Pregnant women denied rights when their lives are at risk
Abortion is not a cure for appendicitis either.... but being able to go to a hospital and legally have your potentially life-threatening medical problem dealt with appropriately without having to wait until you’re at death’s door and putting your very life at risk, is surely the correct and most acceptable practice in this day and age.
Why has nobody in the media analysed this particular point?
The pro-lifers are an extremist minority group and are looking to thwart the legislation, despite the expressed opinions of the substantial majority of Irish peoples’ expression for choice. ie approx 80% in a referendum and over 70% in an MRBI poll.
Another important point is ‘balance of programming’ in the media. Given the statistics above, shouldn’t we have four pro-choice to one anti-abortion representatives on each show?
John O’Hara
Carlow
* What is becoming increasingly evident in the Savita Halappanavar case is that her life could have been saved at two points: either when she requested the termination of her pregnancy, or when it was found that the foetus that she had been carrying was no longer viable.
There were three parties to this fiasco: the State, the Catholic Church and Savita herself, and of the three only Savita was right, in my view.
In these circumstances a number of questions arise. When her husband Praveen wins his case at the European Court of Human Rights, as he undoubtedly will, for the denying of her human rights to his wife and the loss of her life, who will become responsible for paying him compensation?
Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that there were many cases similar to this one in the past in which women were denied their human rights, and that there will be more in the future?
Pat Daly
Midleton
Co Cork
