Mary Seery Kearney (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I do not deny there is child sexual abuse. Not at all. I do not deny it. I am curious, Arbour Hill Prison is where most of our sex offenders and rapists are held. Are we moving to make sure none of them ever fathers a child again? In the case of anybody who can in their full fertility have a child what are we doing? Are we moving to a place where we think we have a right now to prescribe who can be a parent? I agree with the sentiment. Nobody who is convicted of child sexual abuse should be anywhere near a child but that is not real life. I object to putting this into the context of surrogacy because there is an inference about our families, about same-sex male couples, and about single men. There is an inference and aspersion cast in this debate that is appalling and undermines the integrity and ethics of anybody who enters into this space. The Minister, the officials and the legislative drafters have crafted a series of safeguards to ensure anyone guilty of such a heinous crime does not get through. They will not get into fertility treatment let alone surrogacy, but why say it?

I completely accept that in all of those years I have heard, amid all of the other very right-wing sentiments in here, the truth of Senator Keogan's experience as a foster mother. I have heard that and have always had deep respect for it. However, I doubt that one of those 122 children was born via surrogacy. I doubt that to be the case. We have systems in place in this country to deal with it so I do not think it needed to be said. It is part of a besmirching and throwing of dirt on families through even the terminology that is used. It is okay to have a different philosophical perspective. Of course it is. I would respect and defend the right of people to have a different philosophical perspective but I do not defend the right to impose that on other people to the point of exclusion, to the point of picking and choosing who should be a parent.If you desire to be a parent and you go down a medical science route, you ask - as I have done for ten years - for a framework of legislation to make sure it is ethical and everybody is safeguarded in the process, especially the surrogate mother and more especially any child. I have asked for all of those things. Any aspersions here should not be accepted and I reject them. If they are not intended, so be it, and I will accept they are not intended. I need to say this because in many of the discussions and in many of the anti-surrogacy environments, terminology is used, attitudes are portrayed and individuals who clearly are very vulnerable are trotted out to tell their story and are exploited for the anti-surrogacy argument. They are exploited in this.

To cast aspersions that any intended parent is a type - I reject that. Intended parents are not a type. They are human beings who all of their lives have desired to be parents, be they gay or straight, be they a same-sex female couple who have the right to that lifelong relationship with their children and those children with both of their parents, or be they a same-sex male couple, a single woman or a single man. I had a quick look on the Tusla website for fostering. I note that it invites single people to come forward for fostering purposes - for the care by the State of children who are at their most vulnerable. Tusla wants to recruit single men to become foster parents. You do not have to be a parent already. Why should a single man not become a parent via surrogacy? We are not looking back to a philosophical position that also denied divorce, that still categorises a couple in a second marriage as adulterers, that denies contraception, that denies gay couples, and that condemns lifestyles. We are moving to making a decision on our society that is inclusive, that reflects the needs of parents and families, and that ensures that anyone involved in this process is going to be safeguarded and cared for. We are doing so in excellently thought-through legislation.