Sir, – Aine Sperrin's suggestion (December 3rd) that the views of the Catholic bishops should be excluded from coverage of the debate on the Eighth Amendment is quite extraordinary.
She justifies this proposed censorship on the grounds that the bishops are “members of a group that will never be personally affected by any maternity health services, north or south of the Border”.
I wonder how Ms Sperrin can be so certain that the bishops will not be so affected.
Does she imagine that they have no mothers, sisters, nieces or other female relatives or friends? Are bishops and, indeed, priests, to be treated as outcasts or second-class citizens, excluded from what Ms Sperrin describes as the “social discourse”.
What other classes of citizens are to have their civil rights similarly circumscribed? The Irish Times has done a public service by publishing her letter and providing your readers with an insight into the attitude of some pro-choice advocates to freedom of speech for their opponents! – Yours, etc,
PADDY BARRY,
Killiney,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – The statement by Senator Paul Bradford of Renua in the Seanad that “There are no such babies as babies with fatal foetal abnormalities” is an extremely intemperate one (December 1st). As practising doctors we wish to offer complete compassionate care in Ireland to all women and couples at one of the most traumatic times in their lives. Respecting their autonomy, we wholeheartedly support all of our patients – those who choose to continue and those so far refused the opportunity to implement their considered decision to end their pregnancies, with the support of family and friends, in their own country. We agree that language is powerful and has the potential to hurt. We advocate that the language used should be that preferred by the pregnant woman herself. – Yours, etc,
Dr PEADAR O’GRADY,
Dr TIERNAN MURRAY,
Dr MARION DYER,
Dr CIARA FLYNN,
Dr ROSS KELLY,
Dr MAEVE FERRITER,
Dr MARK MURPHY,
Doctors for Choice,
Dublin 2.
Sir, – Barry Walsh (December 2nd) is quite incorrect to suggest that the Northern Ireland abortion ruling is an undemocratic imposition. When the people of Northern Ireland endorsed the Belfast Agreement, they also approved of the direct application of the European Convention of Human Rights by the courts there, of which this is merely one instance.
It should be recalled that the legislature that adopted the ban on abortion in the Offences Against the Person Act in 1861 was not particularly democratic but this is the current basis of the ban in Northern Ireland and was the source of the ban in this jurisdiction until 2013. As things stand it would appear that this jurisdiction will be operating the closest model to the Victorian-era legislation that emanated from Westminster.
Proponents for reform are not merely advocating repeal of the Eighth Amendment but a reconciliation with the 13th Amendment.
As travel is the most important right, the Irish position is a moral comfort blanket to inflict judgment on the most vulnerable, which is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment. – Yours, etc,
BRIAN DINEEN, LLM
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
A chara, – Barry Walsh accuses Mr Justice Horner of ignoring the wishes of “the democratically elected governments of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom”, as if those governments actually held the same opinion on abortion.
In fact the UK government’s 1967 Abortion Act was never adopted in Northern Ireland, and if it had been there would have been no need for the recent court case.
As in other areas of moral “difficulty” like gay rights and marriage equality, where Northern Ireland lags behind not only Britain but also the jurisdiction that the unionists once derided as “priest-ridden”. The unionist majority politicians hold to British values only when it suits them, and the rest hide behind that stance, talking about equality but avoiding actually doing something, for fear of principles costing them votes. – Is mise,
JOE McLAUGHLIN,
Bonnyrigg,
Midlothian,
Scotland.