PETER DE ROSA,
Sir, - I'm charmed by Niamh Roche's improbable suggestion (December 28th) that I attacked Catholic bishops for being too liberal on abortion. Hardly. Forget the terrorist atrocities in New York - these gentlemen think that, in 2001, 7,000 Irish women murdered babies abroad and thousands more did so at home. They're keen to tell a suicidal rape victim like the teenager in the X case, "You can't have an abortion, you'll just have to kill yourself". Incidentally, I have yet to meet a parent who would not seek an abortion for a daughter made pregnant by a rapist.
Ms Roche interprets me as saying (December 20th) that the bishops were "at variance with the Pope". Such miracles do not occur. What I said was that they were "contrary to the fullness of papal teaching". The reason was less disloyalty than their usual muddle-headedness.
They insist, for instance, that the soul is infused at conception and to attack any embryo is murder. Why? Because the Pope says so. But on those two crucial points the Pope really is "at variance" with 1,500 years of unchanging and supposedly unchangeable Catholic teaching. Will the bishops explain why we have to agree with John Paul rather than with hundreds of other popes whom he contradicts?
Ms Roche makes the point that only after implantation can a pregnancy be detected and dealt with by law. I have said the same to many people to explain why the bishops were beguiled into backing the referendum. But my letter dealt not with law and pregnancy but with what I assume are the bishops' priorities - ethics and fertilisation.
It is easy to detect fertilisation when it takes place in a test tube. Bishops believe that embryos in vitro are as much human beings as those in the womb. Surely they ought to seek their constitutional protection, too.
As if to strengthen my argument, on the day Ms Roche's letter appeared, the Adelaide Hospital Society published its proposals to the Commission on Assisted Reproduction. The Adelaide hopes to legalise stem-cell research on embryos up to 14 days and screening for genetic defects - procedures which could lead to what Pope and bishops bizarrely call murdering unborn babies. - Yours, etc.,
PETER DE ROSA,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - In response to Roderick's O'Hanlon's letter of December 31st, I wish to confirm that I and the organisation of which I am part, Galway For Life (which is affiliated to the Pro-life Campaign) support the Government's proposal on abortion.
We support the proposal because it effectively reverses the erroneous X case decision. On the one hand it seeks to vindicate the rights of the unborn in so far as the X case adversely affected them, while at the same time guaranteeing that a pregnant mother receives all necessary treatment, even where such treatment may result in the unintentional death of her pre-born child.
It proposes to do no more or less than incorporate into statute law current medical practice which has insured that Ireland, according to UNICEF, is the safest place in the world for pregnant mothers. - Is mise,
MAIRTÍN Ó MAOLRUAIDH,
Tuam Road,
Galway.