JOHN KEARNEY,
Sir, - It may well be that the upcoming referendum on abortion is a serious and honest attempt by the Government to put to the people a formula for the resolution of the many-sided problem of abortion in our land. But I find myself counting my hands.
On the one hand, it does give me a chance to vote to restrict the ruling in the X case by invalidating the threat of suicide as a real and substantial risk, which might constitute a reason for the destruction of human life.
On the other hand, it provides for the constitutional protection of the unborn child only after implantation in the mother's womb. Science, religion, whatever really, tells me that life begins at conception, approximately 14 days before implantation. Is this linked to legalisation of the morning-after pill? Does this leave the door open wide enough for possible further legislation to provide for regulation in the areas of in vitro fertilisation treatment and embryo and stem cell research? I hope not.
And on the other hand, (I only have two), is this perhaps the best chance I will get to vote for the protection of the unborn life? If the amendment is not carried the situation will remain as it is. - Yours, etc.,
JOHN KEARNEY,
Athgoe,
Newcastle,
Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - That the Government is seeking to present the proposed amendment to the Constitution as a "moderate" position on abortion is indicative of how successful the anti-abortion groups have been in setting the terms of the public discussion of the issue in Ireland. An extreme and uncaring proposal is being sold as a reasonable and even liberal one.
Now, as in 1983 when the first referendum on abortion was held, the Government is assisting extremists to hijack the debate on abortion. Central to the tactics being used is to present what are, in fact, highly contestable moral claims as if they were moral certainties. For example, the assertion that abortion is the killing or murder of unborn babies is a crude and emotive catch-cry and an abuse of language which contributes no understanding of the issues and prevents genuine debate from the outset. Like their use of video material of abortions it is an example of moral terrorism.
Instead of shrill moral assertions what is called for is a rational consideration of the moral issues involved and an appreciation of their complexities. Abortion is a difficult moral issue essentially because of the large element of indeterminacy. The question of when life begins has no straightforward answer: to assert that it begins at conception is simplistic - like asserting that middle-age begins at 30.
Perhaps all we have to guide us on such issues are our informal moral intuitions. However, these differ considerably between people. Yet rational discussion even if it does not achieve consensus, shows that reasonable people have intuitively more in common than is often supposed.
The fact is that most people do not respond to the death or destruction of a foetus as they do to that of a human being, however young. Would political colleagues and the media in Britain have responded with the same measure of sympathy if, instead of losing her baby daughter nine days after a very premature birth, the wife of the British Chancellor, Gordon Brown, had miscarried during pregnancy? The answer is obvious.
The foetus is generally perceived as having a moral status which, though greater than that of a neutral growth such as hair, is still substantially less than that of a human being living in the world. Intuitively most of us also accept that as the foetus develops its moral claims to protection grow accordingly. Therefore many who favour some legal provision for the termination of pregnancy regard the use of the morning-after pill as morally innocuous, early abortion more seriously and late abortion as an option to be countenanced only in serious circumstances.
In view of this a genuinely moderate and compassionate law on abortion would provide for it in a number of medical and social circumstances, which would include cases of rape, the likelihood of the baby being born severely handicapped and where it would be very difficult for the woman to cope with bringing up the child (a circumstance which most commonly arises when the woman is poor and already has several children) and having regard also for the stage of pregnancy; and not only in the case where there is a threat to the woman's life that excludes suicide. - Yours, etc.,
FRANK FALLS,
Baldham,
Bavaria,
Germany.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Joe Boyle (February 12th) points to a contradiction that does not exist in his (incorrect) claim that the proposed abortion legislation permits abortion when the mother's life is in danger. It does not permit abortion at all. What it does allow is any medical operation aimed at saving the mother's life, whether or not the side-effects are dangerous to the child. This may seem like pedantry, until one considers a test case.
For example: a pregnant woman has cancer of the womb, and will almost certainly die if the tumor is allowed to remain. She undergoes an operation to have it removed, and although her life is saved, as a sorrowful consequence, her child perishes. This is not abortion.
If, in this case, the child had miraculously survived the operation, the purpose of the procedure (i.e. saving the mother's life) would still have been achieved. However, if this had been an abortion, and the child had survived, the purpose (i.e. the ending of the infant's life before birth) would have been thwarted. The difference, one of initial intent, is absolutely crucial.
Hence, the proposed legislation protects the right to life of both the mother and child. Those who claim that the pro-life cause favours the child at the cost of the mother are, for the most part, well-intentioned but mistaken. Life is life. At every stage of development, it is incredibly precious. - Yours, etc.,
SIOBHÁN MOONEY,
Pinewood Avenue,
Glasnevin,
Dublin 11. ...