Sir, – Vincent Browne (Opinion, January 16th) writes that an unborn baby does not have an unconditional right to life because she is completely dependent on her mother for sustenance and therefore a decision to terminate is solely a matter for her mother.
A new born baby is also completely dependent for survival. Similarly my 21-month old toddler wouldn’t survive for long without the care of her parents.
Dependence is not a valid argument for abortion. Otherwise infanticide would also be acceptable.
None of this precludes, as is currently the case in Ireland, women being given all necessary medical treatment to protect their life or health. If the baby dies as an unintended consequence, that is a tragic but unavoidable consequence. It is completely different to the direct targeting of the unborn through abortion. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Vincent Browne (Opinion, January 16th) declares that no person has an unconditional right to life, but he seems prepared, in certain circumstances, to accord the mother of an unborn child the unconditional right to end the life of that child. Those of us who oppose this he portrays as absolutist, anti-women (this seems to apply only to Catholics) and hypocritical.
His article started out very promisingly, capturing some of the joy and wonder of each new human life, then degenerated into the “same old, same old” guff that I have just summarised. Will the real Vincent Browne please stand up? – Yours, etc,
Sir,– I have a brief recommendation concerning legislating for the X case. I believe the Oireachtas should, when amending the current criminal provisions found in the 1861 Act, insert a subsection identical to that found in, for example, s2(4) of the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act 1993, stating that prosecutions should only be brought by or with the consent of the DPP because of the moral, medical and evidential complexities that are inherent in prosecutions of this kind.
The legislation the Oireachtas enacts should seek to bring finality to the issue. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Paul Griffin (January 16th) maintains that much confusion on the subject of abortion has its origins in an inability to distinguish between a foetus and a child. A child “having entered the world and had its birth recorded, it has a name and an identity”.
Well there is some short time lapse before such actions are taken so, in Mr Griffin’s definition, there is no difference during that short period. A foetus, he states “depends completely on its host for its blood supply and its nourishment”.What Mr Griffin appears to miss is that there is a time continuum in pre-natal and post-natal periods of existence. The natural environment during the pre-natal period of existence is the womb. A time comes when the womb is no longer a suitable place for continued development and so, what Mr Griffin insists on referring to as the foetus enters the now more suitable environment of the outside world. But the baby continues to be totally dependent on the provision of nourishment, comfort and attention provided, in the case of nourishment in a different form by the mother or others.
In fact, throughout our lives we continue to be dependent on others to provide us with clothing, food,housing, heat, transport and other things.
Pre-natal and post-natal we are never completely autonomous. Life, from conception to death, presents us with a continuum of dependence on others. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In reply to Barry Walsh’s questions (January 15th) as to why the “rush to amend”, despite his doubts on suicide ideation and the legal threat to doctors and patients, I present four legal facts.
Abortion is legal in Ireland under certain circumstances. Suicide is a recognised threat to the life of a mother under our Constitution. The 1861 Offences Against the Persons Act specifies legal sanctions against those involved causing abortion but European citizens have rights to clear and unambiguous legislation.
The pro-life lobby has lost the constitutional argument on suicide as a threat to the life of a mother and has been in denial for the last 20 years. The most recent manifestation of this denial is the risable suggestion that the opinion of psychiatrists somehow negates the Constitution.
That Mr Walsh uses the phrase “rush to amend” is certainly ironic, as it was the pro-life lobby’s original rush to amend that has it in this fix.
Perhaps this is the reason it is not so vociferously pressing for another referendum now. The preferred tactic seems to be to attempt to subvert the Constitution by bullying a hopefully inept legislature. – Yours, etc,