Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Almost since the dawn of human civilisation, the remains of deceased members of society have been treated with dignity and buried or cremated in a dignified and respectful fashion. We see that in how our ancestors on this island buried their dead in the Neolithic Age and Bronze Age periods. We see it in the works of the great writers of the Greek and Roman civilisations, for example, Sophocles, where the desecration or disrespect of dead bodies, such as dead soldiers on a battlefield, was viewed as the harshest form of humiliation and denigration. That respect for the remains of our deceased comes right up to the present day, with organised burial and cremation of remains taking place in this city since Victorian times and with strict laws continuing to govern such practices.

As someone who does not want to see the introduction of abortion into Ireland, I am enough of a realist to know that, when the service is introduced, there will be foetal remains left as a result of the abortion procedures. That is an inevitability. In my eyes and the eyes of a great many people, possibly the majority and certainly a very large minority, these are the remains of human beings who lived, if even for a short time and only in the womb. They are entitled, therefore, as human beings to the same basic level of dignity as any other human being. This amendment seeks to guarantee that.

It is, of course, the case that, sadly, pregnancies end through miscarriage. It is, of course, the case that it is not always possible to arrange for the burial of the child that is lost in that situation. It is, of course, the case that, in the past, we did not have sufficient respect for babies who died in pregnancy, were stillborn and so on. We do not need to go into the tragic history of that. However, "natural fallacy" is the term that is used to describe the philosophical flaw in the argument that, because miscarriages happen every other day, somehow the little creatures who are miscarried are less valuable and that it might be legitimate, therefore, to procure or bring about that miscarriage deliberately. When one thinks about it, that argument is tantamount to saying that, in countries where there is a higher infant mortality rate, as there certainly is in many countries in the developing world, somehow the right to life of such children is less great.

The amendment places a duty on hospitals and the HSE to arrange for the dignified disposal of remains, where a surgical abortion takes place, by cremation or burial. As Senator Ó Domhnaill has made clear, and as I also want to make clear, this amendment does not compel women to have any responsibility for this unless they expressly want to. We have seen a major controversy in recent years in respect of the Tuam mother and baby home and the allegations about the improper treatment and burial there of the remains of innocent infants. I do not see how anyone who is shocked and offended by the issue could not support this amendment, which would prevent any repeat of such practices as a result of the introduction of surgical abortion.

We have seen reports of grotesque treatment of foetal remains abroad. I do not propose to go into the detail of how Planned Parenthood, the organisation with which the Irish Family Planning Association, IFPA, is affiliated, was found to have dealt with foetal remains. Colleagues will be familiar with that by now. It shows what happens when strict guidelines are not in place and abortion becomes a money-making industry, as it is in the United States and, perhaps, many other places.

There was also the exposure - it has been referenced, so I will not go into it now - of shocking practices in the treatment and use of foetal remains in hospitals in the UK.Colleagues may be familiar with the case. They are remains of human beings whose lives were cut short because the law of the land allowed them to be. Surely, as a society that strives to be decent, our laws should at least allow for some basic human decency in these situations and the remains of those children should be disposed of carefully and with respect.

I draw the attention of colleagues to one or two particular elements of the proposed new section 23. Subsection (7) reads: "A person who sells or offers to sell a foetus or the bodily remains or any part thereof of a foetus who has been the subject of a termination of pregnancy shall be guilty of an offence". It seems strange that we even have to think about such issues, yet they are realities in our world. For example, Planned Parenthood has been implicated in such unacceptable and very cruel practices and chilling commentary on the sale and transfer of body parts of aborted foetuses. It does not do one good to listen to some of the conversations that took place involving some of the people from that organisation. I draw Members' attention to an article which shows how quickly things move once they gather momentum. It appeared in TheIrish timeson 14 November and was headed, "Is it right to use aborted fetal tissue for research?" It was written by George Winter. It is posed as a question, but it is very clear that the author regards it as absolutely right and proper that aborted fetal tissue can be used for research. He refers to the repeal vote as overturning a manifest injustice and describes those who oppose it as "anti-choice". He raises the issue of what happens when one can point to scientific or therapeutic benefits which flow from the medical or scientific exploitation of foetal body parts. The question of eating the fruit of the poisoned tree is raised. The more abortion becomes accepted practice and the more advances in science there are the more these issues will arise. Of course, there is a scientific benefit to be derived from research and we all want to see medical cures.