It is time for everyone to make a stand.

The Inland Rail is an inappropriate intrusion into our city.

It is time for the governments (state and federal) to re-examine this issue. Things have changed since the original business plan was devised.

The simplest fix is to stop the development - if the trains were kept at single stacked loads there would be no need to waste money and disrupt so many lives by lowering the tracks and raising the bridges.

Billions saved by one small change.

With the savings the line could then be rerouted to bypass the city.

A win for all!

Reflecting on my letter "Recalling piece of history" published on July 20 about a moral impetus for one man to save a stranger from a possible fatality, was what the mother would think of him if he had not saved her son?

Could such thinking extend to saving babies today from the possible fatal outcome of alleged 'healthcare' and 'choice', as referred to in "Abortion is about healthcare, not morality" (The Daily Advertiser, July 8) and "Abortion provision still a lottery in Australia" (The Daily Advertiser, July 12).

Advocates for abortion, such as columnist Jenny Rolfe, argue that "We need to engage in these difficult conversations because when it comes down to it, we all want to see the rates of abortion fall" and Ray Goodlass, "To conclude, it's essentially a question of whether or not women have the right to choose. My two cents worth is that they must. It is not for others, including so-called 'pro-life' medicos, to tell them what they can and can't do".

Fleshing out the discussion further, Jenny suggests that the moral standard for everyone is for the abortion rate to fall.

So, can Jenny separate morality from the matter of motherhood and birth, from life and death?

Wouldn't others, who choose life, prefer abortion to cease and better care provided to both mother and child?

READ MORE LETTERS:

Then, does Ray want women to obey his "two cents worth"? Insisting, on the one hand, others not to tell women "what they can and can't do" and then give his opinion that they "must" choose the right to choice over human rights?

A moral society would not set out to destroy either the mother or her baby in the womb - love them both.

PS: The foregoing was despatched before I read Jan Roberts' article "This is about every woman's right to choose" (The Daily Advertiser, July 21).

Jan and I have been at logger-heads over this issue for 40 years.

She misses the point.

The point is that, while the health and well-being of a pregnant woman is paramount, the life in her womb became a human being at conception - as well all did.

From that start - having joined the human family - that life is entitled to every care to birth and beyond.

Forget the religious bogey - it is a matter of human rights based on natural law.

I close my case.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.