David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We have heard one of the most important contributions to debate that I have ever heard in this House. We should congratulate Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell on her discovery and exploitation of this very significant legal precedent. I do not believe such a case was made in the other House. If it was, I certainly do not remember it. I pay tribute to the woman involved, whom I have had the honour of meeting. She was remarkably courageous. The case shows double dealing on the part of the Government. It has not had the courage to face up to this. Part of the reason is a sectarian threat. This has happened every time abortion is mentioned. I strongly object to it and the secret deals that have occurred with the Government bypassing the people. Protocols were inserted into the Maastricht treaty and the original highly sectarian amendment in 1983 was put through despite strong opposition from very prominent people in the Church of Ireland.

Up to 1869, the position of the Roman Catholic Church was that abortion was permissible up to 166 days. For this information, I am very grateful to Patsy McGarry who published a wonderful article in The Irish Times. This means that the current interpretation is a modern one. This needs to be borne in mind when considering the so-called ethical issues.

The amendment of Senators Marie-Louise O'Donnell and Fiach Mac Conghail is about fatal foetal abnormality, about which I will talk first. My amendment, No. 18, seeks the insertion of "or at the request of a pregnant woman in the case of fatal foetal abnormality or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest". I am horrified that people should refuse a woman the right to choose. A woman may very well choose to continue with her pregnancy in circumstances involving a fatal foetal abnormality, incest or rape. It is possible that a young woman or young girl might do so. A young woman has the right, in addition, not to have the product of a violent assault borne within her body for nine months. Denying this right is cruel and inhumane.

Cases of fatal foetal abnormality are reasonably rare but not exceedingly rare because there were approximately 1,500 women with cases of fatal foetal abnormalities last year. They are at the extreme end of the spectrum, but I suppose all cases are extreme in that there is nothing more extreme than a fatal foetal abnormality. The extreme that highlights the case is when what is within the womb is plainly not human or a citizen. It plainly can have no rights. If it is simply a piece of flesh that has no head, brain, proper vital organs or capacity for sensation of any kind, how can anybody with a conscience be so presumptuous as to refuse the affected woman the right to have a termination? If the woman involved has a conscientious or religious feeling that she must continue with the pregnancy, nobody will force her not to. However, in this case, young women are being forced to give birth to what I have described, with no disrespect, as simply a piece of flesh with no sensation, capacity for sensation or any form of feeling. That is obscene.

The other issue I wish to address is rape. A young girl could be subjected to gang rape and it might not be even be clear who the father is. This seems to be a gross invasion, a gross violation, of a woman's right to dignity and freedom. Sometimes, quite a young girl may be raped. I do not how anybody could insist that this appalling insult to humanity should be followed with a demand that she continue with what she may very well regard as an unwelcome and repulsive colonisation of her body by her attackers, or a demand that she keep the child. I do not know how anybody, in conscience, particularly any man who cannot even experience ordinary pregnancy, could be so self-righteous as to demand, in such circumstances, that a woman or young girl continue with her pregnancy.

The same is true of incest. Incest is one of the most shocking crimes and very often, the victims are very young. The violation may start off as abuse and, as a result of a violent sexual assault by the father, a child may become pregnant. Apparently, a minority in this House are saying such a young girl should be forced to continue with her pregnancy, irrespective of whether she wants to do so. Two or three years ago in Recife a nine year old girl was raped by her father and became pregnant. Her mother took her to have an abortion. However, the Archbishop of Recife excommunicated the mother and the daughter and rest of the family for supporting them. I found that deeply shocking. It was absolutely horrifying and lacking in compassion, human understanding and imagination.

The opportunity to take these points on board is lost because of a lack of courage on the part of the Government. If we make these amendments and there is an objection or they are challenged in court, so much the better. Let us find out whether these matters are beyond the power of Parliament because of the grossly ill-advised, sectarian amendment made in 1983. Let us put it to the people again. I would be very happy to do so in the light of everything we have learned since. I have certainly changed my mind on abortion. I started off by being horrified by it.

When I was a tutor in Trinity College Dublin, approximately once a year a young woman would come to me with a crisis pregnancy. I gave them all of the information available on non-directive counselling and all the rest of it. One of them had an abortion and remained happy with her decision. The other nine did not. I am quite sure if non-directive counselling had not been available, they would have hopped on the boat and had this operation in the most awful, dehumanising circumstances and come back without counselling. Honesty and openness and facing reality and the truth will ironically reduce the number of abortions, whether in this country with some kind of subterfuge or exported to England, as the vast majority are in our usual hypocritical way. I strongly support Senators Fiach MacConghail and Marie Louise O'Donnell's amendment. I also appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to consider these cases which are morally inarguable for fatal foetal abnormality and pregnancy as a result of incest or rape.

I do not decry people who are concerned or worried. There was a wonderful man on the radio yesterday who had a son with Down's syndrome. He was the epitome of everything that was good in Irish life. He had sacrificed himself and was Carer of the Year, but I think he was a little confused because he thought that if this Bill went through, one would have to abort a child with Down's syndrome. That would be unforgivable and not right. The Bill will not do anything like that. That is just confusion on the part of a really good man. I hope that before the Bill comes into law, or when it does, that he will be able to relax and realise that there is no threat to people with Down's syndrome who have proved themselves to be such an addition to our society with their uninhibited affection, directness and honesty. They may be held to have limited intellectual capacity, but, my goodness, they compensate for it in other ways. I would never stand over a foetus being aborted simply because it had Down's syndrome. That is not what the Bill is about and it would not even be the case if the amendments were accepted. I believe the Minister would personally be sympathetic to these matters. He is adopting the stony face of a professional politician, which is fine by me. He probably feels politically and legally constrained, but an act of courage would be called for.