He ignores the substance of my evidence-based reasoning, while exclaiming against my "alarmist exaggerations". I had decided not to engage in weasel-words in this debate. I believe the debate requires language which makes firm connections between ideas, activities and consequences. Mr. Candy disagreed with this approach. Well, it certainly gained his attention, even if he misunderstood literary technique, evidence, argument and the relationships between the ideas involved.

Mr. Candy suggested I was guilty of "lies, threats and gross propaganda...vitriol...(being) a male from the religious right", etc. He does not even attempt to argue, using facts and argument, that I am misguided or ignorant. He merely states his opinion that my views are "offensive and naive...heartless".

This approach does not take the debate forward, neither is it helpful in establishing any contrary views which might be useful.

Mr. Candy insists that we must "give women control over their own bodies". I did not make any claim at all to the contrary, and neither do I dispute that women already have total control over their own bodies. We are all independently responsible for whatever we think or do - male or female. This is the central point in this issue. If causing the death of a human foetus, for whatever reason, is a human and social "good", perhaps Mr. Candy would tell us why. He does not; he merely asserts his own opinion.

It is also a medical fact that the foetus feels pain from 8 or 9 weeks - certainly by 13.5 weeks. There exist sensory nerves by 9 weeks, and "detectable brain activity between 8 and 10 weeks". "By 13.5 weeks the "entire sensory nervous system functions as a whole in parts of the body". So removing the foetus thereafter (22 plus weeks according to the draft bill) is simply killing a potential human being while causing undue extreme pain.

How many potential Einsteins have had, or will have, their lives terminated in this way? We simply don't know and many of us do not appear to care anyway. I care, and I believe most thinking people do care. To believe otherwise is to believe in social anarchy.

Mr. Candy insists that "protecting the well-being of the vulnerable women in our community is, in fact, a moral and ethical positive". But how can this be true? When you kill a foetus you are saying that one human life is less valuable than any other and should be extinguished. Ignore the morals, ethics, social and community cohesion. Just keep it all out of sight, out of mind. Forget it.

How is this any different from the activities of all the dark arts of human manipulation.

Bruce Watson, Kentucky NSW

We welcome your comments and community stories which may be published in the Northern Daily Leader and on our website. Send your letters online to www.northerndailyleader.com.au/community/yournews or email mail.ndl@fairfaxmedia.com.au. Only your name and suburb will be published. Your submission may be edited prior to publication and a correct address and telephone number must be entered for verification purposes.