Abortion clinic

Press, 26 November 1982, Page 16

Abortion clinic

Sir,—K. Orr (November 23) deserves respect in his “fundamental truths.” The question is: How many people in today’s world subscribe to those principles? What about the problem of unnecessary human suffering? Perhaps, he should recognise the misery of those who struggle through life with a desperate sense of their unwantedness. Surely, when

one considers the future, it is even more important that every child should be wanted and given all the support possible to develop its own strengths. Sometimes the decision to seek termination of pregnancy can be the first sign of responsibility. Is it right that an innocent child should suffer throughout life for the mistakes of others? — Yours, etc., JOCELYN V. HAY. November 24, 1982.

Sir, — K. Orr, November 23, ignores the following fundamental truths. (1) All life begins at conception, not just human, and a foetus is, not a person ■ in the same sense a woman is. (2) That the prime objective of reproduction might be new life but the prime objective of all human sexual activity is not, and not everyone finds satisfaction in the institution of marriage. (3) Women should be honoured and respected as human beings with a huge contribution to make to all aspects of life not just as “potential mothers,” Biology is not destiny. (4) Civil law should protect the life and happiness of all and when a woman’s life of happiness are threatened by an unwanted pregnancy the law must protect her right to choose. An honest responsible reaction to these truths will inspire people like K. Orr to get off our backs and let we women at last begin to fulfil our true potential. — Yours, etc., T. E. MOON (Ms). November 23, 1982.

Sir, — What life begins at conception? K. Orr fails to grasp that, until birth, foetal life cannot (yet) continue existing apart from the mother. Its “right to life and . . . happiness” as a potential life materialises when at birth potential life becomes actual life, through the mother, an existing person, on whom it will make enormous demands, and whose needs warrant consideration. Women warrant “respect” as existing persons, not only as vessels. That sex is solely for reproduction is believed by a minority, but many of them refute this by practising rhythm contraception and postmenopausal sex. If rapists regard sex as reproduction the victim doesn’t. An abortion clinic is justified for victims of state education policy; of contraceptive failure; of incest; and of rape. Women who have been raped are not believed. .The very few who report rape go through hell, and finally the jury is told that their uncorroborated evidence may be insufficient. — Yours, etc., B. ROBERTS. November 23, 1982.

Sir,—There seem to be some very, strange ideas floating around under the general and self-styled label- of “truths”, judging by K. Orr’s letter (November 23). Perhaps K. Orr 'does not mean to sound chauvinistic, ; paternalistic, patronising and pompous, but really! When I. read that women “as potential mothers should be honoured and respected.” I wonder how many religious orders would require, that for their members. I wonder what would take the place of honour and respect for women whose potential no longer exists, or perhaps for whom the potential, never' existed? And to add that civil law should protect the right, to life and the pursuit of happiness “especially of the unborn during their first nine months of life” is sounding fanatical. Men and women, no matter what their age may be, should . be honoured and respected simply because they are. Civil law should protect them all. — Yours, etc., R. P. DALZIEL. November 23, 1982.

Sir; — I wonder how many of these sanctimoniously assertive anti-abortionists would welcome the life they so noisily try to ensure for the child of a mother who for various reasons knows she cannot cope with it. Maybe they should inquire from some unwanted and abused children whether they are grateful for their birthright. — Yours, etc., F. R. FRYER.. November 28, 1982.'