The killing of children by abortion violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that, 'the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE as well as after birth.’ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects the right to life of ‘all members of the human family’. Since the unborn are members of the human family the UDHRs protects the right to life of the unborn. The claim that some human lives are ‘not persons’ or ‘have no legal status’ or ‘have no rights to protect’ have been used to justify slavery and the slave-trade, the Nazi persecution of the Jews and others, and of women who, for instance in Canada, had the status of ‘non-persons’ up until 1925. To claim that others are ‘non-persons’ is used to remove the moral and social obstacles for committing acts of violence. www.unitedforlife.com shows how abortion, embryo experimentation and IVF are modern forms of slavery.

Chris Mason, Cheltenham,

Whatever anyone says, this 40 yearold law needs looking at again. Even David Steel himself acknowledges that. What nature does is one thing; what we choose to do as moral beings is quite another. No one is suggesting that the issue is an easy one. One has only to read the submitted comments to realise just how emotive it is. However, in defence of the cardinal - and I am not a catholic - at least he's had the courage to speak his mind, which is seldom the case in our politically correct society. For those who are attacking the church because of his comments, the church in the main remains silent on the issue giving characteristically no direction whatsover!

Robert Clarke, Chorley, UK

'The Cardinal called on universities and medical schools to teach that “all human life” deserved protection.' Does that include the lives of the victims of allied bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or those of the Protestants burned during the counter- reformation?

I don't recall the Pope castigating the German airmen who bombed Coventry and killed mothers and their unborn children in the second world war.

Voters must remember that, if they elect Roman Catholics, their representatives will be open to religious blackmailing.

E Thomson, London, England

Emotive language from a man who isn't required to take the individual responsibility for another human being for the rest of his life. He has too much to say for someone who isn't queueing up to adopt all of the unwanted children we already have. Perhaps Mr O' Brien should go and preach in Ireland where he quite clearly came from and should have remained.

Judy , Liverpool, england

Tim Jackson you have easily come up with the definition of life: "when a foetus can live independently outside the uterus with the potential to continue reasonably normal development" . Therefore it is not murder for example to kill a foetus inside the womb with arms, legs, heart, brain, emotions, pain..etc at 39 weeks of pregnancy. Equally because it cannot live independently it is not murder to kill a premature baby in a relevant hospital ward.
As a doctor, I am amazed how much people can modify their sense of logic to justify convenient acts.

j trigonis, leeds, w yorkshire

PHIL writes
'It is disingenuous to claim that because God allows something to happen, their is an implication that the act is right.'

CARR
But the implication is clear that allowing abortion is right.

If God allows abortion, then allowing abortion is the correct thing to do.

If it was morally correct to interfere with abortion, then God would do the morally correct thing.

Steven Carr, Liverpool,

I am secular and Quite atheist.
It therefore surprises me that I am in agreement with the Obrians [Cormac and otherwise]. Abortion is a messy business involving others. It is time that people took responsibility for their actions in and out of bed. If they cant ,then there are plenty of people only to willing to adopt. In this regard the RC record is impeccable.
I am of the persuision that where I compelled to adopt a faith, RC would be the last which I would consider.
However I do admire their stance and willingness to speak out about this contencious issue.

Ron Bentham, Nantwich, Cheshire

Once again we see religious leaders, with their head in the clouds, commenting on important topical issues.
I am a doctor who has to deal with patients asking for such procedures and I can assure the cardinal that none of us take such a decision lightly.
It is after much deliberation and counselling that such procedures go ahead, in what all concerned see as the best course of action.
It must be remembered that not everyone uses it as a f'orm of contraception' - all of us would find this very distateful.
It is often with great pains that patients come to the decision to carry out an abortion. It often leaves them mentally scarred for life.
It must also be remembered that many abortions are carried out for medical reasons - would the cardinal rather a severely disabled child be born with a short, painful life ahead of it? (probably, yes).
I think religious leaders need to adapt to the times; for one thing, we do not need to return to the times of illegal abortions.

Dr P Morgan, Chichester,

Damn it, why is Bill Hicks still away with the UFOs when we really need him?
We must never weaken in our fight against those who would wish to steal all from us that makes us human; sex, death, our own bodies.
"God" remains silent on this issue, as it has on all issues raised by those who claim to represent it.

Mike, Durham,

OK Tingey - you asked about the 'unanswered question' you keep asking:

'What is our position on all those natural abortions?'

The reason no-one has answered it is because it's not a good question. What about them? What is your point?

Mother nature does all kinds of things to us humans and animals too. She makes trees drop on the ground and kill people and fire spring up and burn things .

It's nature. It happens. Or do you think there is some spooky hand in all those deaths?? If so, who's hand?
Rephrase your question and you may get an answer more often.

Peter, Mullion, UK

Gregor Addison,
Is the cardinal not the head of his congregation? How is it not in his perview to say that it is wrong, more than just wrong, a sin. If you are a christian( If your not then this doesnt apply) then i would like you to point out in the Bible where exactly it says that the killing of innocent babies becouse of a grown adults inability to keep their pants up is acceptable. Their is no room in the church for people who believe it is ok to kill babies, not becouse the cardinal says its wrong but becouse god says its wrong. children are precious in his eyes. I believe it was said by someone else already but religion is not simply something that you can take what you like and leave the rest. Either you are a member of the catholic church or not there is not fence sitting, no grey area.

BEN, Charlotte, USA

It does not really become the religious to lecture the rest of us on what is moral and what is not. They do seem under the illusion that they invented morality when in truth it has it's roots more in the survivalist group mentality of our shaggy forbears than the contradictory and sadistic lecturings of the Old Testament.

Thanks all the same but I would rather rely on my own intelligence and the ideas of others past and present to work out what my views are on morality and ethics. I understand that others would rather not think for themselves and instead swallow the rather odd and entertaining ramblings of whichever good book is currently the one true way.

For what it's worth, life in my view starts when a foetus can live independently outside the uterus with the potential to continue reasonably normal development. It is a view - not necessarily the right one - but one that in a single sentence can be justified by reasoned argument where your blind reliance on scripture cannot.

Tim Jackson, Faversham, UK

Abortion is a legal type of murder.
It might be convenient, practical and sometimes prevent big problems but it is still taking a human life/murder.
What is a human life? One cell, 4 cells, 100, 1223344, 100002344000. Is a foetus at 14 weeks a human and not at 14.1 weeks etc.
Who can define those things?
As a society we could call abortion anything we like but that doesn't make it any different.
Another thing: Show on national tv reality medical images from an abortion and see whether the general publics view changes.

john trigonis, leeds, w yorkshire

Thank you Cardinal Keith O’Brien because you've just demonstrated another fine example of the hypocracy that is innate in Catholicism. Whilst you preach about the 'social evil' that is abortion and likening it to Dunblane, the faith that embodies you and many other Roman Catholics continues to ignore the millions of people dying in Africa and other areas of the world due to AIDS.

Babies are being handed a death sentence whilst still in the womb, because Catholicism teaches their parents that contraception is yet another 'evil' or 'sin'. If you and your self righteous followers want to remind us of your warped view about abortion then fair enough that is your right. However let me remind you that these millions of deaths or to choose your terminology, murders, of which you could prevent but choose not to are in the name of the very religion you and others choose to be defined by. How moral.

To use Mr O'Brien's analogy, how many Dunblanes has the Roman Catholic church committed?

Charlene McAuley, Manchester, England

Abortion is wrong.
It seems strange to me that when news is shown of Soldiers and Civilians dying in countries such as Afganistan and Iraq, the public are devastated, however, when innocent babies are cut up and thrown in the garbage, people don't seem to care.

John Williamson, Nottingham, England

First, let me declare my own position. I have no religious belief. I do not like abortion, but accept that it is sometimes necessary. I come, then, somewhere between Cardinal O'Brien and the pro-abortion lobby.

Is anyone surprised that a Catholic is anti-abortion? Further, the Cardinal is within his rights as a democrat and a man when he points out that two contradictory positions exclude each other. His church condemns contraception and abortion; those who accept these cannot, then, be full members in good standing of that church, any more than a Tory would be expected to support nationalisation.

He is, again, correct in pointing out that his followers have votes and should use them to support their principles. All lobby groups do this. The pro-abortionists notably did this themselves about the time of the passing of the abortion act; I remember questionnaires on the issue sent to candidates.

Why should free speech be available only to one tendency?

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

I think we need to realise that in a democracy people who are elected should remember why they are there, and that is to serve the wishes of the electorate not to change things with regard to a minority religious view. Cardinals, who are not elected, must also remember that while they may hold a position in their organisation that should not give them any sway of the rest of our lives.

The Cardinal would do well to remember some times when a zealous religious (or pseudo-religious) minority has had the power over the majority and how disastrously it has always ended.

A society with such complexity as our own needs to move on from the absolute and draconian laws that the Catholic Church seems so desperate to hold onto. As Church numbers in the UK hit an all time low I think the reasons for this are becoming more apparent, namely the Churches total lack of relevance to most peoples' lives.

Oli Bulloss, Sheffield, England

Two generations have grown up with this law and it has shaped today's society. Teenagers are sexualized into a world where even their peers may have several STDs and the mental pathologies to go with them. Sex is just the cheapest form of fun and any 'little problems' can be sorted out by a doctor. Still feeling blue? Have another drink and forget about it.

Thank you, Cardinal O'Brien for reminding everyone. Britain's abortion law is preposterously lax and its timid restrictions are widely disregarded. The scientific and sociological assumptions of those who voted for it have been discredited. Surely nobody nowadays still believes that babies 'evolve' in the womb, or that Downs syndrome children are throwbacks to a less evolved racial type.

By the way, why don't I ever see Downs syndrome children in England? Here in Switzerland, there are lots.

Sarah Harvey, Chateau-d'Oex, Switzerland

If you are a member of a particular football club - then people expect you to barrack for that club. If you join the Catholic Church it is the same thing. It's not an 'all you can eat buffet' where you pick and choose the teachings and/ or lifestyle you like. The Church teaches - and has ALWAYS taught - that abortion is WRONG. Yes, "wrong" - a word we don't hear very much these days. If you are a Catholic - that means you are part of a 'people' - a people who believe a common teaching. A Catholic Bishop is within his rights to say, what he said. Only an outright hypocrite would profess to be a Catholic and support abortion. By the way, how many people out there who support abortion would be pleased to hear that 80, 000, 000 abortions take place each year throughout the world!! These aren't 'emergencies' ... admit it, abortion rates are out of control and they underpin the "selfish society" of the 21st century.

GET REAL, cairns, australia

In this world most of us have to choose between one evil and another and decide which is the greater.

Politicians in democracies face this dilemma too, and are in a particularly difficult position. Their party decides on something they believe evil, but which is widely supported by the public. But they consider that, overall, their party is correct. What should they do?

The West is now suffering the deadly worldwide fall out from the invasion of Iraq. Why? Because a great many decent Americans twice voted for G W Bush because he claimed he stood for 'traditional values' notably opposition to abortion. (How sincerely one may doubt - but certainly on the advice of Karl Rove). Which was worse - abortion deaths in the US or the overall casualties in Iraq PLUS the unquantifiable disaster we all face worldwide?

Let church leaders teach that abortion is wrong, but they must remember the doctrine that the individual's (including politicians') conscience is supreme.

J Pedler, Sarlat, France

It is disingenuous to claim that because God allows something to happen, their is an implication that the act is right. Many ask 'If there is a God, why does he allow suffering?'. They do not assert that we should not try to avoid or alleviate suffering, because God allows it to exist.

If your home was burgled, or someone you loved was seriously assaulted and robbed, let alone murdered, or a child was molested; I don't believe you would say that God allowed it to happen, so nobody should do anything about it? I believe you would expect 'justice' and you would expect it here on earth.

Phil, W Yorks, UK

Gee, I've never heard any of these lines before. Blackmail, condoms, archaic beliefs, separation of politics and religion. You are so sophisticated. The bottom line is that you pro-abortion people simply do not like to be told what is right or wrong, although you don't seem to have any problem telling those who believe differently. I don't think anyone can honestly say that "sexual health" has improved since the advent of abortion and constraception. When are you abortion advocates going to come up with some new arguments to justify your immoral behaviour?

Ryan, St. Paul, United States

Abortion is infinitely more responsible than bringing yet more unwanted children into the world

Sarah, London,

Two Dunblane's worth of sinless babies are going to Heaven each day.

No wonder the Cardinal is upset.

God allows abortions to take place.

Clearly, allowing abortions to take place is the moral thing to do.

Steven Carr, Liverpool,

Although I am too young people tend to forget the awful medical problems and regular deaths of pregnant women from illegal abortions carried out in the most horrific situations. Now in this country it is almost unheard of to hear of a woman having to resort to back street abortionists

chris quartly, dunstable,

Unfortunately, common sense and logic, are lost on those badly affected by the religious virus.

Some might say they are either wicked or stupid...perhaps in the future some treatment might become available for these poor souls.

Anna, Camberley,

There are a lot of issues which the church needs to face up to in these days, and not only the catholic church.
Yes, the issue of extra marital and pre marital sex urgently needs attention, but the case of abortion is also urgently needing addressed. Murdering the unborn child is not an acceptable form of contraception in any society. It is exactly the same as infanticide. At least he has the courage to say NO, unlike so many people who just say Whatever....

Susan Sim, aberdeen,

I will ask the usual question, to which I have never recieved an answer from the religious.

Natural abortions have always outnumbered live births in the human species.
If "human life begins at conception" as the catholics claim, then what is their position on those natural abortions?

But, perhaps one should not expect a rational answer, given that all the cardinal is doing is a standard tactic of all religions, and all religious leaders.
He is trying to blackmail people.

G. Tingey, London, England

Maybe the cardinal should take his head out of his scriptures and learn some biology before making such a crude and offensive analogy. If he did so he might learn the difference between a 3 month old fetus and a 6 year old child. Of course the Catholic church doesn't accept such modern technical distinctions because it prefers to blindly accept its 2000 year old beliefs. We all know now that the earth revolves around the sun, even the catholic church had to accept this, maybe its about time they revised some of their other primative beliefs and accepted the distinctions between a cell, a fetus and a baby.

J W Randall, Edinburgh,

If the church doesn't approve of abortion, then the answer could be to support and teach dependable contraception methods. The preaching of no condoms to Africans has caused the death through disease to many more classrooms full of children than abortion ever has. The mental trickery of endorsing the 'natural' method, devised by John Billings who recently suffled off this mortal coil after having nine children, is dishonest.

Rather than reexaming the law, the cardinal should spend his time looking at the church's peculiar interpretation of the scritptures. One method of contraception is good and holy but another is bad and the work of the devil? Mental gymnastics worthy of a lawyer.

Derek Smith, Brighton, UK

I'm surprised that some people consider the intentional killing of unborn human life "undemocratic" - to the best of my knowledge, the Human Rights Act (1998) does not specify any exceptions in Article 2 as to what kind of life isn't worth protecting. If anything, the extermination of a future voter should be called undemocratic.

Abortion rates in the UK are second only to Russia. It's about time to rid humanity of the phenomenon. But the solution must comprise full support for the mothers-to-be in their difficult times.

Jochen L. Leidner, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

The Cardinal's analogy to Dunblane was distasteful. This is not an expression of 'conscience' but an attempt to hijack an event that emotionally reverberates in the Scottish psyche to force that 'consience' upon others. If there is a debate to be had on abortion, this is not the way to do it.

The Cardinal is effectively saying there is no room in the Catholic church for those who hold views contrary to his, even if it is, to them, a matter of 'conscience'. He would have been better drawing attention to why abortion figures are up but that would have meant confronting the issue of sexual activity outside of marriage, a fact the church has managed to ignore. The fact is, many Catholics also ignore the church on this issue.

To try and exercise political muscle by levelling threats at your own flock seems not only distasteful but downright stupid. It sends out the message, if you are not for us you are against us. He may find that many Catholics do not share his opinions.

Gregor Addison, Glasgow, Scotland