Sir, – Canon Stephen Neill states in support of his pro-choice views that “Even Mary, the Christ bearer, was given the choice to say yes or no to bearing the Messiah” (Rite & Reason, June 4th). This is a spurious argument. Our Lady’s acceptance of her destiny came before conception. – Yours, etc,
CIARÁN CONNOLLY,
St Assam’s Avenue,
Raheny, Dublin 5.
Sir, – Stephen Neill’s article (Rite & Reason, June 4th) leaves me thoroughly confused. What does he mean by the “middle ground”? In reality it seems to mean a little bit of abortion, a position proven time and again elsewhere to be impossible.
I guess he must read blogs rather than authoritative statements if he receives the message that women are vessels whose primary purpose is to support the life within her. Anything mainstream that I have read states the obvious: that there are two lives, both are valued and to be protected, but if the life of one, on which the other depends, is in clear danger of death then whatever treatment is required should be available to her, whatever the consequences for the dependent life, since it is clearly better to save one life rather than none.
Mary was given the choice before she became pregnant so I can see no relevance to the present discussion, other than the obvious one.
The issue of trust is relevant to most choices we make. However, as a society we have the duty to give guidelines for what is acceptable, be it drinking, driving, or making noise at night. For the majority of people in this country abortion is not acceptable but full, immediate, and effective treatment for life-threatening circumstances is not only acceptable but demanded.
Stephen Neill wishes to trust women with the integrity of their own bodies, as of course we all do, the problem is that there is a second body who is being ignored in this equation. – Yours, etc,
PATRICK DAVEY,
Dublin Road,
Shankill, Dublin 18.
Sir, – Let’s cut to the chase regarding the scenario that will arise if the present abortion proposals are passed.
Take the case of a woman refused an abortion on grounds of a suicide threat. Is she to be confined until delivery? Is her passport to be seized? Are ports, airports and border-crossings to be watched?
Suppose none of these measures is taken and she goes abroad and has an abortion. On her return will she be imprisoned for 14 years? – Yours, etc,
CATHERINE E GRIFFIN,
Glenageary Park,
Glenageary, Co Dublin.
Sir, – Every time I read the letters on this topic I come across a variant of “there is no evidence that termination is the treatment for threatened suicide in pregnancy” (May 29th, from various doctors).
That statement seems to be going unchallenged, but is it right? Surely if a woman is suicidal because she is pregnant, then isn’t it fair to say that if she is not pregnant she would not be suicidal? Is it not logical to assume that removing the cause of a problem solves the problem? – Yours, etc,
LIAM COOKE,
Greencastle Avenue,
Coolock,
Dublin 17.