Letter: Abortion dilemma
Your support helps us to tell the story
This election is still a dead heat, according to most polls. In a fight with such wafer-thin margins, we need reporters on the ground talking to the people Trump and Harris are courting. Your support allows us to keep sending journalists to the story.
The Independent is trusted by 27 million Americans from across the entire political spectrum every month. Unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock you out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. But quality journalism must still be paid for.
Help us keep bring these critical stories to light. Your support makes all the difference.
Sir: The abortion debate never ceases to amaze me. The issue is straightforward.
If the foetus is a human individual, arguments about convenience, women's rights and so on are irrelevant: the foetus is protected by basic rights. Dr McCormack (Letters, 21 January) writes: "It is not the doctor's role to impose personal moral inclinations on the patient." Suppose I tell Dr McCormack that I wish to murder my helpless and incontinent mother, who is disrupting my chosen lifestyle, and could I borrow his axe for the afternoon. I trust he would agree that it is very much his human role to impose his personal moral inclinations on me.
Alternatively, the foetus is an inanimate lump of flesh. In this case no moral question arises, and the mother is entitled to have it removed.
Perhaps future contributions on the topic should be headed by a statement of which alternative the writer believes. The rest of the letter will then become redundant.
PETER CROFT
Cambridge
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments