The proliferation of correspondence on the abortion debate highlights the very divisive nature of this complex matter and confirms the extent to which religion influences opinion. This should concern us as religious influence is in inverse proportion to any earned right to inculcate our thinking on the subject. Many correspondents quote from the Bible as if our moral compass should be guided by this source yet scripture does not sustain this.
Let us suppose that the ongoing child abuse scandals were committed by members of our favourite sporting organisation and whose governing body colluded in protecting the guilty thereby facilitating them to abuse more children. Let us further theorise that an excavation of that organisation’s grounds uncovered 800 graves of children buried in septic tanks, children whose care was entrusted to that organisation.
Would you be taking guidance from that organisation on abortion when it held such a record on fully formed sentient life?
Now let’s see how scripture helps us. The Bible never mentions abortion despite the fact that it was common place in Roman times. Abortion and
infanticide were both legal under Roman Law and herbal abortifacients were in common use at the time of the New Testament. Jesus and his disciples would have been well aware of this so we are left to reflect on why no specific condemnation of abortion can be found in the Bible. Some correspondents quote the 5th Commandment (Thou shalt not kill) as if it were proof that God explicitly condemned abortion (on the basis that the soul is created at conception). This finds no justification in the Holy Book and many theologians over the centuries (most notably St Anselm) have rejected this concept. Exodus clearly distinguishes between killing a person outside the womb from destroying something inside it while Isaiah (49:1-3) refers to “pre birth” but affords it no special recognition.
If this claim were true we are left to ponder why an omnipotent God, who created these souls in the first place, would allow 70 per cent of fertilisations to abort naturally (about 30 per cent after implantation), or why one cell can split into two forming exact twins.
The Christian Churches present their God as an exemplar of child protection but fail to reconcile this with the killing of all Egypt’s first born sons. (Exodus:11:5).
It’s time we accept that our discourse on the matter need not be obfuscated by religious myths and metaphysics.
DANNY TREACY
Templepatrick, Co Antrim
Britain is no stranger to using chemical warfare
The United Kingdom and America are sabre rattling for war with Russia. They are in calls for more sanctions to be imposed on them. Allegations that Putin is directly responsible for the attempted chemical poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury is being promoted because the west – especially America and Britain along with Saudi Arabia and Israel – feel threatened by Russia’s role in the middle east.
Britain and France under the Sykes Pico agreement of 1917 created many of the kingdoms now at war and helping to destabilise the entire region.
The shape of the middle east was designed and manipulated to suit the foreign policies of France and Britain.
In my opinion what happened to the Skripals is another attempt to portray Russia as a rogue state, immoral and out of control, led by a man intent on bringing Russia and the west to war based on his personal desire to taunt Nato and murder his enemies at will at home and abroad with no concern for the consequences.
In reality nothing could be further from the truth. The real reason why both Putin and Moscow are persona non grata in the west is because Russia, along with Iran and Hezbollah, have come to the aid of the democratically elected president of the Syrian Arab Republic at the invitation of the Syrian government.
Britain has refused to give samples of the alleged nerve agent it claims was used in Salisbury to Russia or the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
Britain is no stranger to using chemical warfare. It produced more than 25,400 tonnes alone during the First World War.
Don’t let those who profit from the industrial military machine to obscure the truth or create further death and misery to countless more millions of innocent civilians in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine, Russia or Iran.
FRA HUGHES
Belfast BT14
Demise of Redmond
Irish nationalist politician John Edward Redmond has been dead for a century and, as might be expected, various shoneens and west Britons are now commemorating that. They would have us believe he would have secured home rule in 1912 were it not for the efforts of the British colonists and their supporters in England.
He might have had some success if there had been goodwill and sincerity on the part of the English.
What he encountered was duplicity and perfidy and that is all we need ever expect. It is interesting to note that long before 1912 James Joyce had expressed scepticism regarding the Redmonites, their policy and prospects.
I would reject with contempt the degree of home rule that was on offer – it offended the majesty of my nation. Nothing less than a sovereign and united Ireland is acceptable – a 32-county capitalist free state. There is no prospect of that at present, but I believe it will be secured eventually and not by the methods Redmond believed in. The demise of Redmond was not the only thing that happened a century ago. Another thing that happened then was that the Irish people rejected his party and his ideas. It has been suggested that the electoral system that existed then was disadvantageous to the Redmonites, but it was under that system they got elected in the first place.
SHEAMUS HARAN
Adare Villiage, Co Limerick
Border in Irish Sea is a nonsense
There has been a lot of unfounded scare stories put out in the media regarding a border in the Irish Sea.
If checks are required after Brexit, the only sensible, financially viable and non controversial place you could have these is at the local ports.
Each port, Belfast, Larne, L/Derry would have a customs holding station for around 20 to 25 vehicles each.
There would be similar holding stations on the other Scottish/English ports.
Northern Ireland registered vehicles would be exempt from checks. While all the other lorry or car drivers are enjoying their fry on board the ferry roughly 5 per cent of them will get a text message asking them to enter the holding station for some extra checks on the way out. There would be minimum disruption and no tail backs on the roads. All vehicle registration numbers would already be stored by the ferry companies so no need for vehicle recognition cameras. There would be no need for infrastructure on the huge number of road border crossings on the island of Ireland.
At the airports everyone will have to present a photo ID, much in the same way they do now. Anybody with an Irish/British passport or valid UK/ROI driving licence would have no checks, while there would be extra checks for all other foreign nationals.
There would be very minimum disruption of Northern Irish companies to both the UK internal market or access to the south of Ireland.
Calling it a border in the Irish Sea is a nonsense and only raises the fears of unionists. There is no constitutional change here, all it would be is extra vigilance and checks at the ports which I believe everyone would welcome.
JOHN McSORLEY
Belfast BT5
