Sir, – Much of the confusion around the subject of abortion seems to have its origins in the inability to distinguish between a foetus and a child. The latter is self-explanatory. Having entered the world and had its birth recorded, it has a name and an identity.
A foetus is rather different. It depends completely on its host for its blood supply and nourishment, and the possibility of a future independent existence.
Much of our contemporary thinking emphasises individual rights and the ability to choose the course of our lives. Given the effect that pregnancy has on the lives of one gender in particular, it would seem that those (including the Catholic church) who oppose abortion are seeking to turn the clock back. There are enough unwanted babies in the world, and it would serve no purpose to increase the supply. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – Noel Whelan argues that the X case justifies what he calls the suicide test for abortion (Opinion, January 12th). However, perhaps it is time to revisit that judgment. Many commentators have argued that it was deeply flawed. It is hard to see how it could not be. It seems tortuous legal logic indeed to claim that the equal right to life of both mother and child are respected in a situation where the life of one is forfeited in a questionable attempt to rectify the mental health issues of the other. – Is mise,
A chara, – Paddy Agnew (Opinion, January 11th) states that Uruguay is only the second country in Latin America to legalise abortion.
That is not true. The majority of Latin American countries, all except five, already allow for abortion at a minimum where the life of the mother is in danger, and in most cases also in cases of rape, incest and where the health (not just life) of the mother is at risk. Uruguay is just the second country in Latin America to legalise abortion, beyond cases of rape, incest or where the life/health of a mother is in danger.
It is important to clarify this, as there is often a perception that all Catholic countries have abortion laws as restrictive of Ireland, and this is not the case. – Is mise,
Sir, – I am an activist who blogs about the intersection of adoption and social justice at “The Declassified Adoptee”. Before Breda O’Brien’s December 22nd column, Irish Times readers probably had never heard of me. Despite being an outspoken pro-choice feminist living in a country that largely acknowledges a woman’s right to choose, my narrative still made up a large portion of Ms OBriens pro-life piece. In light of Ms O’Brien’s assertion that she cares about other women, the reason why she appropriated the most sensitive variable of my life story for her personal agenda concerns me.
When I disclosed the fact that I was conceived from rape on my blog, I specified that my purpose for doing so was to provide the perspective of someone who was not using that narrative to fuel the pro-life agenda. Few online resources exist to offer emotional support to the individual conceived from rape. Rather, most resources on this topic seek to appropriate these narratives as a political platform. While what a given person does with their own life story is up to them, I think it is offensive to seek out these tragic narratives for political use. I make my opinion on this matter abundantly clear on my blog.
Ms O’Brien implied there is irony between my pro-choice stance and the fact that I was not aborted by my mother allows me to be here to advocate for others today. She repeats stereotypes and assumptions about individuals conceived from rape and their mothers. She assumes that my mother considered abortion, and that she knows why my mother “chose life”.
Ms O’Brien is not privy to my mother’s personal thoughts on the topic. My mother’s reproductive choices are none of Ms O’Brien’s business any more than they are mine.
My conception circumstances have little to do with my stance on choice and women’s health care. The reason I am pro-choice is because if I were pregnant and needed an abortion to save my life, I would want the choice not to leave my children without their mother. My human rights as a person entitle me to choice over my own body at all times, without the prying eyes and judgmental commentary of other people.
There are plenty of pro-life individuals who were conceived from rape that this columnist could have chosen to quote. In fact, several are much more active in abortion policy than am I. The reason Ms O’Brien appropriated my story seems to be because she believes she can do a better job at assigning meaning to the tragedy in my life narrative than I have.
In the same type of paternalistic move that tells women they aren’t capable of responsible control over their own bodies, Ms O’Brien negated my right to self-direct my own narrative. I will not be a party to the construction of hierarchies of women where those with privilege see fit to direct both the choices and stories of others. Today, I take my narrative back. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – If and when the vote comes for legislation on abortion I think it should be a free vote.
To quote Thomas Moore in the play A Man for all Seasons: “I believe when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties . . . They lead their country by a short route to chaos”. Moore, who was chancellor of England during the reign of King Henry VIII, would not agree to the King’s divorce of Queen Catherine. While on trial he told the court he could not go against his conscience which led to his execution.
I hope our politicians will be inspired by this brave man, who is also the patron saint of lawyers. – Yours, etc,