Child abuse

Press, 20 October 1981, Page 20

Child abuse

Sir,—ln the customary proabortionist manner. Alan Wilkinson (October 16) has avoided the point at issue. I was questioning not the belief of Values Party members in their abortion activism but the very rightness itself of their beliefs. I agree with Dr Wilkinson that it is unlikely the anti-abortion-ist. or indeed anyone else, is going to be convinced by a 150word recital of Values Party pro-abortion activities, especially when it is offered instead of a cogent argument to support the party’s capricious assertion that all the rights in the abortion issue belong to the mother and none to the child. The "volumes" written by your correspondent and his colleagues since 1972 have not contained coherent argument to substantiate, as distinct from simply declaring, the party's abortion policy which is based on the pernicious precept that might is right.—Yours, etc., P. S. BROOKE. Nelson. October 16, 1981.

Sir-Like M. O'Neill I have been unhappy at how far this correspondence has got from the original issue. However, as a scientist one has to accept that., most of the evidence available will be from overseas. We have to apply it to New Zealand situations with due caution. In the case of Professor Ney's pronouncements New Zealanders should be aware of overseas controversy surrounding his work and publications both before and after he came.to New Zealand. In Canada, he was involved in a controversial scheme for paying sums of money to induce pregnant women not to have abortions and also an unorthodox adoption scheme. His research has been strongly challenged. Victims of child abuse are even more dependent and helpless than battered wives. If there is no-one in the family to turn to, my advice would be to use a voluntary service such as Youthline.— Yours, etc.. ’ ALAN WILKINSON. . s October 19, 1981. ' •