The Editor, Sir:

As a person of faith, I would like to distance myself from the group of Christian church leaders who last week launched a campaign to oppose any change to the abortion laws. I think their tone and stance are very unfortunate, doing less to encourage discussion and more to intimidate into silence those, including other people of faith, who may be trying to make a reasoned and 'faithful' rather than hysterical decision about where they stand.

Characterising the choice as one between the status quo and abortion on demand is not only dishonest, it is dangerous. For many years, the society has asked members of the medical profession to perform terminations of pregnancy without the protection of the law. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. In addition, the status quo will force women to see means, which can result in serious infection, infertility and even death. (In addition, I believe that the review committee's recommendations make an effort to prevent the use of abortion as just another method of contraception.)

We live in a country where many young girls, as soon as they reach puberty, are 'sent for' by the local 'community leader', while mothers, family and friends look on helplessly. I am not sure that it is fair to ask a woman who has been raped or been the victim of incest or abuse to bear and raise the child conceived under such traumatic circumstances, if she finds she cannot do so.

Despite the Churches' exemplary record in the creation of social services, I cannot imagine how they would hope to fulfil their offer to take in every unwanted child. Several thousand such children are already in the care of the State. I do not see any great rush to foster or adopt these children.

HEARING FROM THE WOMEN

I think we need to be able to hear from women and girls who have been confronted by these kinds of situations. (Women who can afford the services of a private practitioner are pretty much above the law and are, therefore, unaffected by the outcome of this debate.) We need to hear from those whose choice is between the public-health system, the back-door operators or 'home remedies'.

The subject of abortion is indeed an emotive one. This is all the more reason why we need to be able to hear as many perspectives as possible. I have nothing against those opposing change making their views known. I do object, however, to being threatened with 'war' if any of us dare to explore or express views contrary to those promoted by these (predominantly male) 'guardians' of society's moral welfare. I hope that the Government will not give in to those who employ these tactics.

I am, etc.,

PETA-ANNE Baker PhD

Dept. of Sociology,

Psychology & Social Work

UWI, Mona.