Pamphlet

Press, 30 June 1982, Page 20

Pamphlet

Sir, — The Wilkinsons seem to be virtually on their own in expressing the "pro-choice” philosophy, though possibly many readers agree with them. .Note that theirs is not a "proabortion” view. No-one suggests that.abortion is the right treatment for all pregnant women, that it should be compulsory. Of course not!. “Prochoice” means that if a woman decides that she is unable to continue with a pregnancy, for whatever reason, she >: can choose to end it in the safest possible way. This is by no means a substitute for contraception. which should be widely available. By the way, I am not opposed to chastity, if that is the individual’s own choice. I am therefore, under that condition, pro-chastity as well as pro-choice. — Yours, etc., EMILY DAVIES. « June 28, 1982.

Sir,—K. Orr asks for evidence that contraceptive use will reduce V.D., abortions and illegitimacy. Anyone who provides such evidence can expect (a) a sermon, (b) a personal attack, and (c) that the evidence will be completely ignored. It is* hard enough to decide what real trends these variables have shown, let alone what caused them. Yet S.P.U.C. blames contraceptives, which seems as illogical as blaming car brakes for the road toll. We know teenagers are most seriously at risk, that almost all will have some sexual activity, and half will have no contraceptive protection. Many inherit seriously conflicting views of sexuality from parents and society which leave them unable to prbtect themselves and others. So' long as some people paint abnormal chastity white and normal sexuality black these problems will continue. — Yours, etc., ALAN WILKINSON. June 29, 1982.