Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I do not think there is any need to fight about this. The point was that it is not a legal precedent. Senator Norris used the phrase “legal precedent” when it is not.

I have difficulties with the term “incompatible with life”. I have myself used the term “fatal foetal abnormality” in preference to it. There is a key point that some seem to be arguing that the term “unborn” might not include a child who cannot survive once born. There is no real basis for thinking that. The question of the child’s future survival after birth does not take from the fact that he or she is an unborn child now. The protection of the Constitution applies to the child as he or she is in the womb. It is not contingent on his or her future prospects. That is a true and fair reading of the eight amendment. In fact, it is the whole point of the eight amendment. One’s dignity, right to respect, protection and vindication, as far as is practicable, exists in the now. It applies to one as one is in the now. It would be like saying - please forgive me as no analogy is perfect - that a born person with a terminal illness does not have the right to the same legal protection because they are not going to live very long.

Some people kindly referred to the One Day More families. This is an important point because people use phrases such as "it is a matter of the person's choice". Senator Averil Power generously paid tribute to them, as well as to Termination for Medical Reasons. Their view, as expressed to us, was that loving their child to his or her natural end had been the right thing to do and had brought them a lot of healing; therefore, it is true that it was good for them, as their choice. They thought and said and still say that our society needs to give a full welcome to children in this situation, that they need to be welcomed socially and also given legal protection. They said - this was critical - that they had no quarrel with people who thought differently because they understood they had suffered as they had done and understood their situation. They believe waiting with the child until the natural end is ultimately better for everybody involved and see it as the respect due to the child, whatever his or her disability or illness. They worry that leaving it up to individual family decisions, while that may appeal strongly to those of us who lean strongly on the side of autonomy, will cause more hurt than healing. They also went on to say they feared that it would change the situation for everybody. I am paraphrasing. These are my words, not theirs, but the meaning is true to theirs. They say attitudes in the country will change if the decision becomes a matter of individual choice. They fear that there will be greater social pressure to end a pregnancy. As one of them put it to me, parents may be made to feel strange by continuing. That is true, when one thinks about how attitudes to euthanasia and other things switch when the law switches. That is a very valid point. That is all I have to say about One Day More.

That is why I have been quite critical of the media because approximately eight times in the past year there was a focus, understandably, on what was called fatal foetal abnormality. Interestingly, it was the focus twice during the debate on this legislation, even though it is not actually dealt with in the legislation. I noticed once on "Prime Time" that the balance was to contrast those who had gone for a termination, on the one hand, with those who had not, on the other, but those in the second category would not quibble with those who had had a termination. That was not a true balance because there are people who believe that not only would it not work for them but that it would be wrong in principle and, ultimately, counter-productive for society. We need to open up that debate.

I say all of this with thanks to my colleagues for tabling the amendments. These are issues about which we need to talk. I am so glad that Senator Darragh O'Brien brought up the commitment given to have a debate in this House on perinatal hospices and other related facilities. I hope that will happen.

On the amendments and the troubling subjects of rape and incest, while others mentioned their personal experience of talking to people and so on, my views were formed during my student days. I was president of the student union in my college at the time of the X case and one day a very good friend of mine came into my office and informed me that he had been adopted. He did not know the circumstances of his conception. He said, "I am glad to be here and believe I have a right to life, regardless of the circumstances of my conception." That may be a controversial view in the eyes of some, but it is not an unreasonable one to hold.