THE EDITOR, Sir:

THERE ARE contradictions in what Professor Affette McCaw-Binns presented on abortion via Athaliah Reynolds in Monday's Gleaner of July 14.

When the professor says "what we want is to create an environment where abortion is not needed", I see her admitting that direct abortion is not a good. For if it were good, she would recommend it and recommend it often. Why legalise something that is not good?

The statistic of one in 20 maternal deaths being caused by direct abortion reflects the fact that direct abortion is by no means a leading contributor to the maternal mortality in Jamaica. How can a cause that contributes only five per cent be called leading, especially when the real leading causes are each between 250 per cent and 500 per cent of it?

Page 35 of the Reproductive Health Survey 2002 states that, "The rate of abortion in Jamaica is low and accordingly, the number of respondents reporting they ever had induced abortions is very small". What counter arguments does the professor have for this?

What about the unborn?

The professor states a goal of trying to keep women alive. No mention is made of the unborn babies. What does this omission mean? Does it mean that killing an unborn baby is acceptable behaviour? Are not the unborn baby and the mother equals?

McCaw-Binns' mantra that we should separate personal views on morality and values from reality subverts truth by describing it as subjective when, in fact, truth is constant and universal. Truth is not to be boxed in as personal, even when all are not equally aware of it. That apartheid is wrong is a truth, and just because Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu was aware of this whilst others were not, does not mean that the truth was only to be applied personally and not universally. That all direct abortions are wrong is true.

I am, etc.,

ROMAIN G. STEWART

romainstewart@inbox.com

Mechanical Engineer and Educator

Manchester