Letters: Abortion debate

In the abortion debate we need to remember the Good Samaritan

Sir: Professor David A Jones writes to correct some factual errors of John M Davis on Augustine and Aquinas's views on abortion (Letters, 11 June), but his letter also contains some misinformation.

Both Augustine and Aquinas, following Aristotle, did indeed believe that the male embryo was given a soul at around six weeks; however they believed that the female embryo was not ensouled until 80 to 90 days. In any case, as Anthony Campbell points out (Letters, 11 June), the Church Fathers argued on the basis of bad biology - and bad biology cannot make for good theology and ethics.

But the whole question "Is the foetus a person?" is fundamentally misconceived. It is certainly unanswerable scientifically, and it is simply a category mistake to expect a clear answer from the Bible. Even the "sacredness of life" is a theologically tendentious notion. On the other hand, such pro-choice concepts as the "right to choose" and "quality of life" are preposterously morally thin, and any pregnant woman knows that the foetus is more than just a "lump of cells".

The basic ethical point is simple and uncontentious: we should always try to broaden the limits of our moral concern and obligation. To define the foetus as a non-person, however, is to contract our moral scope. Indeed to ask "Is the foetus a person?" aligns us with the self-justifying scribe who asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbour?", hoping he would get a list of exclusions. Instead he was told a story about a Samaritan - a non-person - who, counter-intuitively to a first-century Jew, turned out to be "good".

THE REV KIM FABRICIUS

SWANSEA

Israeli occupiers are acting out of greed

Sir: As a non-self-hating Jewish Israeli I must respond to Howard Jacobson's article of 8 June. Reiterating the tired Israeli propaganda of yesterday simply is not good enough. This week marks 40 years of Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian people. The occupation has nothing to do with survival nor with defence. It has to do with a greed, for land and water resources: maximum territory with minimum Palestinians.

But it seems Mr Jacobson is more interested in rhetoric than facts. How would he describe, for instance, the 700 kilometres of roads in the West Bank banned to Palestinians, reserved only for Israelis? Or the fact that of 59 permanent checkpoints the majority are within Palestinian areas, barring access to Palestinian towns and villages, barring access to medical, educational and administrative services to 2.7 million people, nowhere near the border with Israel.

Does he know about 69 villages that are locked at night, the keys held by the army so none may leave - or enter - even in a medical emergency? Does he know about the 219 blockades that prevent access into Palestinian villages for Palestinians, ambulances, cars, goods. Does he know that the Wall he dismisses so lightly expropriates huge tracts of Palestinian farm land - and prevents farmers from accessing their crops and services, as well as family in neighbouring villages.

And does he really believe that this is a security measure, as the Wall crawls away from the Green Line, Israel's border? That it creates closed enclaves that throttle their inhabitants cut off from entry to Israel and to other parts of the West Bank? Does he know just how much ecological damage it causes?

Those British Jews who would consider themselves defenders of Israel would do well to ask themselves just what they are defending. The survival of the Jewish state? An oppressive occupation that seems to have no end? Perhaps its time that Mr Jacobson and his like asked themselves just what kind of Jewish state they want to see.

YEHUDIT KIRSTEIN KESHET

CO-FOUNDER, CHECKPOINTWATCH JERUSALEM

Sir: Howard Jacobson's article was completely on target. The proposed boycott by the Universities and Colleges Union is wrong in principle and misguided in practice. It smacks of prejudice in the way he describes.

It would encompass the many liberal and left-orientated Israeli academics who often despair about their government's actions just as much as we do in this country. It will have no effect on Israeli policy, other than to encourage the right. And it might even provoke counter-boycotts elsewhere in the world against British academics, including those who do not support this wrong-headed measure.

The UCU would do well do stick to its principal aims, where its weakness has been evident in recent years, of improving salaries and working conditions for British academics rather than engaging in ill-conceived gesture politics.

IAN KERSHAW

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

Sir: I read Howard Jacobson's article with both interest and distress. All boycotts are blunt instruments, but they may be necessary if anything is to change.

Being the offspring of colonialists in Africa, those of us who opposed both apartheid in South Africa and the illegal declaration of independence in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) supported the boycott of those countries despite the suffering caused to the innocent.

I have recently visited Israel and Palestine and was deeply shocked by what seems to me to be the creation of Palestinian "bantustans" as the occupied West Bank is being eaten up by Israeli settlements clearly orchestrated and supported by the Israeli government. These remaining pockets of Palestine are becoming increasingly unsustainable economically or socially. These continuing illegal actions by the Israeli government do not give one any belief in the genuine intentions of that government to create a two-state solution. Furthermore, the inherent racism towards Palestinians had for me chilling parallels with both that in South Africa and anti-semitism in the past.

The unquestioning support of Israel by the US and the inability of their European allies to counter this means that those of us who feel the situation must change need to use what peaceful methods are available to us - such as the blunt weapon of an academic boycott.

ANN BUTTERFIELD

LONDON N16

Flagship school needs a relaunch

Sir: Far from being "the epitome of what a good comprehensive education should be about" (5 June), Holland Park has for most of its history been a metaphor for all that was poor about the Inner London Education Authority and post-war education.

Today however things are changing. Thanks to dynamic leadership, a talented staff and sustained investment and support from this council, Holland Park has become the school of choice in our area with over 700 applications for its 250 places.

The greatest obstacle to further progress now is the condition and layout of the current school buildings. They are 50 years old, of no architectural merit and the services (heating, electricity etc), are on borrowed time. That is why we are considering a range of options including redevelopment. The ambition is to give our pupils the finest state school. The potential is to fund it ourselves through developing both expensive and affordable housing on land released by consolidating rambling buildings into a single block.

There will be no loss of outdoor playspace, indeed, there will be a small increase. Today, the school cannot deliver PE within the National Curriculum. The indoor and outdoor sports and play facilities in a new school would be on an entirely different level to those provided in most inner-city schools. Sports England visited the school and made a positive contribution to our plans.

It is amazing that, in an article by your Education Editor there is no reference to the wishes of the school, who are not just supportive but insistent we rebuild, nor the educational needs of today's and future children. Instead you concentrate on the objections of those living in the immediate area who, understandably, are not concerned with the quality of education for generations ahead but the disruption during construction and other planning matters. Nor should they be. It is our responsibility as elected councillors to balance the long-term needs of our community while mitigating any impact on those living in the immediate area.

MERRICK COCKELL

LEADER OF COUNCIL, ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA, LONDON W8

Keep politics out of Islamic studies

Sir: Your leading article of 5 June implies that Islamic Studies in British higher education is failing because it has not focused its efforts on tackling Muslim extremism. However, the primary task of those involved in teaching Islamic Studies in a university is education, not social control. To attempt to use an academic discipline to encourage British Muslims to adopt an "acceptable" version of Islam is a potentially dangerous policy. It will inevitably lead to poor scholarship and inadequate teaching.

Those of us who teach Islamic Studies aim to enable all students, both Muslim and non-Muslim, to understand and analyse the multifarious Muslim responses to the contemporary challenges of modernity, globalisation and post-colonialism. Which approach these students then decide to follow or support is their own decision.

University lecturers, whether Muslim or not, have a duty to present Islamic doctrines in a sympathetic manner, but with appropriate critical independence. It is not their responsibility to promote particular theological opinions which may (or may not) accord with the political agenda of an ephemeral government. To think that this is their task is to misunderstand the purpose of higher education.

PROFESSOR ROBERT GLEAVE

INSTITUTE OF ARAB AND ISLAMIC STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF EXETER

TV Licensing not out to cause upset

Sir: Further to the letters, "People without TVs 'harassed' by threatening licence reminders" (6 June) and "TV Licensing put an old woman in fear" (9 June), I wish to clarify that at TV Licensing we do ask that people co-operate with our inquiries and let us know if they are already covered by a TV licence, or genuinely do not require one.

We take complaints very seriously and would urge the readers who highlighted some of their personal experiences in your paper to contact us directly so we can resolve their concerns.

Ultimately however the law is clear; a licence is required to use or install any equipment in order to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV. Unfortunately, if a licence is required, some people will only buy one when warned of the consequences of being unlicensed. It is for this reason some of our mailings contain messages that are designed to deter a possible evader. However, we don't presume that everyone is guilty of committing an offence, and we do try to ensure that non-viewers are not overly troubled by our inquiries, and that they don't cause unnecessary upset.

KATE FISHER

TV LICENSING, LONDON WC2

Sir: If you don't need a TV licence, put all letters from the Agency straight into the bin. Don't bother to open them, let alone waste money ringing them up. Don't write to them. Above all, do not permit yourself or your mother to be stressed by them. I've spent years awaiting the pleasure of a visit by one of their number (they're in my area; they're only streets away; they work all night), but they never came.

CHRIS NOEL

LEDBURY, HEREFORDSHIRE

Sir: With all due respect to Pat Poppy and her late mother, being dead is no excuse for not having a TV licence today. Indeed, one has to be practically brain dead to watch programmes like Big Brother in the first place.

PHILIP MORAN

LONDON N11

Shock, horror: pigs have warm blood

Sir: Your leading article of 9 June reminded me of a holidaymaker who stayed on our smallholding in Cornwall in the 1980s. He leaned over a pen to pat a pig and drew back quickly with a shout. I rushed over and asked what was the matter. "It's warm!" he said, "I always thought they would be cold to touch." If he had only come across them in supermarkets, he may well have assumed that was so.

We are what we eat, they say, and that seems to stretch far beyond the food itself to the way it is produced, processed, packaged and prepared.

HELEN FOUND

BRIGHSTONE, ISLE OF WIGHT

Hard-working royals

Sir: "Parasitic" (letter, "Royal parasites", 9 June) does not describe a family carrying out some 4,000 public duties every year with a head, the Queen, who routinely surrenders her Crown Estate revenue to the Treasury. This now amounts to nearly £200m for the past year and far exceeds any cost of our unfairly maligned monarchy.

JENNIFER MILLER

LONDON SW15

Lighter side of the moon

Sir: Professor Edward James writes (letter, 11 June) "the hemisphere on the far side of the sun is always dark". Darkish, perhaps, but there would be quite a lot of light reflected from the earth. In fact, when the moon as seen from the earth is new, the earth as seen from the moon must be full, so you could probably read a newspaper on the moon. If you could get one, of course.

CHRIS WATTS

DORKING

Bishops' appointments

Sir: I read that Mr Brown is considering giving up his role in the appointment of bishops (11 June). Other churches in the Anglican communion have always elected their own bishops. All in a diocese are involved - lay and clergy. The bishop is then truly their bishop, which must be good for the church. In turn the bishops elect one of their number to be their archbishop. An appointments commission, with or without the Prime Minister, would more than likely continue the process as it is today.

THE REV PATRICK CREAN

NETHERTON, MERSEYSIDE

Clean licence for DVLA

Sir: Beverley Fieldsend (letter, 8 June) apparently does not realise that in English (not American) spelling, the verb "to license" is spelt with an S but the noun "a licence" with a C. DVLA is not in error.

And why does she fuss about "relicense"? The prefix "re" can be, and commonly is, attached to pretty well any verb in our language. I had to rethink my remarks before I rewrote this letter.

IAN LESLIE

LUDLOW

Food for thought

Sir: Recently in Reading we followed a van delivering pet food direct to homes in the area. A sign on the back proudly stated: "Not tested on animals."

JAN HUNTINGDON

SWINDON