Was U.S. abortion ruling change right or wrong?

AFTER the overturning of the Roe v Wade abortion ruling in the States, I feel so glad I live in the UK. But we should not be complacent: we must continue to protect the rights of women to be in charge of their lives. How would those Supreme Court justices have felt if it was their daughters who had become pregnant through sexual abuse or incest, or who faced other risks? Would they be willing to put their lives on hold for the next 20 years to help support their child and grandchild?

If a woman has made an informed choice to continue with a pregnancy, she must be given every support. But, ultimately, it is her right to decide what happens to her body, not the right of any man.

SUSAN FELLA, London N21. ROE v Wade was a bad decision when it was originally made. The U.S. Supreme Court has reviewed the arguments and reached a different conclusion. To protect vulnerable lives in the womb is a good thing.

Mr E.D.T. HODGES, Nuneaton, Warks. IN THE so-called Land of the Free, millions of American women can no longer choose whether to have an abortion, even if they are victims of rape or incest. They are less free now than they have been for the past 50 years.

MICHAEL J. LOCKE, Rainham, Kent. THE decision to repeal Roe v Wade is seen as a catastrophe from the point of view of ‘a woman’s right to choose’. But what about the rights of the unborn child? We would regard the killing of a child after birth as a crime, yet even though a baby’s nervous system has been mainly formed in the womb by 12 weeks, a woman in the U.S. could previously proceed with impunity to abort it.

MIKE CLARK, Worthing, W. Sussex.