CATHERINE NAJI,
A chara, - Senator Mary Henry's letter of January 7th was a beacon of common sense in the midst of the muddled thinking over the proposed abortion referendum.
In particular, I was struck by the point she made about endangering women's lives because of the lack of provision for the emergency treatment of pregnant women who are haemorrhaging. This happened to me some years ago when, living in rural Ireland, I haemorrhaged profusely in the middle of the night. I was in my 11th week of pregnancy. Due to good medical management, my five children still had a mother at the end of the day, although the foetus was lost.
I shudder to think what would happen to a woman in the same circumstances if this referendum were passed. How far would she have to be brought to find an "approved centre"? And, horror of horrors, what if she gets there and finds that the people on duty are "conscientious objectors"?
I am voting No at this referendum on the basis of humane treatment for women and their families. This issue is not about theological abstract concepts, nor about sperms and eggs, but about the reality of lives. - Yours, etc.,
CATHERINE NAJI,
Clifton Downs,
Montenotte,
Cork.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir,- I would like to think that Mrs Mary Stewart is an intelligent woman. Therefore, the most significant aspect of her letter of January 8th is that she completely misses the key point of mine (December 20th). She suggests that I make one exception in my opposition to "the death penalty", namely, "the baby of a rape victim".
Why this use of violent and abusive language? Presumably because she thinks that the Church has defined that a baby exists at conception and that to abort every embryo is to execute a baby. Any theologian will tell her she is wrong on both scores.
On the basis of these errors, she wants to accuse me and the millions of people who support therapeutic work on embryos or any form of abortion of siding with baby-killers.
Church history and modern embryology are against her. For 1,500 years, popes and bishops said that human life did not begin at conception and the abortion of an early embryo was not murder. I who follow the Church's constant witness in this respect resent being accused of advocating the execution of babies.
Embryology supports the saneness of tradition. If life begins at conception, nature kills off most human beings in the womb without women knowing it. This makes God responsible for literally sending most human beings down the drain. Since Canon Law says unbaptised babies can't get to heaven, I'm glad I do not share Mrs Stewart's demonic view of God.
Personally, I'm against two forms of extremism that are mirror images of each other: 1. Abortion is always the free choice of a pregnant woman or couple. 2. Every abortion is murder. These extremes preclude any hope of dialogue so that whether the referendum is lost or won the issue will not be any nearer resolution. - Yours, etc.,
PETER DE ROSA,
Ashford,
Co Wicklow.