Professor William Binchy:

Let us not go there, but it is unfortunate that we had that comment made.

Let us look at the way the debate and the discussion has developed. We have the privilege here of having with us a former Supreme Court judge, who was in the courts for many years and on the Supreme Court for a number of those years. It is worth examining what she said on the question of late abortions because the Government has said nothing other than that there is no problem. Let us examine what Mrs. Justice McGuinness has said in order to enlighten us in terms of the analysis here. Mrs. Justice McGuinness stated that she was confident that doctors would do the right thing. As I say, obstetricians would wish to do the right thing but if legislation constrains them to carry out an abortion in circumstances where they do not wish to do so, their only strategy in those circumstances is conscientious objection.

Mrs. Justice McGuinness also stated we are not dealing with a kind of legal concept. Sadly, that is exactly what we are dealing with. We certainly are dealing with a legal concept. The legal concept in question here is the legislation which allows for abortion from the very beginning of implantation up to birth. We are dealing with a legal concept. What is striking is that neither of my two colleagues here who are advocating in favour of the legislation have presented any argument that, in fact, the legislation does not embrace the termination, which means the intentional termination, of the unborn child in the latter stages of pregnancy based on suicidal ideation where the mother says the very existence of this child is intolerable for her. This is a crucial question and it is interesting that the two speakers who have come along to advocate for the Bill have, as it were, supported our analysis as lawyers rather than contradicted it in any coherent way. I think that is a fair point.

On that issue, I would like to say - because my remarks have been, perhaps, a little concentrated in that area - we are not in favour of time limits. Time limits is absolutely the wrong way to go. Mrs. Justice McGuinness more or less made the argument it is unfortunate we have to start here because it is all the fault of the original pro-life amendment. I would suggest that, perhaps, the difficulty lies in the Supreme Court decision, but we have to start here. We very definitely have to start here.

The question is: do we implement the Supreme Court decision which allows for abortion throughout pregnancy or do we take a different course of action? In the light of the changed information - the 21 years of scientific experience so that we can test that particular issue - the Legislature is perfectly entitled and would be very well-advised to take a different course. The Constitution does not require the Legislature to implement the X decision. It has a range of strategies.

The common ground here is that all necessary medical treatment should be given to women during pregnancy. That is not a question of contest. The contest is on the suicidal ideation issue.

On the suicidal ideation issue, we have had support today, rather than contradiction, to the proposition that the opponents of the Bill have put forward, which is, that this allows for suicidal ideation being a ground for termination, not only of pregnancy but of the life of the unborn during the currency of the pregnancy. That is a startling proposition but, nonetheless, it is a legal concept. With respect to Mrs. Justice McGuinness, it is one that the legislators have to contemplate and, I would respectfully say, they should decline to implement that type of legislation.