Sir, – Maolsheachlann O Ceallaigh’s assertion (May 3rd) that the abortion debate in Ireland has been “side-tracked by irrelevant questions” such as “a woman’s right to choose” raises an interesting point.
While movements for reproductive justice in other countries, such as the United Kingdom and America, have always been couched in terms of privacy, equality and bodily integrity, conversations on abortion legislation in this country are notable for their absence of a discussion on women’s rights and the reality of women’s daily lives.
While various male politicians have recently taken to the airwaves to explain how their rights will be violated by allowing a suicidal woman to terminate her pregnancy, we hear very little about the lived experiences of women before, during and after pregnancy.
What about the circumstances of total inequality in which some women become pregnant? What about the fact that an unwanted pregnancy may deprive women, unlike men, of meaningful participation in academic, employment and social activity?
What about the fact that, in Ireland and around the world, desperation to avoid pregnancy means that, in 2013, many women are still forced to submit to risky, life-threatening back-street abortions? Living in a democratic society means that all persons opposed to abortion should be entitled to air their views in an atmosphere of respect. However, if we are meaningfully to debate the issue of abortion in Ireland, we must start listening to those most affected by abortion rules. – Yours, etc,
PETER DUNNE,
Castle Avenue,
Clontarf, Dublin 3.
Sir, – Niall Ginty accuses the Catholic Bishops of failing “to protect vulnerable children” (May 9th). That is exactly what they are trying to do – only this time, the children have not yet been born. – Yours, etc,
KIERON WOOD,
Grange Wood,
Rathfarnham,
Dublin 16.
Sir, – With regard to Simon Mills’s comment on the limited degree of conscientious objection envisaged in the draft legislation on abortion (Opinion, May 4th) it is important to note the recent recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in this area.
On April 24th, the assembly passed a resolution by 148 votes to three which urges member states to “accommodate religious beliefs in the public sphere by guaranteeing freedom of thought in relation to health care, education and the civil service provided that the rights of others to be free from discrimination are respected and that the access to lawful services is guaranteed”. It also calls upon member states to “ensure the right to well-defined conscientious objection in relation to morally sensitive matters”.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), like the Parliamentary Assembly is a Council of Europe institution so it is highly likely that the thinking behind this resolution will inform future ECHR judgments in the area of conscientious objection.
Given that it was a ECHR ruling that first prompted the Government to introduce the draft legislation now under discussion it is important that Council of Europe thinking on the right of conscientious objection be fully reflected in the final text. Failure to ensure this will inevitably lead to it being legally challenged on human rights grounds. – Yours, etc,
ED KELLY,
Keswick Road,
St Helens,
Merseyside,
England.
A chara, – Catholic bishops love to talk about “unchanging teaching” on the sanctity of life. Likewise they tell us legislators cannot legislate to take away life.
Strange the way they ignore their own church’s history and its disgraceful ambivalence on war. The so-called “just war” theory, developed by St Augustine, reversed three centuries of Christian non-violence and provided moral cover for war.
The “principles” are well known. Less well known is the question of who should determine if a war is just. Not the church funnily enough, but rather “lawful authority” ie government. So when it comes to war the Roman Catholic Church handed over the authority to destroy life to the state. At least when it wasn’t fighting wars itself, that is. It continues to this day. You will search in vain for authoritative comment from the bishops of Germany, UK, or the US on the bombing of cities in the UK, Germany, and Japan respectively. They left it to “lawful authority” including Hitler.
Of course it’s different when a frightened suicidal rape victim is involved. The church seems to love enforcing its harshest teaching when it comes to women. It only compromises when its own power is threatened.
Roman Catholicism has always collaborated with power. In the process it has corrupted itself and devalued its ability to teach the authentic message of Christ.
No wonder church-goers like me wonder why we bother. Are we only giving them cover? – Yours, etc,
BRENDAN RYAN,
The Orchards,
Montenotte,
Cork.
Sir, – Youth suicide is an ongoing problem in Ireland, seemingly perceived by some as a “solution” to their problems. Against this background, I have little difficulty accepting as plausible that the young girl at the centre of the X case was indeed contemplating suicide as a means of resolving her dilemma. We should be thankful that Miss X revealed her intentions and thus averted an even worse nightmare for herself and her family.
Those who argue that abortion is not a cure for suicidal intent are probably right. There is no cure for suicide, the only remedy is prevention. If the proposed legislation becomes law, perhaps the availability of an alternative “solution” will, in the future, save the lives of some young girls and women. Indeed, it is possible that discussing the issue with medical professionals may help preserve both the lives involved. – Yours, etc,
PETER MOLLOY,
Haddington Park,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – I cannot but wonder how those people who oppose the provision of abortion to a woman who is suicidal, and feels an abortion is necessary at least in part to alleviate her distress, propose to deal with her.
If a woman, three months pregnant and so distressed that she cannot find her own way to leave the jurisdiction to avail of the services she feels she needs, presents herself to their care, are they going to confine her to a locked ward in a mental hospital until she has come to term, to six months of mental agony and an unwanted birth, the child to be immediately removed from her care as she is incapable of looking after it?
That option would be available: they would have no problem finding two doctors among their ranks who would certify that she was a clear danger to herself and to another.
Oh of course, I was forgetting: she was only shamming suicidal tendencies in the first place. – Yours, etc,
EOIN DILLON,
Ceannt Fort,
Mount Brown,
Dublin 8.
Sir, – Martyn Turner’s cartoon (Opinion, May 8th) in which an unabashed equivalence is made between those who oppose abortion and the men allegedly responsible for the kidnapping and prolonged sexual abuse of three young girls in a dungeon in Cleveland is utterly vile and unspeakably unfair. I would never be called hypersensitive, but the idea that either subject is “game for a laugh” is, quite frankly, desperate and sad. Nor do I feel inclined to accept the usual excuse proffered on these occasions: that we should view this as black humoured frustration at our national inability – or unwillingness – to recognise fundamental similarities. No such similarities exist and, stripped of all the exculpatory blather about the truth-telling role of the cartoonist, what we actually are given is the message that any man who, for whatever reason, thinks that abortion is wrong and cruel is as oppressive to a woman’s freedom as kidnapping rapists. Mr Turner might like to think about this one again. And the editor(s) who saw nothing wrong with this disgrace can join him in that exercise. – Yours, etc,
CATHAL MacCARTHY,
Golf Links Road,
Castletroy,
Limerick.
Sir, – Given the abysmal record of the Catholic bishops on child protection, excommunication now for a social policy reason is likely to be seen by any politician as a guaranteed vote-winner. – Yours, etc,
ANTHONY O’LEARY,
Blackberry Rise,
Portmarnock,
Co Dublin.