Dr Anne McCloskey of Aontu (GP defends right to ‘graphic’ images, News Letter, July 2) feels there is an “obvious freedom of expression issue” regarding the right to use graphic images to publicly convey the horror of abortion.
I am sympathetic to her viewpoint in some regards, and would concede that any human rights abuse often needs to be visualised before people are inclined to deal with it.
In the case of abortion and destruction of the unborn we are presented with a choice though.
Physical pictures of the abortion horror can be displayed in public places by volunteers like those from Abort67; but this carries a range of risks, with controversy or conflict a possibility.
An alternative, which may be much better, is to display the human dignity of the unborn child using internet images of normal development.
I refer readers to the blog of David Robertson, a leading Scottish Presbyterian writer and minister, who is keen to highlight the humanity of the unborn.
Church websites can exploit the internet to lobby against abortion using images (like one at this link on his blog: www.theweeflea.com/2019/06/01/fearfully-and-wonderfully-made); a purposeful and peaceful witness, as simple as advising someone to look up-babychris.org.
James Hardy, Belfast BT5