Jim D'Arcy (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Abortion is against the spirit of the Irish people. However, as the life of the child is contingent on the life of the mother, where the life of the mother is at risk, it is necessary to protect and vindicate that life, bearing in mind, of course, the equal right to life of the unborn and, as far as possible, to protect and vindicate that life. That is the clear position I hold. The assessment of risk in this regard is one of measurement, not arithmetic. As no two people will ever measure in exactly the same way, there will be differences in this regard. However, on the medical risk to the life of the mother, there seems to be general agreement that any intervention necessary to save her life should be provided for. Recently on "Morning Ireland" I heard a spokesman say that in most situations this could be done by early delivery. What she was really saying was that in some cases it could not be done. The reality is that there is no difference in principle between the pro-life position, as it is called, and the Government's position on this matter, regardless of the rhetoric used at times to occlude this fact. The principle is established on medical risk and the positions are identical, in spite of the efforts of some to use language to cloud this fact. Let us be clear - all medical interventions necessary include a fortiori or, by logical extension, are covered by the word "all" or, if one likes, "any".

A third force recently entered the debate. It was realised quickly by some that the new position adopted was very similar to that of the Government. That third force which had as its core principle that a possibility did not equal a certainty referred back to a previously held position. This argument entered the debate probably about six weeks ago. It is the more traditional position of non-intervention at any significant level to save the life of the mother, a position that I believe could lead to the death of mothers. Personally, I reject this argument as being extreme. There are no absolutes in this world. I reiterate that the most significant fact about this debate concerns the movement of traditional opponents of intervention towards a more nuanced position. History will show this to be the case. "Where intervention is necessary" in regard to medical risk is now the default line.

I refer to the suicide issue. A very high ranking ambassador stated in Drogheda last week that the issue of suicide would lead to the establishment of a principle. It does not establish any principle, rather it is an extension of a principle already established, but it will now have legal certainty in regard to medical risk. It is a philosophically bogus argument to suggest this is establishing a principle. One can disagree with it - it is reasonable to disagree with the extension of a principle - but it is false, logically, to suggest it is establishing a principle. The Supreme Court, in its judgment in the X case, has ruled that where there is a risk of suicide, an intervention can take place. Regardless of the fact that those on the right and on the left came together in one of them, in two subsequent referendums the people rejected the opportunity to remove the suicide clause. The judges in the Supreme Court stated it would be impossible to exclude suicide. The Government must now give legislative effect to that constitutional provision.

Some people have said guidelines would be better but we are legislators and we would be failing in our duty not to legislate. Guidelines are for tins of peas, not for parliament. The risk of suicide is more difficult to measure than medical risk, the process is more rigorous, with three doctors, including two psychiatrists, involved. It is important to note that it is not the threat of suicide that is being measured but rather the risk, clinically assessed. I get the impression that it is not the suicide risk being allowed for in legislation per sethat is causing major problems but rather that it will open the floodgates to a much more liberal position in this matter. The legislation, however, is tight. The fact that the legislation is based on the risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother means that comparisons with other jurisdictions are not particularly valid. I realise that there are many who would like to see this legislation go further and even some who may see it as a first step. I would not be one of them. Charles Stewart Parnell once wrote:

No man has the right to fix the boundary of a nation. No man has the right to say to his country, 'Thus far shalt thou go and no further', and we have never attempted to fix the 'ne plus ultra'.

I hope that the ne plus ultrais set by this legislation.

I pay tribute to the pro-life movement as it is called. As someone said, we are all pro-life. I agree with that. Those people who would oppose this Bill in general took a balanced and reasonable approach even though I think they may have come under a lot of pressure to adopt a more hardline position. I pay tribute to them for protecting and vindicating the rights of the unborn down the years. I suggest to them that our difference is not one of principle at all but one of extension. Where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother it is necessary to protect and vindicate that right. That is the core, while at the same time ensuring, as this Bill does, that every effort is made to protect the life of the unborn. This Bill does that. I will be supporting the legislation.