Madam, - Prof William Reville, a biochemist, (October 11th) writes with confidence on the subject of when human life begins. It would seem that this self-assurance allows him to predict what St Thomas Aquinas would have thought about the issue, had the saint had "modern scientific knowledge".
I don't know much about the saint, but what I do know is that far more formidable minds than Prof Reville's are grappling intellectually with this issue with much less certainty.
Professionally, I will await their deliberations, although, in the interest of not throwing out the baby with the bath water, I will still enjoy Prof Reville's other meanderings on biochemical matters. - Yours, etc,
Dr TONY WALSH, Consultant Gynaecologist, Medical Director, Sims Fertility Clinic, Dublin.
Madam, - Thankfully, Prof William Reville (October 11th) has debunked the appallingly deficient scientific basis for Patsy McGarry's Rite and Reason article of October 9th, which was as philosophically challenged as it was scientifically illiterate. It seems that the whole thrust of Mr McGarry's article was to provide some justification for early abortion, even though he judiciously avoided explicit reference to the same.
As regards St Thomas Aquinas, I am sure he would be aghast at the idea that one aspect of his thinking, informed by outdated science, would be used by those seeking the abortion of innocents. Moreover, his thinking on the matter of ensoulment could arguably be developed, in the light of the fundamental principles that inform it, so that it would support the findings of contemporary science.
In addition, even if one were to adopt his outdated view of hominisation, it in no way follows that one would be ipso facto compelled to accept the morality of aborting any foetus that does not show signs of brain activity.
There would still remain very good reasons for opposing such an act as morally heinous. - Yours, etc.
KEVIN E O'REILLY, PhD, Faculty of Philosophy, Milltown Institute, Dublin 6.