Sir, - On RTE's Prime Time programme last Monday, Prof William Binchy made the point that the abortion debate is now conducted in a calmer and more mature manner than in previous years. Every reasonable person will hope that this continues to be the case. I suggest that if it is to be, both sides in the argument must as a starting point recognise that their opponents engage the issue from the same sense of idealism and public service that they do.
The Martyn Turner cartoon in The Irish Times last Tuesday was a strong attack on the character and motives of pro-life campaigners. Part of the message - that it has taken this dreadful case to focus attention on the plight of the traveller family concerned - is perfectly legitimate. Mr Turner and others may well feel outrage at that. So do we all. Mr Turner's outrage is plainly exacerbated by the fact that there is doubt over whether or not abortion is readily available in this case. The outrage felt by others arises from frustration that an abortion might be considered as a medical treatment rather than a further violation of this unfortunate girl.
Even leaving aside the fact that there is now an unborn child to be taken into the equation, this is an entirely legitimate position - a position that is supported by considerable recent research on the physical and psychological effects of abortion.
Mr Turner asks where pro-life campaigners were before abortion was introduced into this equation. Equally, those of a different perspective on abortion might wonder where pro-choice activists were before they put themselves into the public arena to propose that abortion might be a part of this girl's healing process. Presumably the answer is that they were going about their normal business like everybody else. Some people, like William Binchy and indeed Archbishop Connell, have publicly engaged the issue of travellers' rights. Others have not. Should those who do not have a "track record" on travellers' rights rule themselves out of the present abortion debate? Surely not! These considerations should, I suggest, have been taken into account before you published what is essentially an attack on the character of those who hold one particular view on abortion.
The second point I would like to make concerns your editorial. You posit the view that "there can and will be limited circumstances in which some individuals may have to choose abortion as the least of a number of evils". You do not propose how this might be given legal effect. Should there be legislation to allow abortion in certain circumstances? If so, what circumstances? Should it be left solely to the conscience of the individual concerned? Or should there be specified limitations, and if so, how would they differ from the British laws which have proven in practice to provide for abortion on demand?
Should there be a time limit on when an abortion would be allowed? How many weeks? (A 12week limit would, for example, rule out an abortion in the present situation). What about an age limit? Minors, the mentally handicapped, the physically infirm...? And could your proposed solution be legally accommodated within the X judgement, or would it require a complementary constitutional amendment?
I ask these questions because it seems to me that the Pro-Life Campaign is alone in being clear about its objectives and its view on how they might be reached. We have said time and again that we believe that there should be a complete prohibition on induced abortion. We have published evidence which has never been refuted that such a prohibition would not put women's lives at risk, and have put on the record more than one proposed constitutional wordings.
It is surely incumbent on those individuals, groups or newspapers who have a different view to be equally specific so that the electorate at large are presented with a clear choice between the different options. - Yours, etc.,
John O'Reilly,
Secretary, Pro-Life Campaign, Gardiner Street Upper, Dublin 1.