Anti-abortion activists urging a rejection of the amendment should reflect on the consequences if they succeed, writes Cardinal Desmond Connell
Next Wednesday, I will be voting Yes in favour of the proposal to amend the Constitution. My approach to this amendment is shaped by a number of moral convictions.
I am of the view that the life of every human being is of worth and that the dignity of each person must be respected. I believe this worth and dignity is something each one enjoys by virtue of his or her existence and is not conditional on his or her status.
Every person - irrespective of gender, race, age or abilities - has a fundamental dignity and an entitlement to have his or her basic rights recognized and vindicated. This dignity is not something acquired at birth; it comes into being from the very first moment of his or her existence.
Consequently, I judge as wrong the deliberate and intentional destruction of an innocent human life - born or unborn. My moral convictions in this matter are reinforced by my belief that every person is created in the image and likeness of God. I hold these convictions, however, in common with many who do not share my religious beliefs.
I am further convinced that the dignity and worth of each person must be upheld as far as is possible by the State and its laws. It is not a private matter that can be left to personal choice. In this regard, I believe it is appropriate that the most basic right of each person - the right to life - should be protected by our Constitution. Not to include the unborn within the scope of this protection would, in my view, be a case of unjust discrimination against a particularly vulnerable category of persons.
For this reason, I have consistently advocated that the Irish people should be offered the possibility of amending the Constitution in such a manner as to strengthen the protection afforded to the life of the unborn - a protection which I believe was seriously weakened by the legal interpretation advanced by the majority of the Supreme Court in the X case.
I am satisfied, on the basis of the ethical, medical and legal advice available to me, that the amendment would offer significantly improved protection for the unborn while not compromising the life of women.
Article 40.3.3. would continue to acknowledge the right to life of the unborn in general but the unborn in the womb would, by virtue of the proposed Article 40.3.4. and the scheduled legislation, enjoy additional protection which would not be subject to the terms of the X case.
The new measures would serve to prohibit the intentional destruction of unborn life implanted in the womb.
Existing medical practice, which in accordance with the best ethical traditions insists that a pregnant woman should be offered all necessary treatment to safeguard her life, would be protected even where it might be foreseen that a consequence of treatment would be the loss of the life of the unborn.
Such interventions would not be characterised as the intentional destruction of the unborn. Moreover, it is made clear that abortion is not the appropriate medical treatment when a pregnant woman is suicidal.
The proposed approach would, in my view, establish the balance between the equal right to life of the unborn and the mother in a manner preferable to the test laid down in the X case (which allowed for the intentional destruction of the unborn in certain cases), and would do so in a way that does not countenance the creation of a right to abortion.
Moreover, it would seem to correspond more closely with the practice of medical professionals, for whom the interests of the unborn and the mother are not seen as conflicting and who make every effort to safeguard the lives of mother and child.
In protecting existing medical practice, the amendment would be safeguarding what has served Irish women very well and made Ireland one of the safest places in the world for women giving birth. I believe we should acknowledge the commendable efforts of Irish doctors and nurses to maintain practices that are both profoundly ethical and in the best medical interests of their patients.
The position of the proposal with respect to suicide is, in my judgment, wholly justified by the medical evidence presented to the Oireachtas Committee and more recently by eminent psychiatrists. Women who are suicidal as a consequence of pregnancy or the circumstances in which they have become pregnant must be offered every medical and psychological support during their pregnancy and afterwards. I do not believe, however, that it is either morally appropriate or medically necessary to seek to resolve their tragic situation by taking the life of their unborn child.
It is especially important in the very difficult situation of pregnancy after rape or incest that we do not overlook the interests of the unborn. While it is morally imperative that women in such situations are met with all possible understanding and compassion, the law could not make exceptions for such cases without undermining the fundamental principle that all human life is to be equally valued. Moreover, international experience points to the fact that where such exceptions are created abortion invariably becomes widely available.
It saddens me that some people who share my concern for the value of unborn life and my abhorrence of abortion are urging a rejection of this proposal on the basis of their opinion that it does not provide adequate protection for the unborn. They point out, correctly, that the definition of the crime of abortion applies to the intentional destruction of unborn human life after implantation.
I do not, however, accept their contention that such a definition leaves the unborn without protection prior to implantation. It seems to me, after consideration of legal advice, that the right to life of all the unborn is still guaranteed by Article 40.3.3. and the guarantee is not limited to the particular additional protection offered to the unborn in the womb by this amendment. Support for it is not inconsistent with a belief that unborn life should be valued from the moment of conception.
I would invite all those who would describe themselves as pro-life and who are considering voting No to reflect carefully on the consequences of a rejection of the Government's proposal.
Are they really content to leave the judgment in the X case in place as the authoritative statement of the rights of the unborn? Would a rejection of the present proposal not serve only to strengthen the case of those who argue that the X case should be supported by enabling legislation?
I believe this referendum offers the Irish people a chance to make a positive statement in favour of the rights of the unborn. Such a statement in our Constitution would provide the framework for a legal regime that would support and uphold ethically sound medical practice.
Moreover, it would be a statement of fundamental value that might serve to encourage all of us to engage fully and positively with the further challenge of supporting women who find themselves pregnant in difficult circumstances and who may feel they have no option but to travel abroad for abortions.
I agree wholeheartedly with the All-Party Oireachtas Committee that as a society we must elaborate a strategy that would "offer women in crisis pregnancy real and positive alternatives to abortion and bring healing and comfort to those who have had abortions".
Cardinal Desmond Connell is Roman Catholic Primate of Ireland and Archbishop of Dublin