‘Meaningful life’ is a deadly theory
“The question should not be who has the greater right to life, but who has the right to a meaningful life?”
To me the question demands a clear answer: “everyone.”
Ms Cleary implies that there is a hierarchy of choice around what is a ‘meaningful life.’ Within this ‘value system,’ morality can be jettisoned to justify not just abortion but the death penalty, eugenics, euthanasia and, as we saw in the Terry Schiavo case, to withdraw nutrition to starve a person to death. How does Ms Cleary define ‘meaningful?’ What constitutes ‘meaningless?’
She says there is no scientific consensus as to when life begins. Most writers on medical ethics agree that at conception, when the ovum is fertilised, a unique genetic code is fixed which ultimately determines the characteristics of the person (or persons in the case of twins). Various jurisdictions grant varying rights to the unborn at different times after conception, nominally based on the recognition that it is wrong to kill a foetus that is capable of surviving independently.
Is it not immoral, then, that such an inalienable right as the right to life, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is dependent on the mother’s address? Whenever Ms Cleary considers life begins, there is no doubt that the potential of that life is utterly ended by abortion. Ms Cleary trots out the standard ‘complex factors leading to abortion.’ Based on the statistics, these factors aren’t all that common.
In the US where over one million abortions are carried out annually, less than 1% are cases of rape or incest and less than 3% are for maternal health. The main reasons cited are: 26% pressurised by partners or family; 25% want to postpone childbearing, and 11% don’t want to disrupt their career.
Somehow Ms Cleary feels that these ‘factors’ justify depriving innocent children of a more fundamental right than the ‘right to work.’
One of the other ‘complex factors’ she neglected to mention is sex-selective abortion. Invariably the foetus is female. This is a such widespread problem in China, with its one-child policy, that the government has banned the determination of foetal sex by health care professionals ‘to ensure the normal gender structure of population.’ It seems that even women’s rights to equality at birth can be sacrificed on the altar of pro-choice.
Ms Cleary’s use of pejorative terms to browbeat anyone who disagrees with her views on a fundamental human rights issue does little to further the debate. It is a sad reflection on any society that views the birth of any child as a problem.
Mark Daly
Castlefield Woods
Clonsilla
Dublin 15
