Sir, Is it not time that some of the spurious arguments in relation to abortion be laid to rest and the issue be addressed in an honest, rational manner?
Was not the purpose of the 1983 referendum to amend the Constitution so as to confer the protection associated with citizenship on the unborn at all stages of development, and to copperfasten the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 in such a way that a future legislature might not strike down the provision in the Act making miscarriage (i.e. abortion) a criminal offence? For miscarriage to be criminal it is necessary that there be the intent to procure it.
The equal right to life of the unborn and of its mother has generated considerable argument, much of it contributing little to the core issue. Over a period of 40 years as a consultant obstetrician I have never encountered a real conflict of interest between the mother and her unborn child and during that period no mother under my personal care died as a result of pregnancy or childbirth.
Some people are less than honest when they assert that abortion may be necessary on occasion to save the mother's life. There is no risk to the life of the mother that can be avoided by abortion. Expressed another way, there are no medical indications for abortion. Is it not true that, without the availability of therapeutic abortion, so called, Ireland is the safest place in the entire world in which to give birth?
Unfortunately, some women will require treatment during pregnancy, sometimes for life threatening conditions. Should she consent, every expectant mother must be forded whatever treatment is necessary in the circumstances, irrespective of the risks to her unborn child resulting from such treatment. So there is absolutely no question of setting the risk to the mother against that to her child. Let us, therefore, cease using this argument to justify legislation for limited abortion.
What is at issue is whether our Constitution should prohibit the deliberate, intentional destruction of unborn life, the very offence which is outlawed by the Offences Against the Person Act. All that is required is a simple addition to Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution asserting that nothing in the Constitution would render lawful the deliberate, intentional destruction of the unborn or its deliberate, intentional, removal from its mother's womb before it is viable.
Article 6 of the Constitution provides that all powers of Government "derive, under God, from the people whose right it is in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good." Unhappily, our legislators, in seeking to deny the rights enshrined in the Constitution, too often believe that they are masters rather than servants. It is only by a referendum that "questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good" may be decided.
So I ask our legislators: why deny the people its Constitutional right? Yours, etc.,
Professor (Emeritus) of
Obstetrics & Gynaecology,
University College,
Galway.