Reply.

You read some thirteen conclusions into a 400 word editorial. Of these, eleven are incorrectly deduced.

Two statements are interpreted reasonably correctly. (1) That abortion denies life to a human being, and (2) that a mother usually experiences some shame as a psychological effect of abortion.

Any view of the first statement will depend on a personal assessment of the rights of the unborn — a point made in the editorial. You may be one of those who believe the foetus has no rights.

On the issue of psychological shame. it is not merely a result of social attitudes as you suggest, though of course this is an important factor. As psychologists will tell you there is often a nagging. thought of whether it would have been son or daughter, blond or redhead, with blue eyes or perhaps brown. It is a human response.

If the editorial did offer any definite conclusion it was that "the moral issues must not be swept aside by pure convenience." Perhaps you feel convenience should predominate, or even that there are no moral issues.

The most valid ground for criticising the editorial was that it avoided making definite judgments, or if you prefer it, that it lacked the strength of conviction.

G.P.C.