Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response.

I assure him that this is a substantive amendment which would make the following substantive difference. There would be absolutely no doubt that in a pre-viable situation the unborn child's life would be ended. However, in a situation at viability onwards, it would make clear that the intervention was not designed to take the life of the child but to end the pregnancy. There is no ambiguity or danger introduced by the words "may be lost". It simply encapsulates the reality that, depending on the stage of pregnancy at which the intervention is made, the outcomes from the point of view of the unborn child may differ. There is no prejudice to the woman's welfare here. This is not opposing section 9, which I certainly do oppose. I am saying, accepting for the moment that section 9 is in the Bill, that section 9 should make clear that any such intervention on foot of section 9 is not designed to end life. It is designed to end pregnancy, which, depending on the stage of pregnancy, may or may not end life. That is the entire purpose of the wording that I have proposed and I do not see how there is any danger imported by the use of the words "may be".

Furthermore, and this is where I am afraid I must accuse the Minister of State, the Government and perhaps the officials advising the Minister of being polemical and perhaps being-----