SIR – Two letters that featured prominently in recent editions of The Southern Star – ‘Coveney remarks insult Assembly and Committee' (10/02/2018)
SIR – Two letters that featured prominently in recent editions of The Southern Star – ‘Coveney remarks insult Assembly and Committee’ (10/02/2018) and ‘A campaign of deception from pro-life side’ (17/02/2018) – demonstrate the desperation of the pro-abortion advocates. It resembles the chaos and disarray that has overshadowed the pro-Brexit regime across channel.
The tactic is, without providing any credible evidence to support their assertions, to attack the motives and personnel associated with the pro-life movement. It is notable that, in both instances, they conveniently decided to ignore the fact that the fundamental outcome of repealing the 8th amendment would be to facilitate the killing of the unborn infant in the mother’s womb.
The main basis for their propaganda rests on the findings of the Citizens Assembly and the Joint Oireachtas Committee, which lacked impartiality, as the membership of both bodies was disproportionately comprised of those with a distinctly pro-abortion agenda, which was boosted by an excessively-higher number of submissions by pro-abortion promoters.
The unwarranted personal attack on the integrity of Minister Coveney for his principled ethical stance, by urging the people of South Cork to reject him, is disingenuous and cowardly. It is a classic example of the axiom ‘if you don’t like the message, go and shoot the messenger.’ The contributor appears to be unaware that in the recent leadership contest, the ordinary people, euphemistically called the grassroots, voted overwhelmingly in Minister Coveney’s favour.
It is these same decent people in South Cork and in the country at large that will ensure that the 8th amendment is protected. By retaining the 8th amendment, the equal right to life of the mother will continue to be protected; by repealing, it will deprive the most vulnerable and defenceless of human beings of its god-given right to live.
The second contributor seeks to denigrate the pro-life movement by branding it the anti-choice movement. The corollary to this of course is to designate the pro-choice group as the anti-life group; on reflection, this would portray a more accurate description of their motives, and perhaps they should consider rebranding.
This contributor also accuses the ‘pro-life side’ of lies deception and foreign money, without providing any details to support her allegations. On closer examination, this description would more accurately depict the role of the pro-choice movement, whose objectives are funded by vast sums from foreign interests, notably by a recent donation of €137,000, which incidentally was deemed to be in breach of law by SIPO (Standards in Public Office Commission).