Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Indeed. Some Irishwomen go to Britain for abortions. I was about to give the figure that Deputy O'Reilly cited, 4,000 to 5,000 a year. One can also count the newer reality of people importing abortion pills and the like. That sad reality, tragic for those women and their babies, leaves Ireland with a situation where approximately one in 20 pregnancies ends in abortion, whereas in our nearest neighbour that rate is four times higher, at one in five. Professor Pras should acknowledge that the Irish law has had a protective effect. In the words of one woman, the time it took to arrange an abortion in England was the time she needed to change her mind.

I do not mind the witness acknowledging, if he were generous enough to do so, that sincere people can differ on this issue. It is clear they do but dogmatism underlies this document, where he does not even acknowledge that this is not an issue like others, that it is an issue that divides sincere people, atheists and religious, people of good will. He does not acknowledge that abortion is a reality around the world and is responsible for millions of deaths. I have asked that today we remember the countless women who oppose abortion because it is contrary to human dignity, and the countless, 50% plus, of unborn women who die as a result of abortion. Will Professor Pras consider the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which in its preamble, the bit Professor Pras never quotes, states: "... the child, by reason of his [or her] physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." How can we conclude otherwise than that human rights are being corrupted when people in Professor Pras' position never quote that preamble? At most they will offer that the preamble does not contain justiciable rights, which is true, but it has legal force and it is a required part of the interpretation of UN jurisprudence. I see his colleague taking a note on that but I would like to hear that point contradicted. It is legal. It is part of the law. It is the never quoted part.

I note Professor Pras says that he does not speak for the UN and that he is free to criticise it which is very good. Would he agree with me that it might be okay if the UN were to criticise him? I wonder does he speak, for example, for the new Secretary General, António Guterres, who speaks about human dignity with great regularity, and whose voting record as a politician has been to include all, born and unborn. Surely the presence of such an eminent figure at the head of the UN should prompt him to rethink his understanding of human rights or at least to acknowledge that there are different points of view on this issue. Where there is a different point of view, there must surely be greater respect for different member states' rights to make laws reflecting their understanding of human dignity. Would Professor Pras agree that he does a disservice when he links issues such as gender-based violence on which we must all act together, with, as he put it, violations of sexual and reproductive rights, by which I presume he means the denial of legal abortion? He does a great disservice to human rights when he links areas that should be common case with areas that are highly contestable and I would argue noxious because of the danger to life.

Professor Pras mentioned Down's syndrome and spoke of his respect for the decision of people to terminate or to have a child. Is he really doing enough there, given that his brief is health and in other contexts we would all talk about the need to treat disabled members of our community on the same footing as those who do not have a disability? I note with great attention and care what my colleague, Senator Dolan, has had to say and I agree with him. Would Professor Pras agree that laws on abortion at the very least should not discriminate between children who are disabled and able-bodied members of the community? I think it was Lord Shinkwin who unsuccessfully attempted in the House of Lords to change the British abortion laws so that there would be no extra grounds for abortion on grounds of disability. Would Professor Pras agree that if there is a sincere motivation to treat disabled members of our community on the same footing as everybody else and to champion everybody's rights equally that there should be no extra grounds for abortion, based on disability whether serious, life-limiting or more trivial? Is he not being hypocritical if he supports the rights of countries to legislation for abortion on the particular grounds of disability?

In talking about respecting the decision to terminate or to have the child, I note that Professor Pras talks about the goal to eliminate AIDS by 2030. Let me tell him about another 2030 goal, which is the goal of the great and the good in Denmark to be Down's syndrome free by 2030. Is that not the reality that Professor Pras' neutrality masks, whereby the existence of children with Down's syndrome has become increasingly uncommon in the Western world with rates of abortion of children with Down's syndrome at well over 90% in Britain? Has he anything to say to that? As one commentator in Ireland recently said about that Danish aspiration, all will be well and all will be Orwellian. Would Professor Pras agree that is an Orwellian aspiration? It is a goal already achieved in Iceland. He says first trimester abortion is a basic right to which he would aspire. Has he anything to say about the reality of abortion in a country such as Britain where a child with a disability as mild as cleft palate can be aborted because of that disability?

Does the witness have anything to say about the fact that in 2008, according to British statistics, more than 60 children survived a botched abortion and were simply left to die? Does it come under the health brief to have any kind of care for those aborted children or is the witness happy enough for the British to have such a law?