Madam, – Pro-life covers many issues in society and many people are involved, working to improve the quality of human life.
However, life is particularly delicate and vulnerable at the moment of conception and that is why the question of abortion is such an emotive issue.
But it is from a decision to accept new human life that energy comes for so much in life. Welcoming other human beings into our midst is deep in the Irish psyche and part of Irish culture.
The entering of the spiritual into the physical is part of what we celebrate at Christmas. The spiritual and the physical are inextricably bound up through the incarnation and cannot be torn apart.
Abortion cheapens all human life.
Individual stories are difficult and life is difficult and we need to hear them, but there are also stories of women who decided to take the risk of having a child in difficult circumstances and the joy this brought them. These stories need to be given their share of publicity, if you wish to engage in a truly democratic process. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Dr Bill Tormey (December 20th) notes the “swift about-turn” perpetrated by many when circumstances come calling and they head off to England.
I, too, have observed not so much a swift about-turn from those on the pro-choice lobby, but more of an illogical, swerving,ducking and diving in the verbal gymnastics department when I articulate my confusion as to why they are outraged by capital punishment of the born but not the unborn. Those who have been found guilty of horrendous crimes have the right to life but not the unborn. No wonder I’m perplexed. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – William Binchy (Opinion, December 21st) states he supports “the existing approach of doctors who realise that respecting the rights of two patients is best”. Not all doctors feel this way. There is nothing in medical ethics that requires this view and in European terms it is a view held by a minority of doctors. This view is explained by the individual doctor’s religious or political views on the question of “a woman’s right to choose” to have an abortion or to continue with a pregnancy. In 1992 very many Irish doctors (along with the Supreme Court) found the proposal that the 14-year-old Ms X should be forced through a pregnancy, and forced to give birth, to be a repugnant proposal. The thousands of women forced to travel for abortions are involved in delays and a higher risk to their health and life. There is no way anyone can be certain of risking their health without risking their life, and any such distinction is very questionable medically.
Despite much comment to the contrary, there is no need for any complex legislation in order to establish a woman’s right to choose. For this Ireland needs simple legislation to decriminalise abortion services.
Legislation only becomes complex where restrictions on a woman’s right to choose are involved. Given Ireland’s exporting of the problem and the general trend of lower rates of abortion in countries with the least restriction on a woman’s right to choose, it is hypocrisy to haggle over restrictions as if they were in some way necessarily connected to reducing abortion rates. What is required are well-developed reproductive health services.
Priests and bishops had their say, then judges, academics and doctors.
The key political point in abortion is not what your own principles are but whether or not you wish to force your principles on to another person. Threatening life imprisonment if a person should dare differ from Catholic or right-wing Christian dogma is a shocking, authoritarian answer to this question. Priests, judges and doctors should have no relevance to such a social and political question. It should be a woman’s right to choose. – Yours, etc,