Sir, – In advancing what he calls the “rule of rights” John Bruton seems content to upend the rule of law (Opinion, February 15th). The Oireachtas makes the laws, but the Supreme Court exists to interpret them with regard to the parameters of our political settlement as defined by the Constitution.
While legislating on the basis of interpreting “plain language plainly” may hold some crass populist appeal, to do so in the full knowledge that the principles underpinning the legislation in question – the contingent “right to life” of the unborn, equal rights of the mother etc – have been previously established by the highest court in the land seems like wide-eyed naivety.
But it is much worse than that. It is yet another instance of the sickening cynicism that has defined the Irish political establishment on this issue since the X case. To advance shoddy legislation on the basis of John Bruton’s bar-stool jurisprudence would be an affront to all of those women who have been caused so much suffering by the unshakeable complacency of Ireland’s political class. It would achieve nothing but many more years of pain, more suffering, more botched legal remedies, more court cases and more ridiculous referendums.
Shame on Mr Bruton for not grasping this nettle while he had the power in government to do so, and shame on him now for advocating yet another cynical and dangerous fudge. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Andrew Doyle (January 23rd) asserts “The anti-abortion promoters are about imposing their will on others who do not share their views and that is the bottom line”. However, he muddies the waters by bringing “religious practice, sexual persuasion, or access to divorce or contraception” into the mix.
There is a fundamental qualitative difference where abortion is concerned, in that it involves the deliberate ending of a unique human life. It is the ultimate expression of one person’s will being imposed on another, and that has to be the real bottom line.
A common argument against moralistic interference in people’s lives is that we should “live and let live”. Can anyone who truly endorses this sound philosophy be in favour of abortion for any purpose other than where a woman’s life or health is endangered? – Yours, etc,