A chara, – I am appalled by Tim Jackson’s justification for preventing a woman to abort her baby that may have an “abnormality that is incompatible with life” (April 20th).
How can he possibly claim to advocate the rights of the unborn when he would prolong the suffering of such a baby, especially if it survives after birth for “one minute, day, month or year”?
This is exactly the type of attitude that stigmatises and alienates women who are in similar circumstances, as evidenced by Kathy Sheridan’s article (Home News, April 17th).
There are important arguments to be heard on both sides of this debate. There is no room for bigotry. – Is mise,
Sir, – The core of “the abortion issue” that has yet to be truthfully examined is the definition of “Unborn” as defended by our Constitution.
If human life is to be protected from the first moment of conception – any other point in the continuum of life, eg implantation or viability, is but arbitrary – then it calls into question the mass-destruction of the human embryo by the practice of chemical and mechanical artificial contraception including the so-called “morning after pill”, the legitimacy of destructive embryo experimentation and the fate of so many frozen Irish embryos – the product of assisted reproductive technologies. Is this the substantive reason why the issue is so “divisive”, “complex” and “sensitive”?
How can we treat this massive loss of life with such impunity? – Yours, etc,