Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am somewhat disappointed by the inference made by Senator Jimmy Harte in his contribution. I have shown respect for the views that have been expressed on all sides of this argument. It is clear, during the debate in both Houses, that many people have been conscience-stricken in this regard. When one gives respect to those who have arrived at a decision to support the Bill, it is difficult to accept the inference that there is a political motivation behind the decision taken by other Members and that the church has somehow ring-fenced our views.

I thought long and hard about my position on this legislation. Ultimately, for all of us, it comes down to a question of conscience. I cannot see any other way out of it. I am aware that there are many women throughout this country who deeply resent somebody like me, or any man, engaging in this debate at all. I find that difficult to accept. Senator Catherine Noone referred to the role men play in the creation of life. Why then should our views be completely ignored in respect of what subsequently becomes of that life? The main question that arises in this discussion is about the choice of a woman to do what she wishes with her own body. However, that question leads inevitably to another question about what is inside her body and the choice available to that unborn life. The particular question that comes to my mind when I hear the arguments about pro-choice and a woman's right to decide what she can do with her own body is who is speaking for the unborn. That question assumes that one accepts that what is in a woman's stomach is actually life. I have come to the conclusion, from all I have read and all I have listened to, that there is life there. In fact, there is a foetal heartbeat at just 30 days gestation and brain waves at 40 days. The foetus - the unborn - feels, thinks, acts and reacts. Therefore, how can I in conscience accept any law which would result in the deliberate destruction of that life? I emphasise the word "deliberate".

I always remember that in the course of the debate in the United States surrounding the Supreme Court judgement in Roe v. Wade, an observation was made that once the discussion moved from the physical evidence to the psychological evidence, the argument was lost for those who were opposed to direct abortion.

It is rather simple to understand why they came to that conclusion because references were made by many speakers to physical evidence. They talked about trusting the medical profession when one might need to have one's body fixed, but that is all physical evidence. Once it moves into the mind, it becomes a minefield. With all due respect, psychiatrists themselves would be the first to admit that when it comes to prescriptive medicine, they do not even know how it works. They do not know why or even if it works and they will freely admit that. They will say it helps some people and that it might help others, but that they are not sure. Now they will be asked to judge on somebody presenting with a pregnancy, who is clearly distressed and where there are all sorts of activities going on in the mind and body.

A psychiatrist from TCD said on television last week that if a woman presents and says she is suicidal, she would believe her. That then opens up the vista of what happens next. It means the psychiatrist and the obstetrician will sign off and a life will be deliberately taken. The argument is that it is saving one life but it goes back to the fundamental question on the whole area of the mind and the psychiatric conclusions arrived at. Without boring the House because it has been repeated so often, all of the psychiatrists are in agreement that abortion is not a treatment for suicide. I do not believe any of them has said that but I stand corrected if someone has. What I heard is that following an abortion, there is a very real risk of suicide - of the woman taking her own life.

We are being asked to pass legislation which says these will be very rare occasions, or so rare and with such restrictions, they will not happen. I understand that 90% plus of those who present for abortion in the United Kingdom do so on mental health grounds and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that once the structures are put in place in this country following the inevitable passage of this Bill, irrespective of the restrictions about which we hear, women will present. It is rather interesting that the suggestion has been made - I am being careful not to stray into a minefield here - that when a woman presents, she should be believed. Rather interestingly, Eilis O'Hanlon writing in the Sunday Independent some months ago, actually raised this issue. I am only paraphrasing what she concluded but she said women would probably present but the question could be asked whether they were presenting in a legitimate fashion. That was her view and I will not go down that road because I cannot, nor will I attempt to, get into the mind of a woman in distress with a crisis pregnancy.

I support 90% of this legislation which brings legal clarity. Sections 7 and 8, as Senator Darragh O'Brien pointed out, bring clarity. Cases arise in Irish hospitals where the life of the mother is under threat and where a decision must be taken as to how to proceed medically. Ultimately, what happens is that the life of the unborn is lost in order to save the life of the mother. I have absolutely no difficulty with that because I keep thinking about my wife. I heard Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh talk about being present at the birth of his children; I was present at the birth of my children. I also heard him talk about his wife suffering a miscarriage; my wife suffered a miscarriage. Like him, I feel I bring a small element of experience to this in understanding what it is like for a woman to go through these difficulties but, ultimately, it comes back to section 9 which is the Rubicon I cannot cross.

I cannot, in conscience, vote for legislation which will ultimately result in deliberate termination, the deliberate killing of the unborn. I know the argument is put forward that it will be treated in the same way as sections 7 and 8 - in other words, I have no problem where medical procedures are involved and where medical intervention required to save the life of the mother so, therefore, I should not have any problem with section 9. I have outlined why I have a problem with section 9. It is a minefield and the emotions of women in those circumstances change. There is no template or benchmark laid down where it can be decided. There is no physical evidence and all the psychiatric evidence is that a termination, or an abortion, is not a suitable treatment in those circumstances.

I also have a difficulty about the conscientious objection. I find it extraordinary that this Government has gone further than the UK legislation in this regard. A conscientious objector is acknowledged as having that right but this goes one stage further in that it requires legally that the conscientious objector should seek out somebody else who will carry out the termination. That is an affront; it is dreadful.

In regard to the time period, I have heard it said and the argument has been made to me by people in my party who support the legislation that it will not happen because of Article 40.3.3^othat once a baby is viable after 22 to 23 weeks, there will be a termination but that it will result in the baby being born alive. Why is it that if a woman presents as suicidal at 15 weeks, is signed off at 15 weeks under the regulations and there is a termination which results in the death of the unborn, seven or eight weeks later there is a termination which ensures the baby survives? Surely the reason the woman is presenting as suicidal is because of what is inside her - that she does not want it and wants to reject it. What happens when the birth takes place? Who can say with his or her hand on his or her heart that woman will not then proceed to commit suicide because the baby has been born? They are the questions which should be asked about this time period.