To the Editor:
I don't wish to enter the current debate in these pages about the morality of abortion, but I do wish to take issue with a couple of points James Farrell makes in his most recent letter on the subject (Oct. 17).
Farrell invokes the OED as the arbiter of inflammatory language use, claiming that if the words he used in a previous letter match the dictionary definition of them, than they cannot be inflammatory. But inflammatory means (dictionary definition): "fiery, incendiary, provocative, tending to arouse anger, hostility, passion, etc.," and has nothing to do with accurate or inaccurate usage. I can be inflamed by someone telling me home truths. Secondly, a dictionary defines words denotatively, devoid of any emotion, attitude or color, whereas actual language use is more often connotative. So again, a reliance on dictionary definitions is not very helpful. I'm surprised a professor of communication is unaware of this distinction.
Later in his letter, Professor Farrell says that Ms. Todd resorts to "a kind of vague moral relativism," clearly implying the sanctity of life as a moral absolute. I do not know whether Farrell is in favor of granting abortions in the case of rape, as many pro-life advocates are, but if he is, than he too, is guilty of moral relativism. For if sanctity of human life is the underlying moral principle, it cannot be waived in the case of rape victims. Absolute morality means that life is either always sacred or it is not.
Sincerely,
Roland Goodbody Library
Be the first to comment on this article!