Post by Chips on Jun 7, 2008 17:36:09 GMT 9.5
Abortions will continue whether they are legal and safe or not
Peter Dolan (Letters, June 6) argues that restricting abortion leads to lower maternal mortality rates, citing Ireland and Poland as examples compared with China and Russia. This ignores the vastly different political, social and material situations in these countries. On the one hand we have relatively small, rich European countries and on the other huge nations with large populations of poor people and highly variable levels of medical practice.
Some women will get abortions, whether they are legal and safe or not. I wonder how much we can rely on official figures given this reality - how many illegal abortions go unreported?
William Courcier Camperdown
Karen Jackson (Letters, June 6) bases support for abortion on the assertion that "morality is up to the individual". Surely no one can honestly believe that. Am I free to decide that I can steal, rape, murder, rob and view child pornography? Of course not. We need common moral codes to protect people, especially the weak and defenceless. Abortion is a vexed issue, but the key question is: do we believe a mother's rights are more important than the right to life of an unborn child? I would argue that almost always they are not. If you disagree, debate the issue rather than presenting spurious arguments you would not apply to any other moral dilemma.
Phillip Colgan Carlton
As a doctor and taxpayer, I object to the money I earn caring for the sick being spent on abortions in developing countries. I question the claim that moral opposition to abortion somehow presupposes a lack of concern for the health of those women. Induced abortions have significant health risks to the mother (infection, fistulas, uterine adhesions, which can threaten fertility).
Jane Singleton claims ("A moral test for true believers, Rudd style", June 5) that more than half a million women die each year from "childbirth or related causes". I suggest the humanitarian solution to this is for developed nations to provide women with better nutrition, living conditions and antenatal care, rather than to kill their unborn children.
Dr Emma Whiteley Penrith
Arguments can be made for and against abortion (Letters, June 6), but opposition to funding for programs that promote contraception has no basis in logic. Those who claim to oppose abortion for evidence-based reasons, such as Jack de Groot, should be 100 per cent behind contraception because, when properly used, it renders abortion unnecessary.
The fewer children people have, the more resources can be put into their education and health. The healthier and more educated a population, the more taxes it generates to support a welfare state that will lead to population stability. Sadly, those who oppose contraception seem more interested in farming the faithful.
Andrew Potts St Peters
Peter Dolan (Letters, June 6) argues that restricting abortion leads to lower maternal mortality rates, citing Ireland and Poland as examples compared with China and Russia. This ignores the vastly different political, social and material situations in these countries. On the one hand we have relatively small, rich European countries and on the other huge nations with large populations of poor people and highly variable levels of medical practice.
Some women will get abortions, whether they are legal and safe or not. I wonder how much we can rely on official figures given this reality - how many illegal abortions go unreported?
William Courcier Camperdown
Karen Jackson (Letters, June 6) bases support for abortion on the assertion that "morality is up to the individual". Surely no one can honestly believe that. Am I free to decide that I can steal, rape, murder, rob and view child pornography? Of course not. We need common moral codes to protect people, especially the weak and defenceless. Abortion is a vexed issue, but the key question is: do we believe a mother's rights are more important than the right to life of an unborn child? I would argue that almost always they are not. If you disagree, debate the issue rather than presenting spurious arguments you would not apply to any other moral dilemma.
Phillip Colgan Carlton
As a doctor and taxpayer, I object to the money I earn caring for the sick being spent on abortions in developing countries. I question the claim that moral opposition to abortion somehow presupposes a lack of concern for the health of those women. Induced abortions have significant health risks to the mother (infection, fistulas, uterine adhesions, which can threaten fertility).
Jane Singleton claims ("A moral test for true believers, Rudd style", June 5) that more than half a million women die each year from "childbirth or related causes". I suggest the humanitarian solution to this is for developed nations to provide women with better nutrition, living conditions and antenatal care, rather than to kill their unborn children.
Dr Emma Whiteley Penrith
Arguments can be made for and against abortion (Letters, June 6), but opposition to funding for programs that promote contraception has no basis in logic. Those who claim to oppose abortion for evidence-based reasons, such as Jack de Groot, should be 100 per cent behind contraception because, when properly used, it renders abortion unnecessary.
The fewer children people have, the more resources can be put into their education and health. The healthier and more educated a population, the more taxes it generates to support a welfare state that will lead to population stability. Sadly, those who oppose contraception seem more interested in farming the faithful.
Andrew Potts St Peters