A chara, – Fr Patrick McCafferty (January 22nd) wants a referendum on the “crucial moral issue” of abortion. We did that. Then, just in case, we did it again. I was two the first time and 12 the second time. I’ve turned 23 now and I worry for myself and my friends.
Young women fear a gruelling and expensive journey to England if raped, or contraception failed, instead of having a baby they couldn’t afford to give a life to. It is a crucial moral issue, and it’s long past time to deliver what was promised. Twice was enough to pass the Lisbon Treaty! – Is mise,
Sir, – Andrew Doyle (January 23rd) is correct when he writes that the “anti-abortion promoters” wish to restrict choice. They wish to restrict choice because no one should have the choice to legally kill another human being.
The most important question is, therefore, when is a foetus a human being and when is it a “bunch of cells”? The pro-life position is very clear: a foetus is a human being at conception. But what is the pro-choice position? Asking this question is not hair-splitting; it is a life and death question because if the pro-choice answer is wrong, then the consequence of an abortion is the deliberate ending of an innocent human being’s life. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If the vote on abortion legislation is of such importance that TDs believe that they should be allowed a free vote, governed by their conscience, surely it follows that people, women, should be allowed access abortion according to their conscience.
Is the Catholic Church so unsure of its flock that there needs to be legislation to prevent them, and those who do not share their beliefs, from going against its teachings? At this rate, there should be laws stating that attendance at some religious service is obligatory for all? – Yours, etc,
Sir,– It is surprising that there are still some readers who do not understand or cannot accept that a baby in its mother’s womb is a human being with potential and entitled to the opportunity to be born and develop.
I refer particularly to the letter from Heather Browning who, she tells us, doesn’t understand whose lives the pro-life people want to protect.
Most reasonable people want to ensure that the lives of both mother and child are preserved. In the case of the mother whose life is at risk, we expect that the medical staff involved in her care will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure her survival. In some instances unfortunately, the desired result may necessitate the termination of the life of her baby. Nobody on the pro-life side wishes to have it otherwise. What we wish to avoid is a situation in which the life of the baby is sacrificed unnecessarily.
I would have thought that a prerequisite for a rational and reasonable debate on this subject would be that those involved would at least acquaint themselves with the basic arguments and positions of those whose views they oppose. I write this as a cluster of cells, well developed, admittedly, and hoping to continue developing for a few years yet. – Yours, etc,