European court ruling on abortion
Madam, – I would like firstly to ask Cardinal Seán Brady a question regarding his expressed thoughts on last week’s European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on the right to life of Irish mothers when their life is truly threatened by pregnancy.
I hope he cares enough to reply – and not through his secretary.
Does he realise how disturbing it is to see him attempt to insert himself into a relationship of any sort with Irish civil law when he is Irish CEO of an organisation which never bothered with civil law when it should have. And whose so-called “norms” of July 2010 still say only to co-operate with civil authorities “where local laws require it”? The norms document very clearly does not say to “contact civil authorities” and in the small print it states that priests will have “benefit of clergy” which means they will not be given over to civil authorities by the church.
So what’s the deal? Is the church in or out of Irish civil law? And if it’s in, does that mean it’s really in, or only when it suits it?
Also, this week’s remark by Pope Benedict on paedophilia that “In the 1970s paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children” (World News, December 21st) are absolutely warped and display the paedophilic mentality which tries to make the children complicit.
Who theorised such a thing? Children were never in conformity with paedophilia. When did such theorising cease? Why were we never told that it had been the theory? And why was this said in a situation where the general public can’t ask the burning questions? Any other head of state making such a remark would be asked to stand down. This is a clear insight into the mind of the man who oversaw the Vatican response to child rape allegations for the past 30 years and who is now running the church.
Can we please now stand up and say we will not go any further with this man as pope.
He must stand down immediately and hand the church over to the people. – Yours, etc,
SINEAD O’CONNOR,
Strand Road,
Bray, Co Wicklow.
Madam, – It perplexes me that any rational person can support the view that a woman who has threatened suicide should be entitled to an abortion. How can it be argued that pregnancy is the primary issue which ought to be addressed, and not any other underlying issue such as a history of depression, mental illness, or other personal circumstances? To my knowledge, medical science has not discovered any inherent link between pregnancy and the sudden onset of suicidal thoughts.
Unpreventable medical or obstetrical problems can of course arise during a pregnancy which threaten the life of the mother. In such circumstances it is entirely appropriate that medical intervention should take place in an attempt to save her life, even if it is at the expense of the life of her unborn child.
However, the suicide of a pregnant woman is an entirely preventable outcome. Pregnancy is a transient condition lasting only nine months, which is more than enough time for the appropriate counselling and treatment to be given to the mother to prevent her self-harm. Surely this is preferable to resorting to the most drastic course of action possible, namely the abortion of an unborn child?
It is universally agreed that there is rarely one single factor which causes a person to contemplate suicide, nor are there any quick-fix solutions for such feelings. So why should our legal system accept that pregnancy is the primary catalyst for the suicidal thoughts of a mother, or allow an abortion to be presented as a quick-fix solution? – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Brooklawn,
Clontarf,
Dublin 3.
Madam, – I fail to see what all the fuss over the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling is about, especially on the part of pro-abortion campaigners. While it does indeed call for legislation on abortion on the basis of the 1992 X-case, in the real world the X case does not allow for abortion.
The ruling in X determined that a pregnant woman, (or child) was entitled to an abortion if there was an imminent threat to her life and that could only be avoided by abortion. As medical and psychiatric evidence points out, there is never any medical necessity for abortion.
There may be cases where pregnancies need to terminated early, (as in my case when I suffered from severe pre-eclampsia) but in those instances when a very pre-mature baby is delivered, every effort should be made to save the baby’s life, even if in the end it proves fruitless. Similarly, no pregnant woman is denied life-saving treatment, even if as a consequence, the baby dies.
Pro-abortion campaigners are being dangerously disingenuous by trying to convince us that abortion is a cure for cancer, depression or any other ill. – Yours, etc,
MARIA Mhic MHEANMAIN,
Elizabeth Street,
Dublin 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment