Using the term ‘reproductive healthcare’ a cynical way of justifying what is still killing unborn babies

CLARE Bailey is disingenuous in her reply (Write Back, November 3) to Alban Maginness’s article on abortion.

There were comparatively few deaths from backstreet abortions before 1967, but since then the total numbers of abortions have rocketed to almost nine million (98% of which were for social reasons).

So, to speak of “reproductive healthcare” is very misleading in the circumstances; it is just a term used to try to make the killing of the unborn seem less than the terrible thing it is. And any estimates produced by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service are bound to be biased towards giving them more abortions.

Is it not time that women really think about what they are doing when they go to an abortion clinic, or take one of these dangerous pills?

They are killing a part of their own body, for goodness sake, as well as depriving another human being of the greatest right of all: the right to life.

And many are leaving themselves open to a lifetime of regret and other consequences, like depression, by so doing — something the pregnancy clinics are not keen to publicise. The Both Lives Matter advertisement, which Claire criticises specifically referred to Northern Ireland, not the rest of the world, and was reviewed very carefully by an independent expert before it was accepted by the Advertising Standards Authority. So it was not the “unfounded assumption” she claimed.

Estimates about the rest of the world were red herrings to try to cover this up.