Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Scottish midwives lose legal battle not to assist in abortions

By on Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Two senior midwives from Glasgow have lost their battle not to assist in abortions following a court ruling.

In a judgment handed down today from the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Lady Smith ruled that the midwives must accept the decision of their hospital management to oversee other midwives who are performing abortions on the labour ward.

The midwives in the case, Miss Mary Doogan and Mrs Connie Wood, argued that they had never been required to supervise abortion procedures in the past, and that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions.

Although they said that this conflicted with their profound objection to abortions, Lady Smith said that the midwives involved were not protected by the conscience clause of the Abortion Act.

Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow said he was “deeply concerned” by today’s Court of Session ruling. He said: “I view this judgement with deep concern. I wish to put on record my admiration for the courage of the midwives who have, at very great cost to themselves, fought to uphold the right to follow one’s conscience. It is fundamental to the functioning of society that all citizens act in accordance with an informed conscience.

“Any law or judgement which fails to recognise this contradicts that most basic freedom and duty which we all have as human beings, namely to follow our conscience and act accordingly.” He said that any “assault on this principle undermines the very basis of the law itself and society’s moral cohesion, which the law should seek to guarantee.”

The Society for Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) also expressed their disappointment with the decision.

Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC said: “We are very disappointed by the judgment. SPUC has supported the midwives in bringing their case, and will now be considering their further legal options with them.”

Commenting on the ruling by the Edinburgh Court of Session in the case of Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood, Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said: “The case is yet another example of the way in which the UK Courts are interpreting s9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Religion) in the most limited and restrictive way possible.

“The courts have not hesitated to use the convention to protect murderous terrorists but have refused to use it two midwives who do not want to kill unborn children.

“What is more surprising is the extremely restrictive interpretation the judge has put on the Conscientious Objection clause in s4 of the Abortion Act.

“As the judge has interpreted it believing Catholics, Muslims and others will ever be able to take any form of supervisory or management role as midwives or nurses unless they are willing to be complicit in the provision of abortions.

“This decision is in stark contrast to recent decisions in the United States’ courts which have applied the American First Amendment to protect the conscience rights of pharmacists who refused to dispense the morning-after pill.”

  • maryp

    What a dreadful day for Catholic nurses. May God have marcy on us all!

  • ms Catholic state

    I think its time we Catholics and all pro-lifers began to insist on having pro-life doctors and midwives.  We might not get them…..but we must start requesting them.  They need our support now.

  • Fr Thomas Poovathinkal




  • ms Catholic state

    Let’s face it…..Muslims make all kinds of demands according to their religious beliefs….and they are accommodated.

  • Spongsdad

    In striving to provide equality under the law, the judiciary oversteps its brief when it denies the right of people to follow their conscience. All of our rights, and many of them have been hard won, are counterbalanced by corresponding responsibilities. The right to life must surely be the most fundamental of all as, without it, all our other rights are meaningless. Who will speak up for the rights of the unborn? I salute the courage of these brave women and their stand for the primacy of conscience and I deprecate the ruling of the judge, who must have a very warped view of conscientious objection.

  • Anonymous

    I would not expect anything else in this warped country.

  • Elizabeth

    These women should quit their job!  

  • Helen Damnation

    Lady Smith ought to hang her head in shame.

    What was in it for her?

    I really feel for those midwives.

  • Parasum

    Why did they become midwives in the first place ? If they can’t perform all the duties they are called upon to perform – are they in the right line of work ?

  • Anna

    They apparently became midwives to assist mothers in delivering healthy babies…not to help kill them!!
    Parasum…I hope that you were you being ironic!

  • buckingham88

    A few months ago a woman with twins had an abortion in Victoria,Australia.One of her children was chosen for abortion because the child had a disability that may lead to death.In the event the doctor chose the wrong baby and killed a ‘normal’ child.They then went back in,after discovering the mistake and killed the disabled child.After reading of this I have begun to seriously question the competence of the abortion process.This is because,at its heart,the patient always dies,so there is no check that the procedure was safe or even efficient.In this context the hospital needs competent committed people who will protect the mother,efficiently kill the child,and protect the hospital from litigation. They need competent midwives. It is the duty of the hospital to have adequate staff that is qualified,not the duty of particular staff to be available for particular surgeries.If the hospital wants to abort a child then all it has to do is find midwives ready and able to do so,if it cannot then it postpones this elective procedure.It is a pity the union is not apparently involved,because this involves the span of control,authority and duty of care of members.It would be appropriate to write into the award a minimal job description that insisted on the right to assist only in the delivery of children when the intention is to preserve them.
    In the animal rights movement increasingly there is the setting up of “no kill pounds’.These are a multi pronged attempt to bring to peoples minds the sensless destruction of tens of thousands of unwanted healthy dogs and cats a year.Yet our own nations children are in the same situation as dogs.This site could set up a fighting fund and ask for the pro bono help from some of the readers.Judging from the quality of some comment some are at the Bar.

  • Jane Brady

    When I was a student nurse in the 1970’s I was a member of The Catholic Nurses Association. The local Irish priest instructed the nurses, mostly from Ireland and The Philippines that they must not assist patients in any way whatsoever who were having a termination of pregnancy (abortion). He said that it was a sin for nurses to perform any treatment or administer any care or in any way whatsoever to these sinners – - – - – -.These impressionable and fanciful nurses took the priest at his word and were soon in trouble with the nursing management. Three of the Irish girls gave up their career as nurses on the say-so of an doddery old priest. I soon came to my senses and realised that nurses must take the patients as they find them, and be unequivocal, open-minded and unbiased in every aspect of the work. – - – - – -.How strange it is that the Catholic Church is still putting both feet in it’s mouth and shooting itself in the foot at the same time, thus alienating themselves even further from reason and rationality. The Catholic Church is now becoming a social nuisance and a source of parody and derision amongst the learned and sophisticated. The Roman Catholic Church have no special powers or consideration whatsoever and they have an inflated image of their own importance. 

  • Dave Corrigan

    And whom may I ask is we? Are you going to start a revolution? Will you camp outside the Houses of Parliament of Westminster Cathedral? Who the hell is going to take any notice of a bunch of whinging windbags? You have to obey the law as it stands, and until it is changed by Parliament. Please go back to bed, pull the curtains closed, pull the bedclothes over your head for a few days, and se if that makes any difference to your facile thinking.

  • Harry McCracken

    You seem to be in a bit of a state (a catholic state). So now you want to pick a fight with Muslims. You seem to be full of angst. You are probably cross because of the demise of Glasgow Rangers. Do not worry, they will recover to fight another day.

  • ms Catholic state

    I don’t want to pick a fight with Muslims….but it is a fact that the establishment are bowing to their every religious requirement.  In fact….in maternity wards Muslim women are given private rooms to protect their modesty.  I don’t know how this can continue as the number of Muslim women grows. 

  • ms Catholic state

    The fact is Catholics abide by the laws….until those laws turn on us.  Now is the time for us to make demands and support those with pro-life beliefs.  And the wider community should back us. There are many people not necesarrily religious who find abortion distasteful…and have no idea their midwives assist at abortions. 

  • Lazarus

    I’m afraid as the sort of pig ignorant peasant that ‘the learned and sophisticated’ such as yourself despise, I’m glad the Catholic Church goes on defending unborn children against the murderous intentions of my betters.

    Now back to trying to put both of my feet in my mouth whilst shooting myself in one of them. Tricky.

  • Jason Clifford

    I hope that the midwives appeal this ruling. The Abortion Act is very clear that “no person shall be under any duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection”

    This ruling is clearly wrong in law.

  • Jane Brady

    Ah!, Yes, but employment law and contracts of employment make clear that a nurse or midwife will carry out the terms of employment as directed by their employer. There is no get out clause. Before signing an contract of employment a person is obliged to disclose if there is any impediment that might render them from performing their professional duties. Therefore, it is not legal of ethical to agree to terms and conditions of employment and then renege on the agreement. There are no grounds for appeal and the nurse or midwife must accept the patient as they find them. This fiasco just reinforces just what a nuisance the Catholic church is in society and thisis another slide “down the slippery slope”. 

  • Jason Clifford

    What part of “whether by means of contract or any statutory or other requirement” is hard to understand?

    There is no basis under which it will ever be ethical to agree to kill a child irrespective of any contract or agreement. There is nothing to renege.

    This is not about “finding a patient as they find them” it is about the right of a medical practictioner to refuse to kill a child.

    I am very glad that the Catholic Church is a nuisance to a society that is so morally bankrupt that it kills its own children! The slippery slope here is the one this society is following and it leads to Hell.

  • Harry McCracken

    What about having respect for the law as it stands and as passed by Parliament. If you do not like the law then by all means lobby to have it changed using reason and logic, but not myth and hyperbole. Using terms like murder and murderous intentions is facile, and it is most unlikely that legislators will pay much heed to such emotive and subjective piffle. Although it is not legal to ask a prospective employee about their religion, it is legal to ask for references and to make other relevant inquiries particularly if the job in question is dependent on special ethical qualities such nursing and midwifery. The problem that may arise is that employers my make extra inquiries prior to selection or interview, and may choose not to employ to Catholics. This had happened before because Catholics were once deemed to be unreliable, and they are doing the same thing all over again. Therefore if the employer has a choice between employing a Catholic or a rational person they will be more likely to choose rationality instead of illogicality.

  • Jane Brady

    Muslim women are given private rooms to protect their modesty, for which they have to pay. Anyone can be a private patient if they choose to. Stop being bitter and begrudging and live the message of Jesus: “Love one another as I have loved you”. Simple !!.

  • Mark Castilano

    Mr McCracken…… You are behind the times, because what you say, may happen has already started to happen, and some employers are very cautious about employing Roman Catholics. What has happened in Glasgow has set the Catholic Church back to the days of covert discrimination. These ladies have not done the Catholic Church any favours, and there is likely to be negative ‘fallout’ as a consequence of these women’s blind stupidity. The Catholic Church has no special position or influence, and ordinary people are more likely to mock and parody the anachronistic doctrinal arguments of termination of pregnancy, that is nobody else’s business but the family involved and their medical supervisors. These midwives ought never have been allowed to train as nurses, or have been employed as midwives. It sounds as if they were most suited to being ironmongers.

  • Mark Castilano

    Your homespun interpretation of the law is meaningless. Why do you not study the transcripts of the case and study the points of law instead of making banal statements.Your reasoning is like that of the animal rights people who talk about murdering animals, when there is no such thing as murdering an animal. The same premise applies to cases of termination of pregnancy; it is not murder regardless of what you may say. Unless you have a law degree and the ability to present a case in court, why do you not accept that the law regarding termination of pregnancy has been passed by Parliament, and if you want to have it changed, then go to your MP and discuss this. You and the other fanatics ranting and raving is not going to help, because it will get decent people’s backs up.

  • Lazarus

    I shall leave the current state of the law to lawyers to argue over: it appears that at least the barrister Neil Addison believes that the case has been wrongly decided. On the assumption that the law is as it appears to be after this judgment, then I’m perfectly happy to argue for it to be changed. You suggest that describing abortion as murder is emotive: I would contend that it is simply an accurate description of the intentional killing of a human being. I’m quite sure that contention could be backed rationally and, if you take the trouble, there are plenty of Catholic resources on abortion that you could investigate to support this view.

    As to the effects on the employment prospects of Catholics, you may well be right. Catholics are indeed inherently unreliable as instruments of immorality. Ideally, society will come to realize the wickedness of current legislation on abortion in which case there will then be no problem in employing Catholics. Until that happy event, I hope that society will at least realize the social harm involved in trying to force the consciences of socially and professionally useful citizens.

    Your attacks on the use of ‘emotive and subjective piffle’ would be more convincing if your own comment were phrased in more measured terms.

  • Lazarus

    Although employment law may be determined by Parliament, the wrongness of killing children is determined by morality and not statutory fiat.

    The inability to distinguish between positive law (the law of the state) and natural law (the law of morality) appears to be a common failing among pro-death advocates such as yourself.

  • Jason Clifford

     The difference between killing a human child and killing an animal should be obvious to anyone.

    The claim that only those with a law degree are to be permitted to speak about such matters is authoritarian and simply wrong. Parliament lacks moral authority.

    Your calling us fanatics does not address the substantial issue here that forcing medical staff to take part in abortions is illegal under Section 4 of the Abortion Act. Section 4 specifically covers contracts and statutory obligations.

    I wonder what is your definition of decent such that it includes supporting the killing of innocent children and takes offence at those who decry such killing?

  • Jason Clifford

    If midwives are to be forced to take part in abortion those with a moral conscience will leave the NHS for private practice resulting in the NHS being even more poorly staffed in this respect.

  • savia

    This not a socialist dictatorship. How far will abortion rights go?

    So much for being pro-choice.
    A leading medical journal is now advocating infanticide of new borns. you ever studied fetal development, given your superior intelligence?

    Christopher Hitchens the pro-life atheist.

    As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body.  There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped.  Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”
    -Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)

  • savia

    So pro-life nurses, doctors, etc should lose their license?

    So much for being pro-choice.

    This is a socialist dictatorship, that wants to socialize medicine and dictate everybody’s health options.

    So Christopher Hitchens was an iron-monger.

    As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body.  There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even-this was seriously maintained-a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped.  Of the considerations that have stopped it, one is the fascinating and moving view provided by the sonogram, and another is the survival of ‘premature’ babies of feather-like weight, who have achieved ‘viability’ outside the womb. … The words ‘unborn child,’ even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.”
    -Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great (pp. 220-21)

    Given your superior intelligence have you ever studied fetal development?

    Activists to bring pro-life message to American Atheists convention featuring Richard Dawkins

  • Jane Brady

    The Catholic Church do not have a pro life history when one considers The Crusades, The Conquistadors, The Tudor and Elizabethan era, their support for Louis XIV, XV and XVI. Their support for General Franco, Dr Salazar, Mussolini, Hitler, Juan Peron, General Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos and so many other Catholic dictators who killed millions of people with the acquiescence of the Catholic Church. This fiasco has nothing to do with pro life, but more to do with Catholic Church power and control over women. The Catholic Church will have to come to terms (sooner or later) with the fact that rational people do not accept the idea of: the soul, original sin, life hereafter (heaven, hell purgatory limbo) and all the other concocted Constantine dogma regarding Jesus being God, Virgin Birth, and life everlasting. This fantasy and fiction does not add up, and there is not one iota of evidence anywhere that God, heaven or hell exists.

  • ms Catholic state

    They don’t have to pay.  These rooms are supposed to be for women with pregnancy complications who have to stay in hospital to be monitored.  So they are free (NHS).  But how they are allocated is anyone’s guess!  Hmmm…..someone should investigate.

  • Charles Martel

    Archbishop Mario Conti is “deeply concerned”. Oooh! I’m sure that’ll have the authorities trembling in their boots. Mealy-mouthed mumbo-jumbo! 

  • Charles Martel

    Why don’t you go and find an atheist website to scribble on, and stop being an illiterate bore?

  • Charles Martel

     Errrm, yes, Catholics are not allowed to carry out, or in any way collaborate in, the murder of an innocent human being. Astonishing, isn’t it? Now, why don’t you go and find a learned, sophisticated, atheist, pro-baby-killing website to scribble on?

  • Charles Martel

    If people won’t hire us, then so be it. We will accept it, following Our Lord’s own words: ‘Blessed are you when people abuse you and persecute
    you and speak all kinds of calumny against you falsely on my account.
    Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.’ Mock on Mock on Voltaire Rousseau;
    Mock on Mock on! tis all in vain!
    You throw the sand against the wind,
    And the wind blows it back again.

  • Jane Brady

    Performing an abortion may be a criminal act under certain conditions, but the abortionist is not charged with murder. It is only a crime because the abortionist is not registered to perform surgical operations and not registered as a legitimate business for tax purposes.This idea of an abortion being murder is silly, because only the law can decide what is meant by murder. You do not serve your cause very well by making such daft and fatuous statements. No wonder so many people laugh at you and dismiss your hysterical rantings. Me finding another website will not help one bit, because the influence of The Catholic Church has been reduced to mockery, parody and  insignificance.insignificance.

  • Mark Castilano

    Why do you not read the court judgement instead of making an ass of yourself on a public website. In your case it might be better if you had someone read the judgement for you. Also: Please read the following

  • Jason Clifford

    I have been asking myself whether you are actually posting genuinely held views or are simply someone trolling on the internet. I’m inclined to think the latter given the views you are expounding, where you are expounding them and just how historically inaccurate you are. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt one final time however and respond. Perhaps you’ll look past your prejudices and take the time to research the actual history rather than the lies you’ve been fed.

    Right from it’s beginnings – in the fist century not the fourth! – the Catholic Church has absolutely been pro life. No amount of revisionist nonsense changes that. The Church has consistently held that all life is sacred both because it comes from God our creator who commands against killing and also because all human life is a reflection of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

    Most of the people you have mentioned were civil authorities and many were violently opposed to the Catholic Church who certainly did not acquies to their hatred.

    Your statement about control over women is particularly odd given the Catholic Church singularly raised the status of woman throughout history both in her teaching and her acts. Are you aware that in Christendom is was the Catholic Church that stopped women being property in law?

    The actual matter at discussion here is entirely about pro-life despite your repeated attempts to cloud that fact. That the Catholic Chuch is clear in her teaching on the matter is also a fact.

    None of the teaching of the Church is from Constantine. All of the dogmas which you claim were from him were in fact already very well established from the beginning as clearly evidenced in Sacred Scripture and the writings of the early Fathers.

    All of the things you reject are truths. It is not rational to reject
    the truth hence the Church, who has always been the seat of true reason,
    will not reject them ever. What will happen however is that eventually
    God will reveal the truth to you and you will believe. On that day we
    wont crow about it but we will instead rejoice that you have come to
    know the truth and in the joy you will know as a result.

  • Charles Martel

    “Only the law can decide what is meant by murder”. Ah ha! There we go. And if the law chose to categorise a genocide as simply a ‘cleansing’ of the country (this happened a fair bit in the 20th century, you may recall), then, of course, this genocide of millions of human beings would be perfectly legal, and Jane Brady would be condemning the dissidents for their ‘hysterical rantings’. So, Jane, you can see where your moral relativism leads. Perhaps not quite so ‘learned and sophisticated’ as you thought, are you?
    No, the law did not decide what murder is. Sane people all know what murder is. Murder and the concept of murder existed before laws. Laws were made in order to punish the practice of it and thereby protect the individual and society.
    We can all see that you hate the Catholic Church, Jane, so I would seriously suggest you give up your bilious contributions to this website; it can’t possibly be doing you any good.

  • Daviddevinish

    If you take the time to read why Lady Smith ruled that Miss Mary Doogan and Mrs Connie Wood must accept the decision of their hospital management to oversee other midwives who are performing abortions on the labour ward and why their argument was so weak in that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions. The case was so nonsensical I am surprised that it ever got to court in the first place. Just read the judgement, that is now in the public domain and you will be able to see why these ladies were ill suited to be midwives. The outcome of this case exposes the outdated and socially isolated attitudes of the Catholic Church, who inveigled two ‘not too bright’ women to ruin their careers, for nothing.

  • Oconnord

    When they were midwives they had the right not to assist in abortions. But when they accepted posts as senior midwives they knew they would have to supervise all the midwives under their care. That included midwives who did assist in abortions.

    “In judgement at the Court of Session in Edinburgh , Lady Smith said their right of conscientious objection was not unqualified and they had agreed to take up the roles of labour ward co-ordinators, although they now took objection to the job content. She added that “They knowingly accepted that these duties were to be part of their job. They can be taken to have known that their professional body, the Royal College of Nursing, takes the view that the right of conscientious objection is limited and extends only to active participation in the termination.”

    They accepted the terms, conditions and pay-rise of their promotions and then at a later date decided it went against their conscience. Their action was then to try change the terms and conditions but keep the pay-rise rather simply asking for their old jobs back as they had made a mistake.

    Now is that irony or greed?

  • Oconnord

    rather THAN simply asking for their old jobs….Apologies.

  • Anonymous

    You, sir, had quite some gall in calling me arrogant for my mere refusal to give my name. If we are to be seen as “fanatics ranting and raving” for an utter refusal to comit murder for another’s benefit then what does that make a man such as you? What right have you, Parliament or anybody else to pass judgement on who is a human and who is not and what right have you to dismiss as fanatics those who hold a rather wider, one may say more inclusive, view of the matter?

    If you want to continue passing such judgements then I would recommend an examination of the history of societies with ideas of “worthiness to live” and which believed that some humans were simply unworthy to live or were not worth as much. Suffice it for me to give Sparta and the Third Reich as two examples.

  • Mark Castilano

    Parliament has the right to pass laws, and I have the right and duty to obey the law, and so must you. If you do not like the law, then you must present a cogent case for having it changed. If a new law is passed by Parliament, then I will obey that. It seems that you want to have your own interpretation of the law and for people to obey that. Regardless of what you think, it is the law that decides what constitutes murder and not some sort of irrational homespun religious fanatic whose warped reasoning is ruled by superstition, myth and magic. You seem to advocate that you have the right to deny other people their rights. You give deep offence and great insult to the integrity of Her Majesty’s Government, and The Queens Bench with your allusion and comparison of British law to the Third Reich. It is clear that you are not well read, very articulate or very sophisticated, otherwise you would not be so offensive to the rule of law or offend the H.M Queen Elizabeth. Essentially it does not matter one jot what you think or what you feel about this matter, or any other, because no educated person will take too much notice of the ranting and raving of a few ignorant loud mouthed religious fundamentalist, fanatics.

  • David B McGinnity

    If there is a point of law with which do not agree, then state concisely and precisely what that point of law is. I have read the court judgement in full and I have debated the issue with other learned counsel, and it is quite clear that these two women wanted to keep their enhanced salary and conditions of service, but not take managerial responsibility or the job that they had agreed to do. Once they realised that there was conflict of interest they could have resigned without all the fuss. It does not help that you make up the law as though the Inquisition was still in vogue. More and more people grow tired of Catholics perpetually whinging about virtually everything. Thank goodness that Catholics and Christians have no special status or privilege within the United Kingdom, so please be quiet.

  • Anonymous

    Why are you going on about pay rises? They did not change their terms and conditions, NHSGG&C did, by moving them to a different ward, where, their duties would involve supervising, and therefore being complicit,with those involved in destruction of the yet to be born.
     Lady Smith judged that concientious objection was not unqualified. It says nothing like that in the act, there is no qualification, she has just created one. I do hope these courageous ladies appeal. Lady Smith is clearly wrong.

  • Anonymous

    If it is the law and only the law that decides what murder is then do tell what makes modern British law any more valid than the laws of any other time or place (including British law before 1967.)

    Failing that, as you do, I am not particularly interested in what offence what I say may cause to you or any other and to be quite frank, you are one to lecture me on being offensive when you have twice called me a “religious fundamentalist” and a “fanatic” as well as “arrogant” merely for drawing a comparison that, I am afraid exists; modern British law discriminates between some who are apparently worthy to live (those who are born) and others who are not; the Third Reich and Sparta both did the same  with other groups of people. If you are offended by my stating facts then I have nothing more to say.

    Finally I make one more point: I do not deny any others’ right, I merely advocate a right that you deny to the unborn, which is the right to life. My case for changing the law and the reason that I speak out here is that I want that right recognised for the unborn as well as for others. It is you, sir, who denies others their rights and you who are guilty of warped reasoning in doing so – that and for all your calling me a “religious fanatic” you fail to notice that I have not actually mentioned religion in this discussion; my defence of the unborn comes from reason and logic, which may well be more than can be said for anything said by you thus far.

  • Mark castilano

    You have impugned the integrity of Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Judiciary. You demonstrate that you are a fundamentalist and a fanatic. It is none of your business what other human beings do regarding their families. If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason it has nothing to do with people like you.Anyone who insults the Queen is a non person and is unfit to be acknowledged. Instead of you being concerned with the un-born you should concern yourself with the un-dead (zombies); that is more up your street and you would feel more at home. However your hostile invective towards The Queen will not serve the image of The Catholic Church

  • Veronica Connolly

    If anything is against GODS Laws and Commandments you refuse to do it no matter what the cost.. We know abortion is Murder, and we can NEVER assist. Simple.