Restrictions in Protection of Life Bill demeaning to women
Who is it that should decide whether her body should be used for the propagation of an unborn child, other than the mother?
Of course abortion is a moral issue. It involves the destruction of human life and that quintessentially is a moral issue, if we understand morality as having to do with how we, human beings, treat each other. And of course there are circumstances in which abortion is or would be immoral.
But how is there a “right” to life on the part of an unborn person, irrespective of the consequences of how the working out of that “right” might operate for the mother? Does a baby have a “right” to my kidney if that were essential to keep him/her alive, irrespective of my wishes or the consequences to me of donating a good kidney were my other kidney impaired?
What moral difference would there be between me refusing to allow my body to be used for the propagation of this born child and a woman refusing to allow her body to be used for the propagation of an unborn child, when similar conditions applied to the mother? Is it because there is a significant moral difference between killing and letting die people we could save from death?
Who knows better?
But above all, who is it that should decide whether her body should be used for the propagation of an unborn child, other than the mother? Who else knows better than she what the emotional, psychological, physical and circumstantial consequences to her of going full term with a pregnancy?
The old adage that, if men could have a baby, abortion would be a sacrament, may be a bit stretched. But, as sure as hell there would not be that phalanx of men trooping through the lobbies tonight to send men to jail for up to 14 years if they refused to allow their bodies to be used for the sustenance of another irrespective of the consequences to them. Even the women TDs might balk at that one.