Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This debate on abortion is unlike any other on any issue being debated today. Abortion is an emotive and complex issue, stacked with distressing circumstances that elicit our sympathy and compassion. I acknowledge the deep pain and human tragedies with which we are concerned in addressing the issue. Many women and their families will find the ongoing discussion very difficult owing to the loss of a child or for other reasons. It is important that all of us in public leadership positions, while seeking to have a robust and informed debate, be mindful of these realities.

For the first time, I wish to add my views on the Bill which proposes to amend the Constitution by repealing and replacing Article 40.3.3°. The most obvious interpretation of any decision to delete Article 40.3.3° is that the people will have decided to completely withdraw constitutional protection from the unborn. In this situation the only factor at play will be the constitutional rights of the mother which clearly will support a much more liberal abortion regime. Professor Gerard Whyte of Trinity College, Dublin’s law school has stated this will have the effect of arriving at a situation where we will have abortion on demand. He has asserted that no presentation made to the Citizens’ Assembly and the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution adequately addressed the argument that a popular decision to withdraw constitutional recognition from the right to life of the unborn would tie the hands of the Oireachtas and, by extension, the Judiciary when it came to the question of protecting foetal life.

My own interpretation of any such repeal is that the two rights will no longer be equal. What precisely that means is, of course, impossible to tell. It will most likely be decided by the Supreme Court in due course. That is the difficulty with repeal. On the question being asked in the referendum, nobody knows precisely for what he or she will be voting. A vote for repeal alone is effectively a vote for uncertainty. I suggest that on the issue of life or death absolute clarity is demanded.

The implications are very stark, particularly in the light of the recent Supreme Court declaration, for if the protection offered by the eighth amendment is removed, it will no longer be possible to argue, post-deletion, that the right to life of the unborn still enjoys residual constitutional protection by virtue of other provisions in the Constitution. Therefore, Ireland has reached a defining moment. We are being asked to relinquish the human rights of a human being, the unborn child. This step is far removed from Ireland’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was ratified by Ireland in 1992, which recognises a continuity of rights before and after birth and which declares in its preamble that "[T]he child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".

The scientific evidence and logical conclusion that new life exists from the point of conception clearly implies that every society genuinely committed to protecting fundamental human rights, especially the right to life, should take the moral and physical status of the unborn very seriously. If the pre-born are human beings, we have a social duty to find compassionate ways to support women that do not require the death of one in order to solve the problems of the other. For me, this is certainly the most important matter to come before the Seanad in my time in the House. We should not underestimate the significance of what we are about to say and do. There are many reasons taking the right to life of a group of human persons out of the Constitution is wrong, but in itself abortion is fundamentally wrong as a human being is killed. The Bill and the proposed referendum are laden with uncertainty. As such, I feel a great obligation to articulate some of my concerns.

I wish to touch on a matter which has garnered attention in some quarters since the vote in the Dáil on the Bill last week, as articulated by Senator Terry Leyden. The suggestion has been made, incorrectly, that the Deputies who voted against the holding of the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment acted undemocratically. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. They exercised their democratic mandate within Ireland’s representative parliamentary democracy framework as provided for in the Constitution. It forms a key facet of the parliamentary filter in safeguarding against the potential for innumerable issues to put to the people in referendums. Suggesting otherwise on this issue is akin to saying there is overt manipulation by lobby groups, some of which are heavily funded by external sources.

It is well worth noting that, as articulated by Senator Terry Leyden, there was a similar outcome in the Dáil vote on the original 1983 eighth amendment referendum Bill. On that occasion, 11 Deputies voted against the holding of the referendum. They included some prominent Members on the Fine Gael, Labour Party and Independent benches.

The joint committee has recommended permitting abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks and potentially right up to birth for reasons of health, including mental health. These proposals are a source of grave concern. Even if the recommendation that there be abortion on request is excluded, permitting abortion for health reasons will create similar provisions here to those in Britain which, in practice, have brought about abortion on request. In Britain one in five pregnancies ends in abortion. In 2016 alone, 190,406 abortions took place in England and Wales, 97% of which took place on health grounds. Is this really the kind of Ireland we want to create? Do we want to follow that path? I for one do not agree that we should take that route. The recommendations also effectively undermine any assurance that Ireland will not introduce abortion in cases of disability, as is the experience in other countries where it has been demonstrated that children with Down's syndrome have been aborted on health grounds. That is not the sort of Ireland I want to see created.

Lord Steele, the architect of the 1967 Act, outlined very clearly four or five years ago that Ireland was entering and going down a very dangerous path in taking the route the committee and the Citizens' Assembly have chosen. At some point in our existence everyone present was an unborn child at ten or 12 weeks. The only difference between an unborn child at ten weeks in the womb and any of us is the factor of time. This is a natural reflection of the various stages of human development. It is medically accepted that human beings develop at an astonishingly rapid pace. Furthermore, medical science has proved that the cardiovascular system is the first major system to function. At 22 days after conception the child's heart begins to circulate his or her own blood, distinct from that of his or her mother, and that heartbeat can be detected by ultrasound.

This issue comes down to the type of society we want to create. Society can continue to pit women against their pre-born offspring or it can begin to talk about real choices, solutions and compassion as suggested by the group known as Feminists for Life. As a species, we have evolved into a complex and interdependent community that is gradually doing away with prejudices such as racism, sexism and ableism. In affirming life, well-being and human dignity it is important that we work together to ensure the best possible care will be provided for women, their children and families in times of crisis, including practical, emotional and spiritual help. We can do better than abortion. I will be voting against the Bill at every opportunity as is my democratic right. I will also vote to uphold the protection of the unborn, the most vulnerable members of our society, when the referendum occurs.