Letters roundup: 7 July 2023

Abortion laws must not be repealed

I would like to comment on Harriet Wistrich’s article ‘Repeal the laws that criminalise abortion’ (Gazette, 23 June).

As a woman I am all for women’s justice, but repealing these laws would remove any safeguards and protection for the unborn. There is no ‘right to abortion’, but there is a ‘right to life’. This is one of the most fundamental of human rights, founded on the inherent dignity of all human beings. Does this right not exist because we chose not to recognise the humanity of a child before it is born? It is conveniently labelled a ‘foetus’ to obscure this. The overturning of Roe v Wade should be applauded as it has saved many lives.

The UK can be proud of the fact that it has many laws to prevent discrimination and promote the protection of the vulnerable, such as the Equality Act 2010 and Children Act 1989, so why in the area of abortion do we abandon these principles? Abortion is permissible for disability right up to birth, and Harriet suggests a foetus is only worth anything and ‘potentially viable’ if ‘wanted’.

Can we truly consider our society progressive and compassionate if we advocate for the killing of our young at their most vulnerable stage, especially if they are disabled, on the altar of a woman’s right to choose? If this ‘right’ trumps any other and we open the door to abortion on request – suggested as a reason we ‘lag behind’ other jurisdictions – this would include sex-selective abortion. Does this support justice for women or equality?

I recognise abortion may be coerced, but this is actually true of any abortion, just as much as a ‘late-term’ abortion. In fact, these concerns have only been picked up on because Carla Foster was prosecuted. We should be doing more to offer women care and support, including alternatives to abortion, before and after pregnancy. The solution is not repealing these laws.

Victoria Bracegirdle

Social care lawyer, Anderton, Lancashire

Colluding in their own oppression

Harriet Wistrich insists that we ‘lag behind most countries in the world’ and we do – but not in terms of the decriminalisation of abortion. We lag behind most other western countries because they have set abortion limits much lower than our current limit of 24 weeks (if ‘disabled’ then it is up to birth).

My own now 17-year-old daughter was diagnosed with talipes, a perfectly treatable condition, in the womb at 22 weeks. I was encouraged to consider abortion.

Science dictates that a human being is a whole, unique, self-directing entity from conception. Most of our laws, correctly, protect human beings and dictate that value and equality is not determined by our age, gender, race, abilities and so on. How can a foetus be a ‘baby’ when it is wanted by the mother but a disposable non-person when it is not? This is basing human value on subjective feelings instead of an objective morality. Our whole society and laws rest on the concept of inherent human value. Without it there is nothing to stop people killing others based on some perceived, subjective, burdensome characteristic that removes their value.

Ironically, Harriet is calling for decriminalisation when it is the relaxation of our laws (permitting abortion pills to be sent out without seeing a doctor or a physical examination) that allowed this tragedy to happen. I find it interesting that she refers to women as ‘incubators for foetuses’. With motherhood denigrated like this, it is no wonder that this awful situation has happened.

What Carla Foster did was wrong and it is right that she was prosecuted. But this will happen again until we start supporting women properly, instead of frightening them about pregnancy and making them believe that, if they end the life of their child, they will be free. On the contrary, the blind adherence to ‘abortion rights’ means they are colluding in their own form of oppression.

Rebecca Bentley

Foster carer and author, Bolton, Lancs

Bouncing back

The Gazette cover feature, Keyed Up (23 June), paints a wholly bleak picture for conveyancers. I do not seek to downplay the significant challenges facing conveyancers, but nor should we talk this important sector down. Despite the well-documented challenges, this is an active and interesting area of practice.

On professional indemnity insurance, we have seen another new insurer enter the Council for Licensed Conveyancers (CLC) market this year, bringing more choice. The majority of CLC-regulated firms have reported a far smoother PII renewal round this year following changes to our PII framework.

Our latest annual regulatory return found that 86% of CLC-regulated firms expect either to maintain or grow staffing levels this year. That’s a sign of great confidence in the future of specialist conveyancers.

As before when there have been uncertainties in the market, CLC-regulated firms have shown resilience and the ability to bounce back and, indeed, grow more quickly than others.

CLC practices understand well the challenges and changes but are at the forefront of embracing them, finding new ways of delivering services and developing a rewarding legal career.

The market may well be challenging, but there is a whole other side your article failed to capture.

Stephen Ward

Director of strategy and external relations, Council for Licensed Conveyancers, London EC2