I refer to ?State Lip Service to Women?s rights? (l?express 8th March 2007). The Mauritius Family Planning and Welfare Assocation wants to debate with a subtle a priori or assumption ?Women?s right to safe abortion: who cares??

Experience in countries where abortion can be carried out legally and under strict hygienic conditions indicates that there is no such thing as safe abortions. The short-term consequences reported there are: perforation of the uterus, dangerous haemorrhage, infections, anaesthetic accidents, etc. and the long-term ones are increased rates of ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage, pelvic inflammatory disease with painful sexual intercourse, secondary infertility and breast cancer.

There is no such risk with spontaneous abortions. Also the mental trauma is like the submerged part of an iceberg. The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (UK) stated, in relation to abortions, ?The incidence of serious permanent psychic aftermath is variously reported as between 9 and 59%.? Should we legalise procedures that kill the innocent foetus simply to render the process less risky for the woman while remaining 100% deadly for the foetus.

In the article, it is stated ?The MFPA is as tired as the public of the sterile debate? but is it not rather possible that it is simply tired of its primary function and failing to deliver but it is also too tired to realise that its clamour for legalisation is a measure of its failure?

A baby in the womb in mortal danger

The figures on abortion put forward by the MFPA based on those treated in hospitals and clinics for complications have not, to my knowledge, separated the induced from the spontaneous and therefore their computations are probably skewed.

The National Health Service is presented as hypocritical when it treats the complications of backyard abortions. And when it treats people with attempted suicide? People injured by exceeding the speed limit? If it does, it will be accused of "non-assistance to a person in danger".

Whenever abortion is being contemplated, is not the baby in the womb in danger, mortal danger? Please spare us the sophism of saying that an embryo is not alive, that it is simply a clump of cells or a simple clot from the external appearance. I have shown in l?express and elsewhere that it is alive, and very much so, if you consider the process leading to uniovular or identical twins.

Is it not ironical that, when we are celebrating The International Day for Women, the unique feature of women being their power, privilege, and right to bear a child, some are trying to deny or annul such power? I hope some day the United Nations will come round to celebrating the memory of the generation lost through abortions, especially induced ones.

Dr François IP