Contraception the answer, not inhuman abortion
Fionola Meredith (DebateNI, January 29) proposes the secular fallacy that since a woman's body is her own, she can do with it as she pleases.
Would Ms Meredith agree that since a woman's body is her own, she can freely drink to excess, if that pleases her? Or she can freely inject herself with drugs, if that pleases her? Surely not, since this is harmful.
But is an abortion not harmful to the life-form in the womb? It also remains unclear whether or not an abortion is harmful to the mental well-being of the mother.
Ms Meredith should take a leaf out of the book of Marie Stopes. Marie Stopes was in her life staunchly pro-life. A friend of hers had an abortion and Marie Stopes denounced the termination as murder and the doctor as a murderer.
Marie Stopes gave up a brilliant academic career because of her concern with the fate of the women of her time, whose families were reduced to poverty as families were so large that resources couldn't maintain them and women were burdened by unwanted pregnancies.
She reckoned that the correction for this was in education and she set up Marie Stopes clinics called the Marie Stopes Foundation to educate women in preventative contraception.
It is accepted in medicine that prevention is better than cure, so surely Ms Meredith would agree that the prevention of an unwanted pregnancy by contraception is better than the inhuman cure of an abortion?
There are about 200,000 abortions in Great Britain annually. Surely the responsible prevention by contraception of these would be preferable to - and less expensive than - a costly termination?
A mass market in abortion trading in death is corrupt and needs change.