Different agendas on contentious issue

I think it’s an awful pity Colette Browne used the expression “anti-choice” (Opinion, Jul 25) to describe opponents of legalised abortion.

One might think the destruction of unborn life had the same implications as choosing between strawberry, chocolate or vanilla ice cream.

While it is true that many opponents of abortion are opposed to legislation based on the X case, I can’t help thinking that many on the left who support such legislation might have more objection if the right of the same women to engage in fox-hunting was being enshrined in law. As they say, we all have our agendas.

Legislation based on the X case might not allow for abortion on demand but strictly speaking neither does the legislation in Britain and yet the reality on the ground is entirely different. Even the Irish Examiner in recent times reported on cases where abortions took place based on the gender of the unborn child. While such accounts may be relayed as news items, seldom do we see comment from columnists like Colette Browne on the rights or wrongs of such practices.

Does silence denote consent or is it simply avoiding contradictions? The grim reality is that living, developing, complex unborn life is treated by columnists and some politicians as being somewhat akin to an ingrowing toenail that can be removed at whim. It is as unrealistic to expect pro-lifers to accept this position as it was to expect African-Americans 60 years ago to accept the inferior status assigned to them, even if this was the position of the US Supreme Court.

Rory O’Donovan

Sundays Well Rd

Cork