Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his answers. I know that it is a profound issue and is very difficult. When I interrupted Senator Healy Eames, I only did so on the grounds that if we talk about happiness for one group and unhappiness for another group, we just need to provide examples. I was not trying to browbeat at all.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, the foetus was viable in the X case, whereas in the D case there might be an issue as to the extent to which the State was required to guarantee the life of the foetus which suffered from a fatal foetal abnormality. It is very confusing law that we justify the viability of the X case and justify abortion on the grounds of suicide, yet we are not allowed to abort the non-viable foetus.

I take Senator Bacik's point about the eighth amendment and that we are not constitutionally settled on this yet, on the grounds of the capability of being born alive, as opposed to incompatibility with life. I wonder then if we are arguing on the grounds of contradiction when talking about incompatibility with life in fatal foetal abnormality. It is as if we do not understand what fatal means and what incompatible means. We seem to be arguing on the grounds of legalising for hope. Senators have spoken about it not being the right time. There is always a fear in that kind of argument. In the de Barra case, that wonderful woman got pregnant in 2001 and brought her case in 2005 and 2006. It is now 2013. However, I understand the point about the constitutionality of the eighth amendment. However, I would still question what we consider to be viable and non-viable and how we legislate for either.