Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I might not necessarily agree with everything that was said but the contributions to the debate have been interesting and good. Before I come to the substantive issue, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 is wrong in the sanctions it provides against women and I believe that the Government parties were totally wrong in the provisions it put in the Act in respect of women who procure abortions. They are draconian. Whatever my personal beliefs, we have to show tolerance and the Act does not do that.

I heard the word "consensus", and Deputies spoke about arriving at one. I do not think we will ever arrive at a consensus on this issue because there are legitimately different views and those views fundamentally arise from one's belief as to whether or not an unborn child has any fundamental, inherent rights of its own. I think I heard the Minister say that he believed it had but that there were certain limitations on it. I think other people believe, genuinely and absolutely, that an unborn child does not deserve the protection of human rights and does not fundamentally have any rights and that, therefore, abortion is purely an issue for the mother. Of course, the awkward decision that then arises is how late in the pregnancy would one say this goes. One will never reconcile the views of those who believe fundamentally that an unborn human being is a person and, therefore, has rights - which the Constitution tries to protect, regardless of whether people, in some sense or other, modify those rights - and those who believe that the unborn has no independent rights whatsoever and that the matter is totally an issue for the mother. However, there needs to be a debate. No more than with other issues that show up here for a quick stand-up debate for an hour and a half, I do not believe this is the parliamentary forum to tease out the very complicated issues that arise.

One thing that was very interesting, coming from the two doctors on the other side, was how the fear of litigation has become such a factor in medicine. I think the two doctors would agree that no matter how one draws the line and how one draws up legislation, if one lives in a very litigious society, as we now do, one will always watch one's back in respect of the decisions one makes. That is good in certain ways, but it does have its drawbacks, because no matter what way one goes at this, one will have a law, there will be a line in that law and one must make judgments in real human circumstances. I have always taken the view that if I believe a doctor acted in good faith, he or she should not be convicted of any wrongdoing. Then there is the question of the definition of good faith. I always recognised that if one is in a real-life situation and making real-life decisions, one must make them there and then in the moment; one cannot have a three-week discussion about what one will do. This must be taken into account.

There is common ground. Unfortunately, I have only another half a minute. I would like to make one suggestion, which is that all of these issues be thrashed out in all their complexity, and there are massive complexities, in a committee. Could I start with the one on which we can all find common ground - something that is of deep concern to me, not only because of what happened in my constituency but because of what I read in newspapers-----

See this speech in context