A chara, – When one cuts through the many words he uses to try and hide it, one is left with the fact that David McConnell accepts that each individual human life begins at conception ("Repealing Eighth does not mean ignoring concerns about abortion", Opinion & Analysis, February 6th).
The only real arguments he advances for the destruction of life at the early stages of its development is that some “thoughtful” people think it is okay to do so and his assertion that it is always a difficult decision to do so. However, this seems like a poor basis on which to deprive what he agrees is a human being at the beginning of its life the opportunity to develop further.
We were all that vulnerable once; natural human empathy, as well as respect for the right to life of a fellow human being, should compel us to provide every protection for those who are that vulnerable now. – Is mise,
Rev PATRICK G BURKE,
:fill(white):background_color(white)/static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/irishtimes/1647534191476.png)
Castlecomer, Co Kilkenny.
Sir, – Was David McConnell’s recent article on the Eighth Amendment intended to be some kind of parody of the pro-choice movement? His piece was billed as an attempt to find a “middle ground” and to “reconcile conflicting but sincerely held views on the issue”, but its contents amounted to one of the most full-throated calls for the introduction of UK-style abortion laws which has been printed in your newspaper to date.
His article contained several assertions that fly in the face of universally accepted scientific fact. For example, Prof McConnell says that human embryos are “no different from a sperm or indeed any other human cell”. A human embryo is profoundly different from mere cells since from the moment of conception it grows at an exponential rate which is physically impossible for any other cell in the body to replicate. Unlike mere cells, an embryo is capable of quickly developing to the point where it can become a sustainable life in its own right. These facts prompted the late Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, who was one of the leaders of the anti-amendment campaign in 1983, to write in 2009 that even at the moment of conception human embryos ought to be “treated with respect as entities having the potential to become a life in being”.
Prof McConnell dismisses the first nine weeks of life based on an extraordinary claim that the developing child has “none of the unique biological attributes of a human person”. Again, this ignores the scientific fact that by the ninth week of pregnancy a developing baby already has a brain, a face, eyes, limbs, toes and a beating heart.
Prof McConnell peppers his article with highly loaded terminology and arguments. For example, he uses the word “foetus” 10 times in his piece, a medical term which is never used by a mothers to describe their pregnancy but which is the label used by pro-choice activists who for some reason consider the use of the word “baby” to be taboo. He continues by saying that after the removal of what he calls (in typically balanced fashion) the “discriminatory Eighth Amendment” that “any law on abortion should take the form of guidelines which leave the decisions on these matters to those most closely involved: the mother, her family and her medical advisers”. Conspicuously, the father of the child is completely omitted from consideration and would have no right to a say in this decision under such a legislative formula. No justification whatsoever is proffered by Prof McConnell for this.
If Prof McConnell genuinely believes that the abolition of the constitutional right to life of children in the womb, the effective introduction of a UK-style system of abortion, and a legislative exclusion on giving fathers a say in decisions affecting the lives of their own children represents the "middle ground" in this debate, then he is utterly out of touch with the views of Irish voters. A recent poll conducted for The Irish Times found that just 19 per cent of the electorate supported such a position.
And if his piece contains what The Irish Times considers to be "middle ground" arguments, then I shudder to think what your next article in favour of abortion might contain. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Clontarf, Dublin 3.
Sir, – David McConnell in his otherwise thoughtful and excellent piece about the Eighth Amendment makes the very common but false moral judgment that “anguish and suffering” are “always involved in abortion”.
This is not always the case. The truth is that in some cases it is so obvious to the people involved, the women and their partners, that a pregnancy is unwanted that relief is the overwhelming and lasting emotion felt after an abortion.
To claim otherwise, as Prof McConnell does, risks framing the debate in such a way as to make some people feel that they “ought” to be devastated after an abortion. It also risks making people think that there is something wrong with them when they don’t feel like that.
In fact people who feel overwhelming relief after an abortion, and not in any sense negative or “bad”, are not evil or abnormal but completely human. – Yours, etc,
JOE McCARTHY,
Arbour Hill, Dublin 7.
Sir, – I think David McConnell’s thoughtful and compassionate article on the Eighth Amendment should be circulated to all participants in the Citizens’ Assembly. His careful identification and discussion of some of the key aspects of the current debate merit attention – in particular his suggestion that, prior to the holding of a referendum on the issue, the Government should publish details of the legislative measures which would be put in place if the vote supports repeal. The last thing we need is a post-referendum legislative vacuum.
No doubt controversy will attach to any set of proposals on this contentious issue, but a setting out of what the Government actually has in mind would at least provide a context for any such controversy. – Yours, etc,
HARRY McCAULEY,
Maynooth, Co Kildare.