Alan Hinnrichs goes over the same old pro-abortion arguments (Letters, 29 April). As a member of the Society for the Protection of Children Evangelical Branch, the statement that it is a front for the Catholic Church is not true. The society is a non-religious organisation.
It happens that most people who uphold the sanctity of human life do so because they recognise that every life is precious, and the unborn who have no voice are, like us all, made in the image of God. So the society will attract those who are religious and who care about the marginalised and vulnerable and the unborn. Religious groups support the teaching about relationships, rather than the clinical way that sex education is taught in schools. As one who has shown the development of the baby on video in schools under the Curriculum for Excellence to primary seven children, (without mentioning abortion) I can testify to the children’s delight as they understand that each one of them is unique and special.
With this knowledge, and more and more understanding that abortion need not be a knee-jerk answer to a crisis pregnancy, we look forward to the next generation having more compassion towards the unborn, religious or not.
Conon Bridge, Rosshire
Les Reid (Letters, 30 April) has obviously not read (or chooses to ignore) the judgment in the Savita Halappanavar case in Ireland, as he mistakenly says she died because she was refused an abortion. The verdict was “medical misadventure”. The law would have allowed a termination if the medical staff had felt this lady was at risk.
Regarding the Catholic midwives, Mr Reid says “people have had ample time to adjust their career choices”. Why should they change their career path when their valid conscientious objection could easily be accommodated? Midwives sign up to help bring new life into the world, not to end it.
Robert Burns Avenue