A chara, - Ivana Bacik described her Christmas Eve column on the abortion debate as a "wake-up call". It certainly woke me up to wonder what makes it impossible for her to acknowledge that anyone who takes a different view on abortion must be lacking in decency. She used the word "hypocrisy" six times. In her concern, she resorts to exaggeration in a manner which does not serve her well. If she really believes there is no person in the country who honestly and genuinely believes that we can and should make provision for the protection of human life before birth, we have serious cause for concern for her personally and in her capacity as a teacher of law.
Ms Bacik describes the country as "obsessed" with debating abortion. Since abortion is a very real situation in our country (as elsewhere), I would worry far more if we were not debating the question. Or perhaps she would opt for keeping the status quo without debate? Referring to those who have had an abortion, she states that their story is never heard. While, undoubtedly, most have not told their story (how many want to?), I have heard and read the stories of some who have gone public, as I imagine Ms Bacik must have also.
She also casts doubt on the integrity of elected politicians, to whom she attributes cowardice. I am not under the illusion that all our politicians are perfect - any more than Ms Bacik or I. Fear can influence anybody's decisions. But to argue ad hominem, rather than recognising that others, including politicians, may honestly take a different point of view, is unworthy of her. She attributes to those who disagree with her the opinion that "women are so devious that they will pretend to be suicidal"; yet she herself attributes similar deviousness to politicians and others.
Ms Bacik makes the serious charge that bishops, politicians and moral crusaders are not really anti-abortion; they are just against abortions being carried out here. The fact that we are citizens of this State, and have a responsibility for our own situation, does not mean we are not concerned about what happens elsewhere. To say that "nobody cares about those women unable to travel" is patently untrue, just as it would be untrue to say that nobody cares about those women who are able to travel.
Ms Bacik attacks "those who insist that pregnant women simply do not commit suicide". I have never heard or read of such a person.
Ms Bacik shows an amazing lack of legal discretion in speaking of "a trick of Orwellian drafting" when she refers to situations where, to save the life of an expectant woman, procedures are necessary which lead to the death of the unborn child. If I want to paint a room or clean out a drain, I will wear appropriate clothing. It's not that I want to get dirty - I know it will happen, and would not choose it, but it's unavoidable in order to do what is needed. Ms Bacik appears unable to apply this kind of distinction to matters of human life and death.
If "hypocrisy" means failing to live up to the high ideals we subscribe to, then all of us are hypocrites, except those who lack any ideals to inspire and guide their lives. Ms Bacik herself may not always be able to live up to the very best she would want. But describing and adopting standards we aim for, and recognising that we have not yet found a way to incarnate them as we would want, is a normal part of the anguish and challenge of human existence. I want the same respect and reverence for an unborn human child as I want Ms Bacik to experience, just as I want the same for every other human being of all ages and conditions, and for every woman bearing an unborn child, whether it be in joy or in crisis.
Is this hypocrisy - or is it the challenge facing our country and our world? The Christmas season is surely an appropriate time to debate this. - Yours, etc.,
Pβdraig McCarthy, The Presbytery, Avoca, Co Wicklow.