Des Turner wrote a helpful and largely balanced article on the current possibilities for amending the 1967 Abortion Act (The Argus, November 2). The subject is not an easy one and there is a clear need for those on both sides of the debate to respect the views of others.

Unfortunately, the two sides of the abortion debate are largely mutually exclusive, since their fundamental assumptions are completely different.

Those with a pro-choice perspective would doubtless agree with Dr Turner when he says that: "It would not be moral for the pro-life argument to be used to prevent women from exercising their right to abortion."

However, those with a pro-life perspective would have little choice but to disagree. From their perspective, the foetus is a human being and abortion consequently the taking of a life. It would therefore be eminently moral, indeed a necessity, to use the "pro-life argument"

to restrict the right to abortion, at least to some degree.

Therein lies the dilemma for the law-makers. But whichever side of the debate we find ourselves on, surely we can all agree that 200,000 abortions a year is far too many.

Even David Steel, who sponsored the original act in 1967, has pointed out that abortion is now used as another kind of contraception.

Indeed, it is not uncommon for the same women to return for abortion after abortion.

Whatever else needs to be reviewed about the Abortion Act, surely we must address this cavalier misuse of a law that was designed to save lives and address desperate situations. Certainly, making it even easier to get an abortion is not going to help.

  • Richard Harris, Greenacres, Shoreham