The Editor, Sir:

Reading the letter 'Distortions in abortion debate' by Jennifer Jones, which appeared in The Gleaner of October 9, I could not refrain from shaking my head. If "distortion of the abortion debate" was the supposed issue of this letter, then it has certainly contributed to misinform the public even more than the writer intended.

Quoting the medical journal Lancet does not help the issue at hand in Jamaica. And the statistics of the Ministry of Health are misquoted in applying all data as if they refer to 'induced abortion', which they are not.

Gynaecologists call any loss of pregnancy 'abortion' and it's this overall term that the MOH paper refers to. That's not what we debate here. We are debating whether or not a woman should be allowed to terminate her pregnancy wilfully by aborting the child she is carrying. The MOH data cannot help in this respect.

Jones contends that if one removes a foetus from the mother's womb, it could not survive and is therefore no human being. Well, I pose the question: if a baby is born after a pregnancy of nine months, can it survive on its own? Certainly, without the mother's care, it would die. The writer notes further that a foetus does not look like a child ... well, a little basic biology class would help. Or, check the internet for photos of foetuses in different stages of development.

It is a given fact that at 10-12 weeks the body of an unborn human being (yes, a human being, which can suck his/her thumb at that age of development) is fully developed and the only thing he/she needs to do is to gain weight until birth.

viable human life

Jones uses a very dangerous notion very loosely in stating that a foetus eventually becomes "viable human life". How do you define viable human life? Is someone in a coma on life-support, who cannot speak, communicate, work or function on his/her own a "viable human life"? Or, could we kill that person too because he/she is not viable on her own?

In addition, Jones should learn that an unborn human being is never part of the mother's body. By simple genetics, an unborn baby has a unique set of genes, composed of the chromosomes of the mother and the father. No other human being has that unique composition of genes. An unborn child is being nourished by the mother's body, but that's all the connection there is. Therefore, the mother carries a child that is completely different and distinct from herself. If she aborts, she aborts not a part of her body but another human being.

To the question: what is life? No, we don't have the power over what you call "optimal emotional, psychological and spiritual existence". That belongs to a higher power than you and me.

You implore us to "save lives". I agree with that statement. Only, you don't save lives by aborting them! You save lives by letting the children be born and caring for them. To save lives, we are called to improve our social environment and the care for mothers and children.

carefully stipulated

You support the Abortion Policy Review Advisory Group's recommendations to the Ministry of Health, which you call 'carefully stipulated'. Read again; the contradictions galore. They will certainly not create what you desire: "an environment where conception is a responsible act and every newborn is wanted and loved". That beautiful world will not be achieved by allowing induced abortion. These recommendations will destroy lives, rip apart the morals for responsible sexual Behavior, force medical personnel to act against their oath, and waste our taxpayers' money to pay for killing clinics - whereas what we really need are facilities to create a proper social network for mothers and babies.

Ms Jones, by studying a broader set of correct documents you will recognise your error of thinking.

I am, etc.,

ANNE ARTHUR

amecarthur@yahoo.com