Sir, – Repealing the Eighth Amendment would not mean "putting the cart before the horse", an idea attributed by Pat Leahy to "one person long associated with the pro-choice movement" and apparently shared by "politicians in all parties" ("Ireland's abortion wars are set to rage again", September 24th). On the contrary, legislation must necessarily be preceded by the freedom to legislate. It should by now have become adequately clear that this notorious amendment, which equates an embryo with a fully developed person, has tied the hands of legislators and generated decades of legal and moral absurdities. The many cowardly politicians may, of course, prefer to have their hands tied, but it's time to call their bluff! A simple repeal without substitution can open the way to a reasoned discussion in our political institutions, leading to legislation more in tune with public opinion. Only after repeal would a citizens' assembly make some sense except that we already have two, namely Dáil and Seanad. So, first repeal the Eighth! – Yours, etc,
NOREEN
O’DONOVAN HAGE,
Ballydehob, Co Cork.
Sir, – An enduring, populist, pro-choice argument represents the foetus as being part of a woman’s body, and access to abortion as a reproductive right.
Often, it goes with the view that the pro-life movement is regressive, and inextricably linked to old-fashioned, patriarchal forms of religious belief. For the converted modern, progressive these arguments are taken as obvious truths and not up for discussion, which is a pity, because they are, to say the least, debatable.
For example, it can be argued on merely factual grounds that the unborn is not part of a woman’s body, but a distinct biological organism that develops into an entity which is identical to a baby, while still inside the womb. The claim that abortion should be allowed because it is a reproductive right can be criticised for assuming what is to be proven. It is like saying that the unborn have a right to life, so abortion is wrong. Such arguments rely on circular reasoning, as the conclusion is among the premises.
Arguments that play to the gallery make good copy, but lead to bad law. More discussion is needed on the arguments that take the unborn for what it is, as it changes and develops, and ask how this affects the claim that it should be accorded human rights. And, where it is granted that the foetus has rights, more discussion is needed on how such rights should be weighed against the human rights of the mother. Is it reasonable to expect or demand that another risk their life or health in a pregnancy, if they do not choose to do so?
A referendum on the Eighth Amendment seems inevitable. We would have a better chance of arriving at a fair and balanced law, if we could step beyond the usual rhetoric. – Yours, etc,
COLIN WALSH,
Templeogue, Dublin 6W.