Sir, - Since the foundation of this State there has been much reported evidence of domestic violence and the neglect and abuse of women and children in Irish society. The Hepatitis C scandal is perhaps one of the greatest examples of the appalling manner in which "professionals" appear to have maltreated women in this part of Europe.
As a male it never ceases to amaze me why certain males in Irish society feel they are best placed to legislate, let alone even comment, on women's and children's health issues.
The rationale behind the latest attempt to determine a solution for the mother and the unborn to my mind highlights, sadly not for the first time, the apparent total lack of compassion and understanding for the needs of women in personal crisis.
Perhaps it is high time, especially for those who are currently recommending a Yes vote, to reflect honestly on their respective agenda(s), consider the real issues and display at least the same enthusiasm for the basic human rights and protection of the born! - Yours, etc.,
PETER GAUGHAN,
Monkstown,
Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - Those who call for a No vote in the referendum would seem to take one or other of two positions, both totally negative, with no reference whatever to even the possibility of another opinion. This, to say the least, is very poor advocacy, with no allowance whatever for even the possibility of another point of view.
Totally negative? Yes, of course.
Their first position would appear to reject all constitutional or legal restraints (Doctors for Choice, right-to-choose groups, etc.)
Their second is to offer a new legislation in accord with the Supreme Court Judgment in the X case (Labour, Fine Gael, and others).
The former position is, from a political point of view, totally unrealistic. The latter, we submit, is based on an indefensible foundation.
The majority decision in the X Case was - as widely acknowledged at the time - a rushed decision in an atmosphere of political turmoil, great emotion and intense media pressure. While every judgment, in particular a judgment of the Supreme Court, must be treated with respect, there is no judgment which is beyond critical analysis and evaluation. A very distinguished academic lawyer wrote at the time of the X Case that "if the court had deliberately set out to create the maximum legal chaos, it could not have done a better job" - so many were the internal contradictions, so poor the argumentation.
Even more important and crucial in this context, so totally inadequate was the factual evidence. There was no psychiatric advice whatsoever. In his dissenting judgment, Mr Justice Hederman pointed out very forcibly that "there has been no evidence whatever of an obstetrical or indeed of any other medical nature". Prof Anthony Clare, in his evidence at the abortion hearings where he regretted the X Case decision, declared: "Clearly there was not a real and substantial risk, and there was not a probability that this 14-year-old girl would have gone on to commit suicide."
Is it not quite unreasonable, if not irrational, to attempt to argue that we should reject the referendum - rather that we could and should proceed to legislate on the basis of the X judgment, a benchmark judgment which has rightly been described as "profoundly flawed?"
A No vote and a No decision would most certainly mean that, in the words of the Attorney General, - "the doors swing open almost inevitably" and "there will be relatively liberal abortion on demand; it would be very similar to the present regime in England, where it has become a semi-automatic process."
Some current Irish politicians have expressed the view that legislation in accord with the X decision can be tightly drafted and controlled. This was actually attempted in the British Abortion Act 1967. Within a very few years, all the controls, so well-intentioned, sadly with some medical compliance, were under social pressures abruptly thrust aside, and abortion became, and to this day remains, available on demand and for reasons of no more than convenience.
A Yes vote will ensure that we learn from that experience and prevent us from going down that road of death. - Yours, etc.,
Rev JEROME CURTIN, DCL,
Barrister at Law,
Cherbury Court,
Booterstown,
Co Dublin.
Rev GERARD SHEEHY, DCL,
Barrister at Law,
Glasnevin Hill,
Dublin 9.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - So the sporting Taoiseach has refused the challenge of public debate on the upcoming referendum.
Could it be that Cheltenham Charlie has tipped him that favourites can fall at fences? - Yours, etc.,
DAMIEN FLINTER,
Church Hill,
Clifden,
Co Galway.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - It seems that the pro-life proponents are divided into the pro Pro-Life campaigners and the anti Pro-Life campaigners, which is a great help to us all.
The downside is that if the referendum fails they may have plans for another, but maybe by then Mr Ahern and his independents may not be in charge. - Yours, etc.,
ARTHUR DUNNE,
Seafield Close,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.