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

I think she would have not accepted that she was not a mother from the time that she started carrying a baby.

There is a great slagging match going on that those of us who believe in the protection of human life do so at the behest of the Catholic Church. Do I believe in the protection of born human life because of the Catholic Church? The rest of the Deputies here, who I know would share my belief in the absolute protection of human life after birth, would absolutely dismiss the idea that they believe in it because of the tenets of the Catholic Church. I would share their belief that capital punishment is an obscenity that has no place in the modern world. I believe that because I believe nobody should take a human life. Therefore, it is a much more fundamental belief than a belief that a church might have. To believe that human life in all of its stages of life should be protected is a fundamental right of the human.

Obviously, in the case of somebody who is expecting a baby, that creates a huge issue in that one is trying to protect rights, the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the mother. I know of nobody who says if the woman's life is in danger and if the child has to be taken and if the child cannot survive outside the womb, that should not happen. That has been happening in medicine for years.

Many eminent gynaecologists would say that what happened in the Savita Halappanavar case was a total lack of care, which seems to be a major challenge in hospitals because we have had a very high number of maternal mortalities in hospitals in recent years. University Hospital Galway, which had gone for years without any maternal death, had one in recent times that according to many experts was totally avoidable and had nothing to do with the protection of human life under the Constitution.

I share Deputy Billy Kelleher's concern over the Citizens' Assembly because like the Deputies who introduced this Bill, I believe ultimately that we are the citizens' assembly. The whole idea of setting up Dáil Éireann in 1918 was to set up an assembly of the people elected only by the people. To have a parallel assembly elected by some lottery system seems to run counter to the very deep roots of democracy within the State. However, the Citizens' Assembly is there now. A process has been put in train and let us move forward with that process.

Another thing I would share with the people who introduced the Bill is my view that many criminal sanctions are far too high. It is well known that I am not great at the business of the condemnation of people right across society. Many have been involved in what society considers criminal activities, but often there are extenuating circumstances to it. It is well known that I would generally be against those people in society who favour throwing away the key when people go to prison and look for even longer sentences.

I remember being very concerned about the particular provision that had been raised here when this was debated on Committee Stage in the Oireachtas because I thought the sanction was incredibly long, particularly when compared with other sanctions. However, to say the only way that somebody might commit an offence under this law is by taking the abortion pill does not in any way recognise that abortion can come at many stages and in many circumstances. If it is against the law and banned under the Constitution, there must be some penalty. I was very concerned at the time that the penalty for the mother and the penalty for the person who would actually do the abortion is the same in the Act for all of the reasons that those who know me well would understand - my natural sympathy for a mother in a case of a crisis and what might happen. This particular issue needs to be debated in much more detail.

What we have is not an effort to deal with a criminal sanction that could be far too high irrespective of the circumstances, but a part of a very open campaign. I admire those who have the view even though I diametrically disagree with them, but it is part of a campaign to allow abortion on demand in this country. It would appear that this is still a minority view, but let the people decide that question.

There are those of us who take a contrary view and do not believe that abortion is a personal issue for one person, but believe there is a second person involved. Will they not respect us for having a belief? Will they not at least do us the courtesy of trying to see where we are coming from? I always try to see where the other side is coming from. I recognise that if they do not believe an unborn baby - a baby at 24, 25 or 26 weeks - is a human person, why not have abortion? That is a valid view. However, believing the opposite is an equally valid view and is the one I happen to hold not because any church tells me, but because my reason tells me that it is a person, a human, and therefore entitled to human protection.

That is why I believe in this. It is important that, regardless of what happens in this debate, we should respect each other. We will probably never agree, but we should respect the sincerity of people's views. People should stop trying to impugn other people's integrity just because they disagree with them. They should believe that there is a sincerity in those who are very understanding who would be very tolerant, but who just cannot get away from the firm belief that what we are talking about here are little humans.

Quite rightly there is absolute condemnation of what happened in Tuam and I share that condemnation because we are talking about babies, born and unborn, that were dealt with in a way that is totally wrong. If there is one lesson from that, it is that we must care for children.

Some people define a child the second after birth. Some define it after 30 weeks in the womb, while others after 20 weeks. These are all different views, but everyone is entitled to his or her beliefs. While I accept children are not independent because they need parents or somebody else to look after them, what I find distasteful is people not accepting the motivation of those of us who believe a child is a human being and separate person. Can people not at least accept that because they are a separate human being, that is our motivation? Anyone who has ever come to me over my long career in politics, or before, no matter what dilemma he or she was in or where he or she was, including prison, found nothing ever from me except understanding and compassion as well as an unwillingness to judge or condemn anyone. It is not my business to judge or condemn anybody, irrespective of what he or she ever did.

See this speech in context