Sir, - Nuala O'Faolain, writing in The Irish Times (January 13th) asks some awkward questions about abortion, though she herself does not acknowledge their full implications. These questions are all the more relevant as the legal situation of abortion in this country remains to be clarified, either by legislation or by referendum.
Ms O'Faolain asks: "Can a very developed foetus suffer? I know it reacts to stimulus, but can we ever know whether it can suffer?" (my italics). Yes, we know it reacts to stimulus, a reaction not unlike that of a born child subjected to pain. A question Ms O'Faolain does not ask, but which I believe is just as relevant, is: do we have the right to theorize about a foetus's reactions to pain stimuli and continue to apply these "stimuli" because we are not satisfied with the prima facie evidence that it is suffering pain?
But what really gets to the heart of the matter is not whether the foetus suffers (after all, a lethal injection might get around that) but whether or not the unborn child has the right to be nurtured and respected as a member of the human community. In this context, one of Ms O'Faolain's questions becomes extremely pertinent: "Is it the arrival into society that makes the difference to rights and duties, so that one would not kill a week old baby but one would a week old foetus?"
Is it the "arrival into society", the birth of the child, that confirms its humanity? Is it its visible presence, in the arms of its mother, that gives it the right to life? Is it the passage from the womb and the severing of the umbilical cord that make a life sacred and inviolable? If this is indeed the justification for abortion, could somebody please explain to me on what medical, ethical and or biological fact(s) this crucial judgment rests? - Yours, etc.,
Mount Prospect Avenue,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.