Sir, – Under our Constitution the most basic and fundamental right contributing to the common good is the right to life itself. In practice in Ireland this gets priority over all other rights. Indeed, failure to secure the right to life would make the granting of all other rights impossible. Changing the priority of rights would be disastrous. Imagine if property rights were deemed more important than the right to life – the death penalty could then be justified for stealing.
The argument for abortion, even in difficult circumstances where freedom to choose seems somewhat restricted, would reverse the priority of rights, giving the right to freedom of choice precedence over the right to life. Surely this would fatally undermine our Constitution, jeopardising its protection of the lives of many groups of people including unborn children, the elderly, disabled or terminally ill – as already happens in some other EU countries.
The unavoidable death of an unborn child during necessary medical treatment of her/his mother to save her life does not undermine the Constitution.
Perhaps the Attorney General should look at this aspect of the proposed abortion Bill. – Yours, etc,
SEÁN FALLON,
Killakee Walk,
Firhouse, Dublin 24.
Sir, – While I recognise that a broad spectrum of opinion must be represented by your publication, I do wonder why letters that make illogical claims are allowed to muddy this debate. It does the public no service to be stooping to tabloid reporting, even if it is done via a third party.
The example that has prompted me to react is the letter from John Cronin (June 25th), in which he argues: “The Constitution refers to the ‘equal right to life’ of the mother and the unborn. How then without a referendum . . . can a law be valid permitting in defined circumstances, unborn life to be taken to preserve the life of the mother, if it does not at the same time permit in defined circumstances the life of the mother to be taken to preserve that of the unborn?”
I would like to remind everyone that Article 40 defines the equal right to life of both in principle, setting a practical limit on the right to life of one but not the other.
This is clearly conveyed by the words “with due regard. . . [for] the mother” and “as far as practicable”.
Illogical arguments like the above move the debate backwards, not forwards. – Yours, etc,
CIARA MADDEN,
Taborstrasse,
Vienna,
Austria.