Abortion

He appears to laud the Bill's justification of abortion, overlooking the similarity with road building where "measurements"

and economics are major factors rather than the sanctity of a human life.

At 24 weeks, it's a baby capable of independent existence: a week earlier it's a disposable foetus without human status. Only politicians (and the odd columnist) could make such a conclusion.

Sentencing to death a potentially viable human being on a "technicality", deliberately denying its rightful development, is repugnant and offensive to human decency and dignity.

Mr Merrick proceeds to "plumb the depths" by implying that disability justifies abortion (tough luck Beethoven and Professor Hawkins). He emphasises the expense of special ward care for surviving babies. Money again.

Finally, he proclaims science as boss in decision-making. Not a mention of ethical or moral dimensions. How typical of secular journalism. I remind Mr Merrick that science gave us Thalidomide, causing the sorts of disability now classed as grounds for abortion.

What a crazy, mixed up and hypocritical species we humans are.

Mike Baldasera, Darlington.

READERS of Rob Merrick's article about abortion (Echo, May 15) could infer from it, given the way it is worded, that abortions only take place when the babies have "terrible" and "appalling disabilities".

That is not the case. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that the 200,000 or more annual victims of abortion in this country are anything other than perfectly normal, healthy babies.

The reason for their being aborted has nothing to do with medical or any other legitimate consideration.

It's because their existence would interfere with their mothers' social lives. That's what abortion is all about - selfishness and irresponsibility and utter contempt for human life. In suggesting otherwise, in his slanted and distorted article, Mr Merrick is being singularly disingenuous.

Tony Kelly, Crook, Co Durham.