Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Any attempt to understand the human condition and what it means to be human must focus on the role of empathy, the ability to imagine the circumstances of another and to envisage their pain, conditions and hopes. Empathy is central to our efforts to create rules and norms for our society and to live peacefully with those we do not know. It demands that even if we do not know our neighbour, we should strive to imagine their plight.

However, empathy has limits. There are some circumstances that are beyond the ability of some of us to imagine. Ideation, to borrow a concept from this debate, can only get one so far. I find myself in this situation when discussing this Bill. As I have said previously, I find it impossible to imagine the terror and despair that a woman will experience when facing the potential loss of her own life while carrying life and the potential of life within her. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that discussing and deciding on this Bill is so fraught.

Jonathan Haidt, an American psychologist, has recently described the nature of these debates in his book The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. In this work he argues that we are intrinsically moral and that this makes it possible "to produce large co-operative groups, tribes and nations without the glue of kinship". He concludes that "morality binds and blinds". While there is great wisdom in his understanding of how morality binds us together, I disagree with his conclusion regarding its divisive consequences. My experience, based on hundreds of conversations on this Bill, is that everybody is genuinely striving to empathise. However, I cannot achieve this. While I might be able to walk in the shoes of others, I cannot identify with the journey to the hospital or for thousands of others the journey to the boat or the aeroplane.

Faced with this difficulty, I have continually focused on two duties: first, that the State must do everything possible to keep mother and child alive and healthy; second, that those involved in this dilemma must be protected by the law as they operate within the law. These two duties lead me to two consequences. The first is that the law must be absolutely clear. We have learned to our catastrophic cost the price of lack of clarity in the law in other parts of our society. Why should this be any different? The second is that a woman faced with the risk of losing her life should not face the vista of the State making a choice for her. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to create a framework within which such choices can be made and not make those choices for her.

That is the reason I support the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. In the aftermath of the publication of the Ryan report I articulated in this Chamber my view that we should legislate for the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in its entirety. That judgment is affirmed by this Bill. As many Deputies have noted, the X case ruling identified that a woman has a constitutional right to termination in certain circumstances. Sections 7 to 9 of this Bill identify how these circumstances will be identified and responded to. Sections 10 to 14 prescribe how a review of this response must happen. Section 15 of the Bill makes clear how the wider State can ensure that the operation of this Bill is always consistent with its intent and aims. While new legislation will be passed by the Oireachtas, we are not changing the law. We are operating within Bunreacht na hÉireann. This is an incredibly narrow set of circumstances but that should not blind us to the intrinsic pain and solitude of each circumstance, the need for clarity and our duty to provide it.

I will make three points about the Bill. The first is about the issue of conscience. An impression has been created that some of us voting for this Bill are doing so against our conscience and our will.

If there were a free vote on the Bill in this Chamber, I would vote for it because the bare minimum that we, as legislators, must be able to provide for those we serve is clarity and certainty. It is abundantly clear, to anyone on either side of the debate, that clarity and certainty are lacking. I reject the inference that my conscience is not present in the hundreds of conversations I have and decisions I make on other issues.

The second point is on the concern that, by providing clarity and certainty, terminations will be more likely and abortion for social reasons will be inevitable. Of those who have this concern I ask how the regulation of something can make it more likely to happen. A retort is that by enshrining this Bill in primary law, precedent and purpose are created. However, this primary law is operating within the framework of the Constitution and specifically governed by Article 40.3.3°. It operates within the Constitution and the law; it does not change it. The contention about the wider availability of abortion in other jurisdictions appears to ignore the inconvenient truth that the people living in these jurisdictions want it. It also ignores that truth that many legislators in these jurisdictions are seeking to amend the law based on their own views and those of their people. I am against the availability of abortion for social and economic reasons. I support the Bill because it deals with other reasons.

The third point I wish to address is that some of the voices in this debate should reflect on their past judgments and the consequences of Article 40.3.3° and the defeat of a referendum that sought to deal with the issue of the threat of suicide. Let me quote Francis Bacon: "It is as hard and severe a thing to be a true politician as to be truly moral." I really know what that means now in regard to this Bill. However, we have a duty to be consistent with our own laws and judged by our own courts, on which our citizens, including women, depend. The Bill upholds that duty.

See this speech in context