Protection of both mother and baby
Sir — Having participated in many pro-life marches, I cannot recall any receiving the exposure granted to last weekend’s prochoice march, especially by RTE. The pro-life march held in June, which was acknowledged as having between 60,000 and 80,000 taking part, was barely reported. No report was made of it being diverted down along the quays, or of one important speaker, Karen Gaffney, the first Down syndrome person to have received a PhD. By the way, Eilis O’Hanlon (Sunday Independent, October 1) is incorrect to claim that “only a small number of such babies are aborted in Britain”. It’s more than 90pc.
Having been involved in prolife for a long time, and kept up to date on matters relating to the protection of life, I was stunned to see Ms O’Hanlon’s claim that only 5pc of people are opposed to abortion in all circumstances.
Does her “limited moderate change” equate to some babies being deemed disposable and others not?
Who decides? I thought that practice was rather unpopular after the Nazi regime.
She adds insult to injury with reference to “Catholic induced ignorance”.
As a knowledgeable Catholic on this subject, I take grave offence at that. Just because a foetus, or little one, is just a small cluster of cells to begin with, although with a heartbeat at 21 days, does it not deserve protection; and to suggest that it should be easy to accept abortion at this stage rather than later, smacks of cover-up, and I thought we were no longer willing to accept cover up but only total transparency.
What is wrong with the protection of both mother and baby in the Eighth Amendment, and which has saved very many lives?
What is right with the deliberate killing of a baby in the womb? How have we come to a point where it is being offered as admirable to kill an unborn baby?
With all the hype engendered by the slogan “repeal the Eighth”, you would think it was something to strive for. I wonder how many who shout this slogan realise what it entails and the consequences of repealing the amendment?
Should it be repealed we will end up like Britain where up to 200,000 abortions take place annually and with little hope of rowing back on this practice. Ms O’Hanlon referred to sex selection abortions. Efforts were made last year to have them banned but without success. It is more than strange that no criticism is ever made of this practice despite the fact, alluded to by Ms O’Hanlon, that most are female babies.
Of course, any rowing back on this might undermine the whole multi-million abortion business. Mary Stewart (Mrs),