Abortion clinic protests

Press, 29 January 1986, Page 16

Abortion clinic protests

Sir, — The law-abiding townsfolk of Dachau never queried the function of the official institution in their midst, but discreetly observed its effi-ciently-marshalled inward traffic and busily-puffing chimney. Public opinion endorsed the dictum of political and medical authorities — that social progress demands the elimination of the unwanted, the unfit, and the uneconomic. Why then, after half a century of further progress, are we in Christchurch unable to follow this model of propriety and commonsense? Why are these fanatical trouble-makers outside Lyndhurst allowed to embarrass and annoy us in this fashion? Have they learnt nothing from history? — Yours, etc. S. A. MAHONY. January 25, 1986.

Sir,—l .thank the pro-choice supporters, for publicising their viewpoint outside the Lyndhurst Clinic. At times during my morning drive to work along Bealey Avenue in the last year I have been confronted by the grisly foetal photographs of the antiabortion faction. As one who many years ago selected the abortion option, and who now feels content that that was the right decision for me at that time, I took great comfort this week in seeing placards supporting personal choice. — Yours, etc.,

J. BRYAN. January 23, 1986.

Sir, — The pro-life movement has room for all kinds of action. They Include protest outside abortion clinics; prayer and fasting; help for women to continue with their pregnancies; political lobbying to help reduce economic pressure on the family, and divert money from destructive activity such as the arms race to constructive activity such as education and healing; working for legislative change. Pro-lifers will engage in these according to opportunity, ability, strategic importance and personal call. Many of me arguments expressed

against anti-abortion protest have been advanced against aritiapartheid and anti-nuclear protest. People should continue outside the clinic praying for its closing and the salvation of staff, women having abortions and aborted babies. Placards should be held showing the physical realities of the foetus and abortion, and stating general principles. I do not believe in personal abuse; I do believe in stating the truth. — Yours, etc., A. W. MCNAMARA, January 25, 1986.

Sir, —Your correspondent Susan Wells (January 23) was understandably upset by what could have been a nasty accident. She was distracted by a banner depicting a foetus aged x weeks. The pedestrian whose life she almost ended was aged x years, but had no doubt once been a foetus. The foetal stage is part of human life and surely deserves the same status as a bom human being. It is wrong to state that “cariying these babies to full term will in many cases result in the death of the mother.” In 1984 there were only 29 abortions out of 7275 performed on the grounds of threat to physical health of the mother. I quote from the Abortion Supervisory Committee’s report for that year. A further 174 were performed on grounds of combined mental and physical health risk, and a staggering 6965 under the “serious danger to mental health” clause. — Yours, etc., P. M. VAN GIELS. Timaru, January 24, 1986.

Sir,—l find the letters about picketing outside Lyndhurst reflect the distorted picture the media gives of pro-lifers. I am involved in the pro-life movement and have been to several pickets outside Lyndhurst. Whenever I have been there, I have found that the other prolifers are genuine, caring people concerned greatly about the life of the unborn child and of the woman. They are not violent, abusive, uncaring people, as the media would portray them. I feel the media favour pro-choice groups and give them greater positive coverage. I suggest that those people who feel strongly against the pro-lifers’ actions should go to one of the pickets (especially one with both prochoice and pro-life in action) and see for themselves which group behaves disgustingly. — Yours, etc., J. McHUGH. January 26, 1986.

Sir, —Correspondents such as Beryl Osbahr (January 25) and others see themselves as sympathetic to women’s needs, and “right-to-lifers” as intolerant and unconcerned about women facing unplanned pregnancies. This is an unfair generalisation, since there are many persons holding respect for human life (picketers too), who are regularly giving their time to ongoing support for such women. I plead with sincere but misguided persons such as the correspondents to become up to date with recent research on the physical and mental ill health consequences of induced abortion. — Yours, etc., P. BATCHELOR. January 26, 1985.