THE EDITOR, Sir:
I write this letter in relation to an article written by Eulalee Thompson - "Is the foetus a person? In The Gleaner of September 26, 2001.
Since the foetus is alive and human, my answer is yes.
Thompson quotes Dr. Errol Daley in the article as saying "My own feeling is that up to 20 weeks, a woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body but she will probably need counselling."
The article tells the reader that the Medical Association of Jamaica proposes that "the termination of pregnancy is indicated for medical reasons, subject to informed consent under the following conditions:
- significant foetal abnormality;
- conditions which threaten maternal welfare or health;
- pregnancy as an outcome of rape or incest".
What the MAJ has proposed is incorrect for the following reasons:
- life is more important than its quality and the cost of care is less than the cost of life.
- all mothers-to-be should rather die by themselves or with the child so that the child can live longer.
- once conception has occurred, the how is irrelevant.
The answer to abortion is abstinence.
Supporters of limited or unlimited abortion, must first prove that it is not murder and be able to say definitely when human beings begin.
Dr. Daley, uncertainty does not beget certainty. Persons uncertain of the nature of the 'abortee' cannot ask for a certain abortion law.
I refer you to these words from the "Declaration on Procured Abortion" by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - "From a moral point of view this is certain: even if a doubt existed concerning whether the fruit of conception is already a human person, it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder".
I am, etc.,
ROMAIN STEWART
rostewart@go-jamaica.com
