Does Brian Feeney (December 18) regard his inclusion of abortion and same-sex marriage among human rights as self-evidently justified?
Human rights, based on the premise of the equal value of all human beings, in virtue simply of their being human, is a concept which we are accustomed to associate with the Enlightenment. In fact it has a much longer ancestry. From a naturalistic viewpoint, human beings are manifestly not equal – they are not equally intelligent, talented, lovable or physically attractive.
The philosophical standpoint which sees them as deserving of equal rights is that of Christian anthropology, whereby we are all equally and individually loved into being by God from all eternity and destined to share eternal life with him. The demand for human rights is a political demand because it is first a religious and moral requirement.
The right to be born is unique among human rights because it is foundational – upon it all subsequent rights repose. To deny the identity of the child before birth with the child after birth, to refuse to see it in the light of everything it has in its nature to become, to make provision for its termination within the womb – this vision of life as a disposable commodity diminishes us all.
A corollary of the defence of the right to life of the unborn is a commitment to justice – to the provision of the social and economic circumstances that will enable the flourishing of the human being at every stage of development.
How interesting that pro-abortion neo-liberal societies are so tolerant of the scandalously unequal distribution of wealth.
Advocates for same-sex marriage also assert a right. When this matter was first raised in the British House of Lords, the Anglican bishops who sat there claimed that they were not ‘against’ same-sex marriage – they simply denied its possibility. In our own time the state claims the right to define marriage. Does a word mean just what the state says it means at any given point?
Now it has overturned the age-old definition of a relationship that, like the right to be born, is foundational – a union of man and woman, in love and complementarity, which brings forth children.
There is no longer anything counter cultural about the positions which Brian Feeney espouses. Today’s true radicals are those who shake off the dreary orthodoxy of neo-liberalism and risk asking older, deeper questions about the significance of human existence.
FIONA LYNCH
Cushendun, Co Antrim
If abortion is seen as a form of healthcare it is singularly unique
Niall Meehan (December 28) asks if the Catholic and Evangelical response to abortion might involve ‘denying rights of autonomy’. This might be the case if abortion is classified as routine healthcare.
Restricting access to healthcare might then be seen as a human rights infringement. If abortion is seen as a form of healthcare it is singularly unique. Can Mr Meehan name any other health procedure where the destruction of a human life is the primary aim?
Mr Meehan makes no reference to abortion possibly being associated with depression, deliberate self-harm, completed suicide, or breast cancer. He fails to mention abortion increasing the risk of future premature birth, with prematurity being a risk factor for neonatal death and disability.
Mr Meehan notes the opposition of Protestant Churches to abortion. He might deepen his knowledge of the biblical objections to abortion by reading Abortion-Open your mouth for the dumb by Peter Barnes. My copy of this masterful 61-page pamphlet cost less than the price of most newspapers.
The pamphlet opens with the witness of Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (martyred by the Nazis in 1945) who tells us: “Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life.
To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue.
The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And this is nothing but murder.”
TJ HARDY
Belfast BT5
Bad look to be on same page as Boris
The MP for West Tyrone in a pre-Christmas statement against a local group alluded to department failures to deliver a road scheme, blaming “repeated legal challenges by the Alternative A5 Alliance”.
As a human rights lawyer the MP is fully aware of the process of judicial review, where citizens have access to the courts to ensure public bodies work within the law. Not only that, Sinn Féin frequently use the courts for Judicial Review.
Ms Begley would understand better than most, the two stage process involved in Judicial Review and for a judge to be of the opinion that the applicant ‘has a sufficient interest in the matter’ before allowing them to proceed to a full hearing.
Should the West Tyrone MP wish to alter the law governing Judicial Review, she doesn’t have to swear an oath and take her seat in the House of Commons, she can lobby her Sinn Féin colleagues to change it in Stormont.
Facing into a decade of challenges to protect the environment, it’s a bad look to be on the same page as Boris Johnson, a man who would like to put the government beyond legal scrutiny, hardly reasonable by any standard.
CIARAN McCLEAN
Alternative A5 Alliance
Reality of Brexit
If, as a resident of the Republic of Ireland, you are as serious as you say you are about your support for the EU, then it’s incumbent on you to actually start showing it.
You could make a start by not travelling over the border to spend your money where the proceeds will just go back to a Boris Johnson anti-EU government in London.
But instead remain where you are and ensure the money goes back into the local economy which will also benefit the EU in the
long term.
If you do insist on spending money outside the country, at least spend it in a country which is part of the EU.
Remember, every Euro which goes to London means one less going to the EU to fund various projects in Ireland.
The reality of Brexit will mean sacrifices on both sides. If that means you paying slightly more for goods then so be it.
MICHEÁL MOORE
Newry, Co Down
Failed agreement
The Belfast Agreement failed to resolve the two fundamental issues – it failed to ban a united Ireland and it failed to achieve Irish freedom.
MALACHY SCOTT
Belfast BT15
