Sir, - The articles by Fintan O'Toole (November 28th) and Dick Walsh (November 29th) dismiss out of hand those who believe that deliberately induced abortion is always wrong. Dick Walsh abuses them as "fundamentalists" and Fintan O'Toole's remark that they "are motivated by religious faith rather than by political conviction" suggests that religious motivation should bar people from political debate.
Why can't Messrs O'Toole and Walsh cut out the intolerance towards religious believers, and instead explain why they think abortion is either not always wrong, or not wrong at all? It's no answer to say "we can't deal in absolutes". Is anybody prepared to argue that rape is not always wrong, that paedophile behaviour is not absolutely out, that drugpushing is not downright evil?
An indispensable absolute is compassion for both mother and child. Those who think that abortion is not always wrong need to show how their compassion includes the child. Until they do so, they have no right to dismiss others: clarity is not a vice, and confusion, no matter how sprinkled with agonised handwringing, is not a sign of wisdom.
Fintan O'Toole appears to think that abortion for eugenic purposes or to eliminate babies with disabilities is morally disturbing. But how can such choices be wrong unless there is something wrong with abortion itself?
We are outraged that Irish courts should be so undemanding in their employment of "expert" testimony in this area: no research has been produced to support the claim that the well-being of pregnant teenage girls is promoted by abortion. Without such evidence, how can the judgment of an individual psychiatrist be sufficient to justify the death of an innocent human being? How can we have confidence in the courts if they lack due concern for academic rigour in backing up claims that a pregnant teenager would be better off having an abortion?
We think the direct, deliberate taking of an innocent life is always wrong. After birth it is murder; before, it is abortion. It is a violation of the most fundamental of human rights, based on the arrogation of the power of the tyrant: to decide who shall live and who shall die. - Yours, etc.,
From Edmond Grace SJ, Bernard J. McGuckian SJ, Seamus Murphy SJSt Francis Xavier's, Gardiner Street, Dublin 1.
Milltown Institute of Theology and Philosophy, Dublin 6.