Abortion campaigners have Ireland in their sights if we repeal the 8th

IN last week’s edition of this paper, Gaye Edwards of TMFR (Termination For Medical Reasons) Ireland wrote a very critical reply to my letter published two weeks ago. It contained a number of errors that I wish to correct.

In Gaye’s letter I am portrayed as being medically ignorant to a dangerous degree because I would have no knowledge of the details of the condition of Amanda Mellet’s child. In her submission to the UN Committee, Amanda wrote about her child having congenital heart defects and being diagnosed with Trisomy 18. She mentioned several times of being told by medics that her daughter would die either in the womb or shortly after birth. I will admit to being ignorant of what Trisomy 18 was when I read the UN report but, as I am not medically qualified, I did some research on the condition before making any public comment on the issue. In layman’s language, what I learned about Trisomy 18 was that about half of children diagnosed with it die in the womb, most of those who survive birth die within one year (which includes shortly after birth), very few survive beyond their first year, and girls have a better chance of being born alive than boys.

Gaye Edwards did not dispute or correct any of these figures and did agree with my assertion that some children suffering from Trisomy 18 would die either in the womb or shortly after delivery. The fact that I chose layman’s language instead of medical terms may suggest to some people I am ignorant but I take no offence to that. I think I wrote about the outcomes of the condition in a fair and accurate manner. If I am wrong on any of my figures people are free to write in and correct them as it would help us all to reach a better understanding. I am more interested in learning than taking offence.

In the opening paragraph of my original letter I wrote “Many pro-abortion campaigners claim that it would be cruel and inhumane for her [Amanda Mellet] to carry to full term a child who was going to die in the womb”. In Gaye Edward’s letter this became “many campaigners claim it would be cruel and inhumane for a woman to carry the child to term”. It is quite clear I was referring to campaigners misrepresenting the UN report but Gaye somehow managed to morph this into a criticism of all pregnant women, which is untrue.

Am I intruding on Amanda Mellet’s grief when I ask why she did not want to give her child a natural birth (if she got that far)? I don’t think so. The UN case is an attempt to liberalise our abortion laws. The report is in the public domain. People are entitled to ask questions, especially if they find matters within it objectionable or questionable.

Because she choose an abortion over natural birth (or still birth) Amanda would have required pre-abortion counselling, post-abortion medical care, post-abortion counselling, and post-abortion bereavement counselling. Did she not create a lot of issues for herself? Would she not have avoided these problems if she opted for the natural route? If abortion causes all these psychological problems is it not best avoided?

When most people are diagnosed with a terminal illness they want to hang on to life for as long as possible. What makes people think a child in the womb with a terminal condition wants to be terminated? When a young child is sick we do everything in our power for that child. Why do we not feel the same about an ill child in the womb? These are just a sample of the questions that I ask pro-abortion campaigners I know. Most decline to answer while others change the subject. I do think however, that the treatment of Amanda’s baby’s remains by the UK abortion clinic was very shabby. The least they could have done was ask her what she wished to do with them and they could also have sent her prior notice before delivering the child’s ashes to her.

I react to things with my head rather than my emotions. This may look to some people like I am lacking compassion and empathy but sometimes it pays to keep your head while all around are losing theirs. That’s my nature. Sometimes people ask me my views before making a decision on something because they know I’m a contrarian and can help them see things in a different light, which they find helpful. I might be bad but I don’t think I’m that bad.

Gaye Edward goes on to say I compared bereaved parents to ISIS and the Nazis. In my letter I compared those who want to completely liberalise abortion to these evil entities as people with non-fatal disabilities would become almost extinct if we were to follow their route. People should check up about what is happening in Denmark with Down Syndrome babies to see what I mean.

The final paragraph of Gaye’s letter dealt with me mixing up the fatal foetal anomalies campaign with those who seek the right to terminate children with all disabilities. I am making no mistake here. People who want wholesale abortion in Ireland have hijacked the fatal foetal anomaly campaign to further their own agenda. Take Amanda Mellet’s case before the UN. She was represented by legal counsel from the Centre for Reproductive Rights. This is an American organisation made up of lawyers dedicated to making abortion free and unrestricted in all countries around the world. They specialise in bringing legal challenges but find the 8th Amendment to our constitution an impediment to their goal.

Some campaigners here would be satisfied with abortion being extended for fatal foetal anomalies only. Once we repeal the 8th these lawyers will start looking for every loophole they can find to broaden the abortion base here. On their website they have a map of the world with countries they are targeting marked in red. Ireland is one of these. I may question what motivates people to do what they do but at least I am not like these people, using vulnerable bereaved parents to further their own agenda. Sincerely, Henry Gaynor. Spa, Tralee.