David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is not. As I said, the amendment is rather God-like. Attempts were spoken of to restrict scientific practice and so on and all these amendments, which we were supposed to discuss together, have one thing in common - they seek to restrict. One of the contributors said that parent fathers are pursued through the courts for maintenance money and why are they not doing anything about the sperm donors, but it is a blob of sperm - get over it. I do not see that there is any particular reason for this.

The protection of children was invoked. Where were these people during the civil partnership debate when the rights of children were consistently violated by exclusion from that legislation? I spoke out about it. I did not hear any of these other people; not one of them spoke about it once, in fact they seemed quite pleased. A child born as a result of a DAHR procedure will have two parents, if it is a same-sex couple, a cohabiting, a married couple or whatever. The only time they will not is when a single parent is adopting and a single parent can do it already. They can do it already. It is a tiny number who are involved in these.

One can take a different view of the impact of legislation but it is disgraceful for a Member of this House to say that this Government and this legislation are anti-child. It is an outrageous claim to make that this Minister is anti-child and that the legislation is anti-child.There is no reason for this. That is what we are told, with a rictus of a smile, is respectful debate. I do not think there is anything respectful about accusing the Minister or the Government of being anti-child. That is the way in which language is controlled during the debate and it is very offensive and bullying. I do not like the tone and do not think it should be part of this debate.