Sir, - "Father" Callaghan writes from Rome (July 4th). The irony of his prefix and address is, of course, lost on him, as irony is outside the rhetorical range of those who write from a "pro-life" mind-set about the "unborn child."
His sin is a hard one for God to forgive: the sin of complacency, the presumption that he speaks on God's behalf and therefore what he says is incontrovertible. Such pride makes it impossible to debate with him, and I certainly won't.
The terms on which this "debate on abortion" is conducted are dictated by those who assert that the natural right of a woman to the control of her owns body is negated at the moment of conception. This assertion is based on the very dubious theory that God infuses a soul into an egg at that moment, and the egg is thenceforth a "child."
From this extraordinary contention their argument proceeds, that a woman must subordinate her natural and legal rights to the presumed "rights" of an entity which is integral to the functions of her own body for the period of its gestation. Some aspects of this "debate" are argued with the same fervour as the squabbling of those who once counted angels on pinheads.
"Father" Callaghan's rhetoric might strike fear into the hearts of the faithful, schooled to accept the dictates of Rome with bowed heads. But terms like "pro-life" and "unborn child" and indeed "abortion debate" are weighted to obscure the truth.
This interminable campaign is not about faith, and only marginally about abortion. It is an unholy alliance of so-called "fundamentalists", who manipulate religious belief, and language itself, in denying a woman her most fundamental rights. - Yours, etc.,
James J. Mcauley, Ballyknockan, Co Wicklow.