Abortion vote in Ireland is over, but rhetoric cannot blur the line between right and wrong
We must acknowledge that we cannot hide behind rhetoric and ensure too that rhetoric does not keep us in the dark. It is unlikely that many people who voted to legalise abortion in Ireland would want it for themselves or for anyone they hold dear. How then can “yes” voters be happily complicit? (“After Ireland votes for abortion, ‘Yes’ campaigners celebrate but staunch Catholics are left dismayed by anti-church vote”, May 27)
These are largely good people who have fallen prey to the genius of a modern individual-and-society paradigm wherein humanity has been repositioned to allow the egocentric individual to take centre-stage: his or her rightful place in the consumerist world of today. From within this paradigm – that which prioritises self-interest above all else – babies have become the yoke of sexual activity, whereas in reality they are its very raison d’être.
Is it right to kill an unborn child? The answer is indisputably no. Take Occam’s razor to the question: no ifs or buts or hypotheses tangential to the bare fact can right the fundamental wrong. Words in their conception have striven to objectively capture the truth and, therefore, redefining terms to mask the truth will not change the reality. As archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said, “Wrong is wrong, even if everybody is wrong. Right is right, even if nobody is right.
In the modern world, where nations seek power, economy and information, instead of territory, and where dialogue, politics and law are instruments of war, instead of arms, we must search for the truth beneath the language we use if we are to stand any chance of winning our battles.
Each redefinition is a slight move away from the pole of right and a step in the right direction of wrong. When we solidify these redefinitions in our laws, international institutions and in our own minds, wrong gains territory as it occupies the abandoned fields of right. Are those fields ours?
Lydia Hayes, Sheung Wan