Sir, - Now that letters are appearing in your columns once more concerning the very serious matter of abortion, perhaps I could once again make a special plea for us to define what we are talking about.
My main point, and one which no one is really discussing, is that we are inconsistent about how we treat early life. Those who are opposed to abortion will say that life begins from the moment of conception and that to interfere with this life is murder. However, if something happens to that early life, even naturally, for example in a first trimester miscarriage, that life is just casually disposed of. It certainly isn't given a church burial or any recognition by the State. By ignoring that early life in that way, are we saying that it is indeed different?
Either we recognise early life for what it is and treat it with the same respect as fully formed life or we don't accept that it is different. We can't have it both ways. This is the first question that must be resolved before we can go forward with the abortion debate.
I raised this plea for abortion definition in your columns on December 13th, 1997, following correspondence in November, 1997 and August, 1996. There was only one reply to the December 1997 correspondence. Certainly, there was no Church response.
Perhaps some of your more recent contributors would like to reply: Gerard Casey (May 15th) who wrote from a philosophical viewpoint, or Micheal Mac Giolla Phadraig (May 18th), who queried legal interpretation.
I would strongly urge all interested parties to clarify our treatment of early life before the debate on abortion proceeds any further. - Yours, etc.,
Kathleen Kelleher, Rathdown Park, Greystones, Co Wicklow.