A chara, - In choosing to hold yet another referendum and to submit a wording to the people which precludes termination of pregnancy where there is a threat to the life of the woman in the form of suicide, not only is the Government rowing back from the Supreme Court enunciation of the law as contained in the X judgment, but it is also sending a clear message that in certain circumstances where there exists a conflict between the rights of a woman and the rights of the foetus, the rights of the foetus should prevail.
Of course the Government will resort to the dishonest rhetoric (in which many seek refuge), which fudges the issue and which posits that both the woman and foetus have equal rights.
This "equal rights" theory though comforting is false. The truth is that it is impossible in practice to grant equal moral rights to foetuses without denying those same rights to women.
Accepting that the foetus has a right to life and should be protected as far as possible, the stark question arises as to whose rights take precedence in cases of direct conflict? Whose claim to existence is of greater value? The life of a sentient woman or the potential life that is the foetus? The Supreme Court answered this question clearly in 1992. In choosing this wording, the Government too have answered this question. I am appalled. - Is mise,
Sarah Harte, Rathmines, Dublin 6.