The abortion debate

Sir, – It is clear the question of how many medical men can vouch for suicidal ideation in a pregnant woman is a total red herring. It is designed to distract from the more important, previous question: “Is a threat of suicide a valid reason for killing a foetus in the womb?”. The majority of Irish people would answer No to that question, so there is no point in debating whether it should be six or five or for or three or two or one medical person who can pass judgment.

I hope and pray that our politicians are not distracted by this manoeuvre but will pay attention to the message of conscience and have the courage to listen to the ordinary people of Ireland. – Yours, etc,

Sr ANNE MAHER,

Loreto Convent,

READ MORE

Bray, Co Wicklow.

Sir, – As a child I was taught by the Jesuits that an unborn child has a equal right to life to the mother. I never questioned this. Why would I? First, it is not an objectionable idea to want to protect all life. If anything, it is admirable. Second, I never contemplated the consequences of this moral paradigm. Why would I? I wasn’t expecting a child then, but I am now. Savita Halappanavar’s death has made crystal clear this idea is daft in practice. I’m embarrassed the consequences of my earlier thinking might mean life-saving treatment is kept locked away until it is too late.

What I didn’t realise is that the equal right to life only matters when you have to choose. The reality of our laws is that an abortion is a crime on a similar footing to a murder or a rape. Keeping abortion banned until the woman is close to death effectively gives the unborn child a superior right to life. It is Neanderthal. No two ways about it. I’m embarrassed that I ever subscribed to the idea. But I don’t matter, the 166 TDs do. – Yours, etc,

AIDAN O’BOYLE,

Brushfield Way,

Knaphill, Surrey, England.