Fr. Timothy Bartlett:

I am sorry that I cannot respond to every question. I will try to get a thread running through them. Are we asking legislators to legislate for a Catholic morality in this country? The simple answer is "Absolutely not". As I said earlier, the principle of the right to life is a human rights principle. That is the starting point of all of this discussion. Somebody asked about the distinction we make between licit medical intervention and abortion. Medical intervention to save the life of the mother is possible, as we clarified in the opening statement. The member might not have been present at the time. The Catholic Church has never taught that the life of the mother should be preferred over that of the child or that the life of the child should be preferred over that of the mother. We have stated repeatedly this morning that medical intervention to save the life of the mother is morally licit, as long as every effort is made to continue to protect and save the life of the child even if in practical circumstances that may lead to the unintended death of the child. Some people have suggested that this distinction between direct and indirect and intended and unintended is some type of Catholic moral principle. Go to our courts. Our law acknowledges that moral culpability or legal consequence is weighed up against intent and direct or indirect consequences. This has nothing, in that sense, to do with specifically Catholic moral theology.

With respect, this is the first stage of this debate in which I have been caricatured. As I mentioned earlier, we should avoid that type of caricature. It might surprise members to know that I know many women and there are many women whom I love dearly in my life, and if they had to face these circumstances I would feel deeply about it. I ask members not to caricature us, just as I and Bishop Jones have not caricatured anybody else. No woman has ever called me a misogynist.