THE majority of people reacted with an instinctive feeling of revulsion to the recent events which have dominated the headlines in Britain: the destruction- of thousands of frozen human embryos, the abortion of a healthy twin child, and now the publicity surrounding the case of the woman who is pregnant with eight babies.

Taken together, the controversies have created a perception that three decades of legal abortion have demeaned human life to the point that it has become merely another commodity in the consumer society, to be treated like any fashion accessory or household appliance.

This trend, it appears, has been fuelled by scientists who are so eager to push out the boundaries of the possible that they have lost sight of the moral consequences of their actions.

That Sunday Express front page will not easily be forgotten, with its banner headline "Abortion of the Healthy Twin", adorned with a photograph of Prof Phillip Bennett in full surgical costume in the operating theatre, along with his statement: "She said she didn't want twins, would I get rid of one? I said yes. I know I'm playing God."

Mr Bennett, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Queen Charlotte's Hospital, London, has successfully delivered nearly 3,000 babies, about the same number that he has aborted. He does not balk at performing an abortion right up to 40 weeks. In his own words, "I dismember the foetus, pull it apart limb by limb and remove it piece by piece. I don't find it pleasant but I'm of sufficiently tough constitution to do it."

There was no suggestion from the British Medical Association that his actions are incompatible with medical ethics. On the contrary, a spokesperson for the ethics committee of the Association was quick to place on record that the case raised no new ethical or legal issues.

Part of the horror is that the British Medical Association may be correct. The "twins" scenario is particularly affecting, because in focusing on the child who will die and its sibling who will live, the starkness of the choice between life and death that accompanies all abortions is exposed. But in fact and principle it is no different than any other abortion, and Prof Bennett is no different from any other doctor who plays God with his patients.

Unfortunately, this point was missed by many of the people who put pens to paper on the issue. Writing in this newspaper, Padraig O'Morain concluded "... one can be opposed to this abortion and still be in favour of abortion in some circumstances."

Even Kevin Myers, writing in response to the O'Morain article, confessed to an ambivalence about abortion which he attributed to the deep anguish we feel about a problem we cannot cope with. Mr Myers noted correctly that lacking the moral certainty to take life is a virtue. However, this must mean that lacking the moral certainty to protect life is certainly unvirtuous.

Like Mr Myers, I offer no legal panaceas for dealing with the enormously complicated issue of unwanted pregnancy. But that is not to say that the law has no part in protecting the unborn. I suggest that the unborn require a level of legal protection that is not presently there, and that this can be provided without causing medical or legal complications.

As Padraig O'Morain wrote, either the `x-case' judgment must be legislated for by the Oireachtas or another referendum held. I believe the second option is the correct one, because legislation would allow the direct and intentional killing of the unborn, and that is what everybody of goodwill must strive to avoid.

If we can glean even one lesson from the history of the past century, it should be this: the decision that inconvenient lives are disposable is the first step on a road that is better left untravelled.

Further consideration might remind us that taking the side of the inconvenient is neither popular nor profitable. It is so much easier to concede the principle and salvage our consciences by distancing ourselves from the more extreme consequences.

Our society is far from perfect, and we can never be complacent or self- righteous when so many of our own people take the abortion trail to Britain. However, I believe that the majority of people in this country regard human life as having an intrinsic value, and that being an inconvenience should not warrant a death sentence.

And when we look at our nearest neighbour, and see a society in which 3,000 human embryos are incinerated in one day and a leading gynaecologist speaks of pulling foetuses limb from limb, we should acknowledge that some aspects of Irish life deserve the maximum protection possible - and one of them is unconditional respect for all human life.