RITE AND REASON: The abortion amendment proposals currently before the people would establish an "unequal right to life", to the mother's disadvantage, says Archdeacon Gordon Linney
From the beginning of the anti-abortion campaign of 1983 the Church of Ireland has insisted that it is impossible to address the complex social, medical and moral issues involved by constitutional amendment. Indeed it was suggested that the proposed amendment would have the opposite effect to that intended.
That position was vindicated when the anti-abortion amendment led to a court judgment in 1992 (the X case) which provided for abortion in certain cases. Despite that cautioning experience, we will be at it again on March 6th.
The church's position on abortion is this: "In the strongest terms, Christians reject the practice of induced abortion . . . save at the dictate of strict and undeniable medical necessity." That was not always the case in Ireland but gradually there has been an acceptance by most people that the life of the mother had to be protected. A key element in the 1983 referendum was the equal right to life of the mother.
The proposals being put to the people now would establish the unequal right to life of the mother. They seek to reverse the decision in the X case judgment that interpreted the 1983 amendment to allow abortion where the life of the mother was at risk through suicide.
Who will ever forget the huge outpouring of public concern for that young girl and the terrible circumstances of her pregnancy? Most people believed the judges got it right, but where will that view be after March 6th?
The determination to reverse this position is disturbing, particularly when one is told that the Government documentation includes inaccurate information. The Irish division of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has issued a statement claiming that its position has been misquoted in the Government's Green Paper.
The college denies that its representatives ever said there was "no psychiatric justification for abortion" but that indications for the termination of pregnancy should be made on an individual patient's basis. That is exactly what happened in the X case and that is what the Government wants to prevent.
Prof Patricia Casey, consultant psychiatrist and supporter of the current proposals, writing in this newspaper recently, acknowledged that there might well be divided opinions within her profession. The problem is that we will only know after the event if the threat of suicide is real or not.
The critical moral question centres on the principle of establishing an unequal right to life of the mother which would mean that the next X case will be told to go away, whatever the consequences.
That is surely unacceptable, particularly where it affects minors and others not in control of their own lives? It is easy to be "moral" when others bear the burden and pay the price. When Ann Lovett died in childbirth at a grotto in Granard, the whole country was traumatised, but it was soon back to normal, burying our heads in the moral sands and proclaiming our holiness.
The Old Testament decrees that if a pregnant woman is hurt in a fight involving two men and loses her baby as a result, there is a financial penalty to be met, but if the woman dies as a result, then it is a case of life for life. It may be dated but it suggests there is a difference in value between a mother-to-be and a foetus, that when there is a clash of life interest between mother and unborn child, the life of the mother must take precedence.
Many devout Christians and others will go on to maintain that the protection of a woman's life is not just about preventing her death but will have regard to her mental and physical health - "life is more than existence". That dimension simply does not feature in the current proposals.
The concerns of the National Women's Council should be noted. That body has expressed serious reservations about the current proposals, its spokesperson describing them as "an attack on the lives, health and welfare of women". What is certainly true is that the deliberate exclusion of mental ill-health violates a fundamental Christian view of the person as a unity of body, mind and spirit.
Whatever the outcome on March 6th, it will not be the end of the matter. The real issue to be decided is when will we as a people have the maturity and the leadership to insist on a health programme for women and children, born and unborn, which is pro life in the true sense. Observing the political somersaults and manoeuvring of recent times does not give one much reason to hope.
Gordon Linney is Church of Ireland Archdeacon of Dublin