Extending abortion laws is a dangerous route as it could lead to ‘ending of life’ for other fragile groups

I REFER to Fionola Meredith’s column (Comment, April 27), piggy-backed on comments made by Nell McCafferty.

If we have now reached the stage of advocating “ending the life” of the unborn primarily due to narcissism, then what is the next stage?

Well, logically, those who are disabled may be next (and what will be the definition of disability and the cut-off point)?

When we have dealt with the disabled, we could move on to the aged. After all, we are being told — and it is a reality — that people are living longer. Many are a burden on the state and this is a burden to the economically active, as it raises their taxes.

So, a case could be made on the basis of selfishness that euthanasia, in this case, is necessary, due to economics.

We have been down this road before and it was called Nazism. The Nazis had the ‘master race’ and we know where this led to.

Not only did they exterminate six million Jews, they also killed many others considered expendable and not necessary to their needs. As Hegel warned: “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”

Once people start down these roads, the problem is there is no stop sign, as the Abortion Act 1967 has clearly illustrated.

As Martin Niemoller (1892–1984) wrote: “First, they came for the socialists and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew.

“Then they came for me. And there was no one left to speak for me.”