Madam, – For reasons that escape me, Senator Ivana Bacik (July 14th) attempts to drag the topic of abortion into the blasphemy law debate. She aligns pro-life protesters with the strange fundamentalism of the blasphemy provision (a false analogy), and then opposes pro-life advocates to the Ryan report (a false dichotomy). Please permit me to dispute both arguments.
First: I have yet to find a single religious person who supports the blasphemy law. Most seem to regard it as placing unacceptable limitations on personal freedom and conscience. Many also recognise that, ironically, the law represents a deeply impoverished view of God, whose dignity and goodness cannot be lessened by any words of ours.
In particular, Christian pro-life advocates recognise Jesus as a defender of the weak, as one who reached out to the downtrodden in society, and as one who was not afraid to speak out against the consensus when it was unjust. In fact, Christ stood in the dock accused of blasphemy, leaving it fairly clear where the Pharisees are today. So much for pro-life advocates favouring the blasphemy law.
Secondly: I took part both in the solidarity march with victims of institutional child abuse (June 10th) and in the rally for life (July 4th). Contrary to Senator Bacik’s letter, these causes are natural partners to each other. After all, why would the terrible suffering endured by so many children for so many years in institutions make one want to extend abuse even to the unborn?
A consistent pro-life ethic aims to protect all children, no matter what their stage of development.
It is truly astonishing to me that Senator Bacik regards the people who assembled at the Rally for Life as fundamentalists. To me, the only true fundamentalists were the pro-abortion counter-protesters, who refused any opportunities for discussion in favour of repeatedly screaming: “Pro-life, that’s a lie, you don’t care if women die.”
Senator Bacik should cease trying to draw analogies between pro-life supporters and those who wish to deprive people of their rights and to advocate a true pro-life ethic: one which, incidentally, would be consistent with her excellent green environmental policies in a way that her current pro-abortion position is not. –Yours, etc,