Bloody tactics confined to the lunatic fringe
Firstly, the main thrust of Mr Mullen’s column was not an account of the decision by the health board to arrange this abortion.
It was largely about the situation itself, the actions taken by the health board, and those not taken by the Government with regard to further abortion legislation. Mr Mullen said the health board refused to comment on the case, so there was no insight into how the decision was made.
Ms Dillon misquotes me when she asserts that I claimed all Irish pro-life supporters or sympathisers are fond of blood-smeared photographs.
In my letter I stated that I felt Mr Mullen’s column sought to appeal to the ‘lunatic fringe’ of the pro-life campaign who may be seen standing in the streets with these photographs.
I fail to see how I am thus referring to everyone who is against abortion, the vast majority of whom are perfectly capable of rational debate.
Further, any reference she makes to me propagating false and insulting stereotypes about pro-lifers is a nonsense, as I was referring to the individuals who seek to advance their opinion by displaying such photographs, which I have seen with my own eyes.
As for the rest of her letter, she simply proves my original point about the lack of sensitivity on this issue shown by certain individuals, since she claims the publicising of this girl’s ordeal is a good thing. For whom?
I do not think that the procuring a termination for this girl was a ‘quick-fix’ solution, as Ms Dillon claims, and I imagine the regard to the girl’s long-term welfare was far from scant. My opinions on abortion are mixed, but irrelevant: my letter was to highlight what I felt was unfair reporting on a very difficult situation.
Myles Fenlon,
Glenomena,
UCD,
Belfield,
Dublin 4.
