Sir, – Speaking in Cardiff, Enda Kenny earlier this week stated, “The vast majority of people do not want . . . abortion on demand.” I have no doubt but that this is the Taoiseach’s strongly-held view, and the intention of Fine Gael. What they appear to be about to do in practise, though, is to introduce exactly that.
In every other country where abortion has been introduced, it has always been intended for very limited application. In every case, the apparently stringent guidelines have been opportunistically exploited to broaden the circumstances in which an abortion is allowed. In particular, mental health grounds – so often highly subjective and lacking in concrete measurable clinical data – are wide open to varying interpretations.
Despite the very best of intentions, this Government is being railroaded into rushed legislation that will have devastating ramifications if suicidal ideation remains included. British MPs look back now at the 1967 Abortion Act in horror at how it has turned out, but it’s too late to turn back the clock there. Are we about to go down the same road? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In answer to Dr Eimer Philbin Bowman’s rather one- sided observation (November 30th) may I too wonder: if Irish women were as hesitant in contributing to a crisis pregnancy as Irish men are in enacting legislation for it, would we have a need for legislation? Misogynist of me perhaps? Only in so much as the good doctor is a misandrist. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Minister of State Lucinda Creighton “insisted Fine Gael did not have a mandate to legislate for abortion” during her impassioned contribution to the Fine Gael party meeting (News Agenda, November 28th) The Minister obviously believes an electoral mandate has a higher priority than a Supreme Court or legal mandate.
Wouldn’t it be great if the Minister was as vocal and logical about her mandate when she is dealing with our debt and the unelected powers that be in Europe? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote in Evangelium Vitae (1995), point 104, “rejection of human life, in whatever form that rejection takes, is really a rejection of Christ.” – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I find it ironic that David Carroll (November 29th) suggests anti-depressants as a solution for a woman who feels suicidal at the thought of continuing her pregnancy. It is well known, in spite of what some psychiatrists say, that solutions such as this can add to the original problem, often resulting in addiction and occasionally causing death. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Any decision regarding the acceptance of abortion in our country is likely to have a profound and long-lasting effect.
The guidelines of the Irish Medical Council, when applied, are clear and effective. A woman in labour is to receive whatever treatment she requires. Such intervention is not abortion. The full facts regarding the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar will come to light in due course. Under existing guidelines, our country has established itself as one of the safest places in the world to be pregnant. If clarity is required, then let it be enshrined in law. There are many young people engaged in the present debate who perhaps would not be alive today, had we accepted abortion 30 years ago.
Fine Gael was voted into office having given a clear commitment in regard to its stance on the issue. The Government could either legislate within the guidelines of the Irish Medical Council or it could refer the matter back to the people “from whom all authority derives”.
The leaking of the findings of the “Expert Group” on abortion was described in the Senate as “amounting to treason” (Home News, November 28th). The list of suspects is not particularly long! Is it that easy to stampede the Irish people into a major social and ethical shift? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Mary Minihan (Opinion, November 29th) commends Alan Shatter for his Orwellian observation that “some citizens are more equal than others” when referring to the Constitution’s balance between rights of mothers and the unborn. Mr Shatter was bemoaning the fact that a mother’s right to have her health protected is qualified by the child’s right to life.
Indeed, as Mr Shatter is aware, all rights are qualified – particularly when they start to impact upon the rights of others. As between mother and baby: health, we can work on, but a life ended is final.
In fact, Mr Shatter is calling for the creation of an inequality where none now exists. And so, rather like in Animal Farm, Mr Shatter’s call for equality, when we examine it, rings rather hollow. – Yours, etc,