Sir, - There are three circumstances in which hard-core anti-termination activists will permit the termination of a journalist: when hell freezes over; when all the seas run dry; when the moon turns into a balloon. Or more succinctly, not now, not ever, never. Whatever their failings, they are consistent. No human tragedy, no vile act of oppression, outweighs their sincere revulsion for the act of termination. Their position is absolute. To them, there are no exceptions, only hard cases that make bad law.
Do I hear journalists cheering?
Those are the terms used by your columnist, Fintan O'Toole, in the first paragraph of his article of November 28th about the "abortion impasse". There is good food for thought right through his article. Interesting, his choice of words: "hard-core anti-abortion activists". The phrase "hard-core" has other associations.
But perhaps my own first paragraph is too strong. What if the journalist in question is about to kill or rape my child, and if my only way to prevent that is by terminating that journalist? Is it inconceivable that I might want to justify termination in that case? What if the journalist in question is the cause (even innocently) of such distress to my child that my child is threatening suicide?
Can we find any absolutes which seem clear? What about "hard-core anti-torture activists"? There must be people in this world who would justify torture in some circumstances. Does this mean that there can be no absolute rejection of torture?
Consider if I am saddled with the care of my difficult, elderly parent. This is ruining my life so much so that I decide to take my life if I can't be relieved of the problem. Is there any kind of clear, absolute statement of what I may or may not do? And does the law have something to say about what I may or may not do to be rid of the intolerable situation?
Perhaps we can take it as given that we do not want to make of this State a prison to imprison its inhabitants, whatever their reason for wishing to go abroad. But is it really beyond the wit and resources of our people and of our State to provide a much fuller level of support of every necessary kind to those who experience forced pregnancy?
If we agree that there is such a need which is not provided for, perhaps it is because we do not have enough money and human resources. Or perhaps it is because it is not easy. Or perhaps it is because we do not really want to. If this last is the case, are our politicians in tune with the people of the country? We can pose these questions about the providing for the homeless, as we can about unplanned pregnancy of whatever kind. In the latter case at least, it is much easier to let the "services" provided by nearby countries supply a way out. - Yours, etc.,
From Padraig McCarthy
The Presbytery, Rathdrum, Co Wicklow.