Peter Espeut, with whom I shared some theology classes nearly 30 years ago, gains full marks for his observation that a foetus is not a part of a woman's body.

He is also quite right in observing that the right to choose anything is constrained by law and ethics.

But, where I want to challenge him is in the last sentence of his column of February 13: "All this talk of abortion is about trying to avoid the consequences of irresponsible sexual intercourse."

Bear in mind, his first word here is "all". Let's walk through it step by step:

For example, a loving, married couple becomes pregnant, lo and behold, the pregnancy becomes potentially fatally complicated, and, in technical terminology, the foetus becomes an 'aggressor'.

The medical authorities indicate that either the mother or the foetus might live, but not both. Complicate it some more: The authorities say it is highly likely that both mother and foetus could die! Complicate it some more: These parents have three other young children, and no extended family. Who decides who should be allowed to live?

While it does not necessarily follow on that her foetus would contract the virus, it is more highly likely to than not, especially in socio-economically challenged situations. Given what we know about children with AIDS in impoverished situations, who decides, in such a circumstance, about abortion or not?

I am not suggesting that if forewarned that a baby could be AIDS-ridden, or morbidly deformed or mentally incapacitated, we should abort it! I am suggesting that this matter cannot be reduced to sexual irresponsibility in "all" cases.

No one could seriously deny that too many wanton abortions - too many abortions at all - exist anywhere, including Jamaica, and reduction or elimination is a must. But until then, we have some very difficult questions with which to wrestle.

Indeed, challenging people to be sexually responsible is inseparable from any solution to reducing or eliminating abortions. Raising their socioeconomic quality of life is another.

Strengthening their spiritual value system is yet, another. But it is undeniable that careful and sensitive legislation has got to be a part of this, despite the fact that people will always break laws and find loopholes. But we should not make knee-jerk decisions that result in draconian laws with counterproductive, even horrifying, results.

Too many proponents of right-to-life sustain a disconnection between the right of a foetus to be born, and the right of a foetus, now born, to live - even if he became a dangerous criminal.

- REV MICHAEL FRIDAY, Nebraska

While claiming to be neutral in the abortion debate, Dr William Aiken in his February 19 'Letter of the Day' instead argues for abor-tion in almost every conceivable instance.

In each case, however, his arguments are easily refutable.

He fails to explain, however, why the life of the mother should take precedence over the life of the unborn child when both are equal before the law and God.

He fails to understand that a foetus is not part of a woman's body. I have never, for example. known of a person to have two hearts.

Aiken even takes the Old Testament (Ecclesiastes 3: 1-3) out of context to justify abortion.

This argument suggests that time and money are more valuable than human life. Since when are mercy and compassion immoral traits?

This is just a restatement of his first argument, only here he gives extended abortion rights to young women who do not want a child.

Aiken concludes by contradicting himself. He says, "Moral behaviour and decency cannot be enforced by law" but then goes on to say that abortions committed outside his own boundaries "should be criminally charged and imprisoned once found guilty".

Ultimately, Aiken believes moral behaviour should be enforced - only that it should be according to his own morality and not that of the law of God which forbids all murder.

- PETER MORAL, peter_moral@yahoo.ca

I write in respect of the article written by Colin Steer which was published in your edition of Sunday, February 17.

Mr Steer stated inter alia that "according to the advisory group, as many as 641 patients were admitted to the VJH (Victoria Jubilee Hospital) which deals with abortions and their complications, between March 1 and August 31, 2005."

This figure needs to be investigated. Out of concern, I went and sat with an obstetrician/gynaecologist who works at the VJH.

He informed me as follows:

In fact, I am told that many times, the term 'abortion' is used in medical circles to cover both spontaneous (miscarriages) and induced abortions.

To use Steer's language then, 48 women were admitted to the VJH over the particular six-month period in 2005 for "botched abortions and complications" .

This is stated at the foot of the relevant table which can be found near the end of the report where it is stated that "48 patients admitted to attempting termination of pregnancy".

I challenge Steer to have this figure investigated and then to report to us members of the public the outcome of such investigations.

As we proceed in this debate, let us all make an effort to ensure that we are factual in our data and analysis.

- S. RICHARDS, Kingston 10