Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We will.I am only responding to what was said, and I intend to do so respectfully. I have exposed, first of all, that the Minister's words are not borne out by reality. He has not shown respect for alternative views. He then went on to say that the position underlying the amendments here suggests that although I believe a woman on her own can raise a child, I do not believe a man on his own can do so. Of course, that is not what I believe and it is certainly not what Senator Keogan believes. It is not what the people who oppose surrogacy believe either. It is not what many people who have concerns about some of these legislative initiatives believe. In fact, if the Minister were listening to me, I talked about how heroic single parents can be and how they often deserve a much greater level of support than those in other situations and a much greater level of support than they get. However, it is neither today nor yesterday that Governments here decided that there is going to be no hierarchy in terms of the social vision of families. Those were words used by a former Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, during a debate on the children and family relationships legislation. If we say there is no hierarchy then we are saying that we may never express a social preference for an idea that most people would consider core and reasonable, namely, that as far as possible, a child should be brought into the world and raised by a father and mother, and as far as possible, by their own father and mother. The Minister disagrees with that proposition, but most people disagree with him about that. It is common sense, which, as many people have said, is not that common anymore. To say that it is more desirable that a child would be brought into the world by a father and mother and by their own father and mother is to do no more than to observe what is natural in our human condition.

Of course, there are situations where life circumstances make that impossible. We do not shun or stigmatise people in that situation; we rally round and we give them even more support but we do not abandon our social vision. If asked what they want for their child, would most parents like their child to bring another child into the world on their own or would they like them to be in a stable, long-term, loving relationship where children are valued? Anybody with a titter of wit would say that the latter situation is the one to aspire to and hope for. The reason that makes sense is because in this legislation we are not talking about what unavoidably happens. What unavoidably happens, tragically, for some, is infertility. That I get. What is unavoidable for single people is that they cannot bring children into the world on their own. That I get. What is unavoidable for a same-sex couple is that they cannot bring a child into the world on their own. That I get. What is inevitable is that this will be a cause of sorrow and sadness for them. That I get, and I sympathise. However, my position is that if we take children's rights and welfare seriously, we do not put the aspiration of adults in as the priority but, rather, we operate for what is in the best interests of children. We should not intend and foresee the children being deprived of things that are considered fundamental, normal and good, like the society of a mother in their lives. That is basic. The society of their birth mother who brings them into the world is basic. The society and responsibility of both of their genetic parents is basic. It may not seem basic because we have travelled a road where, through many years and many different pieces of legislation, we have been giving adults what they want. We give adults what they want partly because politicians are weak and unprincipled and susceptible to NGOs and lobby groups that can talk about their own pain. Their own pain deserves sympathy and a response. We have a compliant media that refuses to ask the hard questions of all sides and which refuses to say who will be the unwilling victims of these arrangements, if we make them. An example would be the surrogate mother who is exploited internationally in her poverty to advantage people who have resources. That is the unprincipled political outcome. It is the perfect storm of unprincipled politicians, a compliant media and highly vocal advocacy groups. The reality of their pain and suffering should never be dismissed; it should be acknowledged and sympathised with. However, there is also the issue of the invisibility of those who lose out as a result of the arrangements that are proposed. The woman in Ukraine is invisible. That is why we are not saying, contrary to what the Minister said, that a man on his own cannot raise a child. Many men do, and heroically so. The issue is, should we set out to deprive a child of ever having a mother in his or her life? That is profoundly wrong and unjust. It proceeds from a stunted, perverted vision of human rights that ignores the rights of children.