A chara, - Are there limits to tolerance?Mary Holland has a gift with words, I usually read her column. The positive title: "Hopeful signs of tolerant national debate on abortion" (Opinion, November 5th) is very positive. All right-thinking people must agree. Tolerance is always acceptable. Yet something seems not quite right. If we change the subject in question, it may shed some light.Hopeful signs of tolerant debate on a Millennium project: certainly.Hopeful signs of tolerant debate on the effects of passive smoking: perhaps.Hopeful signs of tolerant debate on driving while drunk: not so sure.Hopeful signs of tolerant debate on termination of geriatric situations: we need to enquire what is actually being proposed.Hopeful signs of tolerant debate on nuclear war: some may argue.Hopeful signs of tolerant debate on rape: hard to envisage.There are some things which are not appropriate for "tolerant debate". No matter how dire the need of anyone, there are few who would argue for tolerant debate on rape, or torture, or child abuse. If we accept the principle that there are some things which are beyond tolerance, we can ask whether induced abortion is one of those.I believe it is. Spontaneous abortion is normally a cause for deep grief for the expectant parents. How can it be right if it is deliberately willed and brought about? Crisis pregnancy is certainly difficult for the people concerned, as I know from my work as a priest for over 30 years. But I am sure of this: just as rape is never "tolerant" of the person who is raped, so also induced abortion is never "tolerant" of the unborn child. I believe that there are limits to tolerance; and rape, and child abuse, and abortion, are not fit subjects for tolerance. If tolerant debate on these means tolerance of the reality, then I must disagree. I am one of those who does not have a pregnancy story to tell. This does not make what I say untrue.Language, of course, can help to mask the reality. Mary Holland says: "Most Irish people probably disapprove of abortion but, when faced with the human reality of a young girl pregnant as a result of rape, do not think that she should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term". Change the last three words, and make it: "carry the baby." How does it sound now? Is "forced" the appropriate word? She writes: "Perform terminations within the first eight weeks of gestation". Change it to: "Cause death within the first eight weeks of life". I'm not just playing with words. I'm describing the realities. We would not justify rape by describing it as "providing for the crisis situation of a person with a need to dominate another".Yes, listen to the human stories of those in crisis pregnancy. But don't come to Mary Holland's conclusion: "When we hear these stories, the demand for change will become irresistible." Making induced abortion available here is no more a solution than making it easier to travel abroad for this "service" is a solution. It is not beyond our resources to find a better way. If a Christian is one who is ready to lay down life for another, we will be equally ready to lay down our resources for the sake of the mother and child in crisis. - Yours, etc., Fr Padraig McCarthy,
Rathdrum,Co Wicklow.