Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 26th July 2008 Change Date

Free tickets to Impressionism and Scotland

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Denying reality



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

David Purves's grandiose claim that there "is no human right for anybody to kill a healthy unborn baby" (Letters, 13 May) is incredibly offensive in its blithe disregard of the most obvious human right involved – a woman's right to control of her own body, including the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Indeed, it's the blind adherence to the kind of lofty ideals purported by Dr Purves that has succeeded in bringing innumerable unwanted and uncared for children into the world, often resulting in a diminished quality of life for mothers and offspring alike. To appreciate the extent of the disconnect between the views of anti-abortionists such as Dr Purves and the messy complexities of reality, one need only consider the case of Elisabeth Fritzl.

OLIVER DOWNES, Lauriston Park, Edinburgh





The full article contains 133 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 May 2008 8:58 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Gilbert McAdam,

Manila 17/05/2008 02:58:21
1. Dr Purves did not deny a woman's rights (or responsibilities) with regard to her own body. He denied her right to kill an unborn child, which is somebody else's body.

2. Why do you think a woman's right to control her own body is more obvious than a child's right to live?

3. What on earth has the case of Elizabeth Fritzi got to do with this?
2

Mikey,

17/05/2008 06:28:32
A woman is, say, four months pregnant. She goes to a family 'do' and perhaps has a little too much to drink. Next day, her non viable foetus miscarries and she is grief stricken.

I presume that all you anti abortionists out there would have this woman arrested on a charge of culpable homicide?
3

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 17/05/2008 07:39:46
A woman may have rights over her own body, but not sole rights over the baby's body. The father, the doctor, society and above all the wee soul also have rights.

Too often abortion is a form of birth control.

I suggest that once conception has taken place (up to three days after intercourse?) then the foetus has rights. Before then the 'morning after' pill seems OK.
4

Infidel,

Dar ul harb 17/05/2008 08:25:46
Gilbert #1:
"an unborn child, which is somebody else's body."

Rules #3:
"the foetus has rights"

It is nobody's body and it has no rights. A foetus is not a person. Something without a brain, or without a functioning cerebral cortex (ie. certainly up to 24 weeks, and probably for some time after) has no emotion, awareness, memory etc. In short no personality and nothing that goes to make a distinct personality. To give "rights" to something that is not even a person is just silly.
5

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 17/05/2008 08:30:26
Whether a woman has a 'human right' to kill anyone is not the issue. It is: is it wise to make abortion a criminal offence?
6

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 17/05/2008 15:13:47
#4 Infidel is a twit.

On his/her reckoning a severely handicapped adult human may have no rights. Clearly not so.
7

Infidel,

Dar ul harb 17/05/2008 17:43:44
Rules #6:
"On his/her reckoning a severely handicapped adult human may have no rights."

Depends. If that adult individual is brain dead then indeed that adult would have no rights. It would just be a corpse that breathes. If that individual has no cerebral cortex function then again there is no person there so it makes no sense to endow that individual with rights.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.