys the new human life begun in her. The very genetic state of the foetus is not ever in any other state than human. Deliberately terminating the life begun is always destroying a human. The foetus did not just get there it has involved a male in some way. If he was refused imposing his butt in the first place no human life would have begun.

There are Court rulings on the genetic state of the foetus, identifying it as human. Genetic science would clearly identify it as the beginning of human life - not any other species.

"The point, at which you believe the zygote/foetus becomes human, is the point at which you choose not to have an abortion. How much clearer can it be?"

Seeker said “Neither can they be forced to have sex – but they do.”

Duh! Seeker – rape victims would disagree with you.

However, rape victims aside, for many of us “coitus” is engaged upon with the anticipated intent that it not result in impregnation of the female.
Unfortunately, condoms are not fool proof, nor is the pill.
Even Catholics, who apparently rely on the something called the “rhythm” method more than occasionally fall foul of “nature”.

That said, when the intention of having sex was “coitus sans procreation”; should pregnancy ensue, it is perfectly reasonable for a woman, equipped with cognitive competency to decide, for herself, whether to continue the pregnancy she did not intend or to terminate.

Her choice is hers to determine and bear the consequences of alone. It is not mine and not yours. Nor is it a matter for the rabid anti-abortion Nazis who take it upon themselves to terrorise legal clinics.

It is a private matter and not the concern of any other party (except possibly her coital partner – and then his view takes second place in the decisions process, because we are not talking about things which might only effect his emotional state or wallet, not his body).

Reason “If it’s not you or your partner who is pregnant, then butt out.”

Succinct and accurate, I agree, no one else’s business.

Philo, you miss the point again as usual. Sure a human foetus is
human, so is a human piece of skin tissue. That does not make either
of them a person. Neither of them suffer or think.

Foetuses can be created in virtually unlimited amounts, thats the
easy bit. Most women could create 400 in their lifetimes. The hard
bit is the feeding, clothing, caring for 20 years etc. So its a basic fact that not all can survive.

You should put down that bible for once and read Darwin's Origin
of Species. Your religious beliefs are not beyond the laws of
nature.

Dear All,

If a tumour is just a group of cells, then everything that is a group of cells is a tumour including you and me. Now if anything can be killed simply because it is a tumour, that would be setting a fairly dangerous precedent.

A parasite? Find one example from any other species of a animals own progeny correctly being termed a parasite and I will be impressed. It might be clever semantics to call a foetus a parasite, but to my mind this is agenda driven emotive language that is not applied to any other species and is therefore misused in this case.

As for the study with methotrexate and medical abortions on pubmed. It has ONLY 20 participants. Stastically speaking, this study means NOTHING. If you have a sample size of 20, the chance of finding a particular effect one way or the other is absolutely stupendous. For example, you could trial a drug that kills one in ten users but with a small sample size, you could get no such complication in that group - or you could get 5 out of 20. Both results would be misleading as is the use of this study in the previously posted comment.

I am a doctor with a degree in parasitology and I think that most of the comment on this post is extremely superficial.

Hey Badger.

I prefer a peer reviewed article from a prestigious journal than the opinion of a parasite doc.

Clinical trials of drugs have different phases, of course you don't use high numbers of people in early trials. The trial I mentioned had the LOWEST incident free response rate (95%), subsequent trials show 97% incident free response rates.This is exactly what they are doing with methotraxate in this TRIAL getting better data. When you combine data from multicentre trials you have very valid statistics. Ever notice the (P < .001) ?

Don't get me started on clinical trials I could bore you senseless for hours.

Reason

I wouldnt worry about seeker and his mates or try to have a sensible debate with them.

Its clear they suffer from that disease where men '"get"
"off" on talking about womens personal health.

Its actually got a name but I cant recall it now.

It was in a book I read.

They are closely related with cross dressers.

Many are from over religous backgrounds and often sexual abuse as we saw throughout the good Churches childrens homes.

If you note the comment about women [dont have to have sex >] [But they do,] from seeker thats a common aggreshion hardley concealed.

These guys are often rapists and offenders themselves.

You can track them by their posts on forums with anything to do with women.

For some reason they in particluar '"get off" by "discussing "women pregancys and abortion.
The other sign is of course the "control."

Mind you its not just men who suffer from this condition.

That I guess ought to be clear after reading some of these
bullies calling women muderers etc.

Many of these were other women.

I only come in these sights to relax a bit from my very political job but every now and then you trip over something that needs fixing.

Calling a women a MURDERER who chooses not to give birth should and will be an offense.

My God all the poor ladies who have had a termination.

What evil people with evil minds and mouths say.

How Dare you.

Reasons YOU ARE correct. Mind our OWN business IF YOUR NOT THE LADY WHO IS PREGNANT.