Michael is to be congratulated for so accurately pinning the pro-choice position. He exposes the absurd notion that the self is the ultimate authority and is insulated from the rest of society and its mores. We should all be appalled that so many abortions are taking place in our hospitals; if the foetus is not a human being what is it? Abortion is nothing less than murder and its legalization is an indication of how corrupt our society is.

Peter Sellick

There is one portion of this article I must object to, Cook wrote:
"Furthermore, "in an emergency where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman”, the doctor must perform it." This should not even be an option, it should be a mandatory obligation. In many cases where an emergency situation exists that requires an abortion to save the life of the mother the child is too young to survive outside the womb. In those cases where the child is old enough medical complications from whatever is causing the emergency will often kill the child anyway even if it is delivered.

Although it may sound callous, should not the life of the child be sacrificed who to be fair has probably known (if conscious) nothing but warmth and comfort to save the life of the mother instead of trying a hopelessly desperate attempt to save both just to placate a doctors conscience? The answer from any sane rational person who does not have a vested interest must be yes.

As for the other issues of abortion, these are subjects in areas in which angels fear to tread. Fools have at it...

Michael accuses Leslie of being a relativist.

Perhaps he should read the contents of these two sites to see the easy chosen relativism of his favourite institution.

A relativism which it chose the moment the "church" was coopted by the Roman state,and thus became another entirely worldly power seeking institution, which inevitably created mountains of corpses and rivers of blood.

1. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

2. http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

' But what would happen if a 14-year-old girl requested to be circumcised? Unlikely, perhaps, but possible in certain cultural settings. Would MPs force a conscientious objector to refer the girl to a colleague down the corridor who specialises in genital mutilation? I think not. I suspect that they would regard mandatory referral as an abhorrent violation of a doctor’s conscience.'

Haha. Where is Steel? Would this be a Jewish doctor perhaps?

Many would question the belief that a doctor’s conscience is more important than a woman’s right to have an abortion. That a doctor would be too uptight to deny the woman a referral to another doctor (one without a conscience?) suggests that the doctor should find another occupation where he/she can refuse a service without denying another person her wish.

As for this male writer, the comparison of requested abortion with genital mutilation by another dreary pro-foetus person is rubbish.

As a male, I support women’s decisions to have an abortion or to not have an abortion. If I was opposed to abortion, I would keep my mouth shut because it is ‘women’s business’.

a sleazy misreading of cannold's piece.

but i appreciate sellick's response. in the past sellick has implicitly been a disgusting moral grandstander. it's refreshing that he is now explicitly a disgusting moral grandstander.