TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 6 °C Friday 24 May, 2013

Lawmakers urged to look to ‘middle ground’ on abortion issue

A retired judge pleaded with politicians to look at the more subtle side of society.

Pictured leaving Leinster House today Hon. Judge Catherine McGuinness
Pictured leaving Leinster House today Hon. Judge Catherine McGuinness
Image: Wanderley Massafelli/Photocall Ireland

RETIRED JUDGE CATHERINE McGuinness has asked legislators to look to the “middle ground” in Ireland when making decisions about proposed abortion law reform.

Speaking to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children today, the 78-year-old said she believes her own views reflect those held by many women and men across Ireland. She described it as “holding the middle ground”.

On the issue of abortion reform, she said lawmakers should not look to the people who make robot calls or write letters to their local TDs. But instead to the people “who are more subtle, the people who might think about what happens if it is their daughter”.

“Look to the middle people of Ireland who aren’t after you all the time,” she told the committee members, who have been asked by government to collect information which will be helpful in drafting legislation and regulation to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights’ recommendations following the ABC versus Ireland case.

During the same session in Leinster House today, Trinity College Dublin professor William Binchy argued that legislation for the Supreme Court’s decision on the X Case was not a requirement of those European Court recommendations. He said such a change in law would follow with a change in culture.

“What we need here is clarity in the law, rather than legislation,” he told the Seanad chamber. “Don’t change the law to bring in an abortion regime.”

Earlier, McGuinness said Ireland already has abortion, it just happens elsewhere, highlighting the notion that “we want an escape route from the absolute”.

She pleaded with the committee not to be too affected by the “almost bullying approach” of the two ‘extreme’ sides of the debate – either ‘the (as they describe themselves) pro-life side’ who want the law narrowed or the ultra-liberals who would like abortion on demand.

“Think about the middle ground, the majority of the constituents,” she added.

McGuinness said if lawmakers are worried about the “0pening the floodgates”, then they are afraid of Irish people, Irish society.

“We ought to have more trust in Irish people and Irish doctors,” she said. “To say that is to say everyone will be galloping to do something we don’t do already.”

Earlier today: Oireachtas told: ‘Ireland already allows abortion of unviable pregnancies’

As it happened: Legal experts address Oireachtas on proposed new abortion laws

Yesterday: 10 interesting moments from the Oireachtas hearings on abortion

Read next:

Comments (43 Comments)

  • Judge Catherine is a woman of sound mind and judgement. It took 20 years for Ireland to follow her recommendation following the Kilkenny Incest case to amend the constitution and recognise children’s Rights. I hope we don’t take 20 years to accept this recommendation for a ‘middle ground’. Sound, sensible and level headed advice by this amazing Women. I am also personally grateful for Catherine’s support in my area of research on protecting the unborn from drug & alcohol use in Pregnancy.

    Reply
    • Sound mind and judgement? She’s 78!!

      Reply
    • Slightly ageist don’t you think, Brian? So are we to assume that everyone that is 78 isn’t the full euro?

      *Face Palm*

      Reply
    • @Brian At what age do you think we should stop listening to people?

      Reply
    • She isn’t even entitled to a ten year driving licence. Who is she to give advice on baby killing?

      Reply
    • “Baby killing”?

      I see the sensible commentators are here on The Journal.

      Reply
    • Is that really the best argument you can muster? The pope’s 85. Is his opinion invalid too? Dumbass.

      Reply
    • @Brian “Baby killing”?. The mask slipped there. Might I suggest that you are more opposed to what she said and not how old she is? You didn’t answer my question as to what age we should stop listening to people. And what should we do with them?

      Reply
    • I work with the elderly – I should inform you of a few facts Brian.
      Dementia and Alzheimer’s aren’t as ageist as you. I’ve met people from age 47 up who have it and are badly affected, can’t remember who they are anymore.. On the flipside, I’ve met people in their 90s who are a damn sight sharper than you and many other commenters here – their bodies just gave up on them..

      To dismiss someone based upon something as stupid as age alone shows nothing more than *your* ignorance..

      Reply
    • Disgusting comment…ageism is alive and well (though I’m very aware of that and I’m not her age yet), this lady is extremely learned and I for one think she had a good point. Get back in your nappy!

      Reply
    • I hope this will be remembered the next time there’s a pro-life vigil. Some Irish Times’ photographers seem to believe that featuring elderly people in pictures is a negative. I personally hope I’ll still be attending protests when I’m old and grey. Can’t say I agreed with Catherine McGuinness though. There’s no middle ground on torture or child abuse, why should there be a middle ground on the direct targeting of innocent lives? Are we to tolerate a little bit of abortion? We already have a great record on maternal care and obstetricians have said they are not refusing treatment to pregnant women. We don’t need to follow in the footsteps of countries that end the lives of thousands of babies every year. We can do better for women than that?

      Reply
    • Eh Maria Conroy Byrne we are not discussing abortion on demand (what ever that is). We are discussing the result of William Binchy failed legislation that he and his cohorts insisted be added to the constitution. I’d suggest you talk to Michelle Harte who was based in Cork, Sadly she is dead due to the repressive laws in Ireland.

      Reply
    • Legislation that the Irish people voted for.

      Reply
    • Well actually Maria – no one under the age of 47/48 actually got a chance to vote on that..

      Read that again – no woman in her prime child bearing years today got to vote on that.

      There’s been 2 referendums in the past 20 years trying to negate the suicide clause from the X Case that failed, so really this would give more reason to think that today – people are a little more understanding of the myriad reasons for abortion and realise that not all of them are the worst thing.

      Perhaps we should get another vote on the 8th amendment? I mean, we got 1 per decade to try get rid of the suicide clause, lets have one to try get rid of the 8th amendment, it’s only been 30 years..

      Reply
  • Catherine McGuinness was an excellent speaker today. Clear, concise, factual and unemotional.

    Professor William Binchy not so much.

    Reply
  • @ Brian Horgan
    Both you comments on here leave me wondering who put the anger in you?
    Your rush to judgement on age and baby killing are truly the views of someone who feels angry with life. I dearly hope you make it to 85 and understand what it is to be respected for what you have achieved in life . Ps don’t shoot the messenger :)

    Reply
  • The same William Binchy who advocated against Divorce & Contraception?

    Of course he’ll be impartial….

    Reply
    • Yes why is William Binchy there…shouldn’t be allowed, not impartial…though who is really if you peel back the layers!

      Reply
    • This is the same William Binchy who argued the toss against Mary Robinson on RTE when they were pushing the 8th Amendment. Mary Robinson predicted the ABC, X, Michelle Harte etc while William Binchy was adamant that the 8th Amendment was perfect..
      Some legal mind – he doesn’t consider wider possibilities beyond the ones that fit his assumptions..

      Reply
    • It’s not so much middle ground that is needed (although it is)… but recognition that there is no way to avoid the conflict inherent when two people require the use of one body, and both have an exactly equal right to life in law.

      Reply
    • Who is impartial? There are very few people who have no view on abortion, bur it only seems to be a problem if the person is pro-life.

      Reply
    • In one sense you do have a point Maria – everyone has some level of agenda.. The difference is – how much does their agenda drive them?
      Someone may look at it objectively, using reason and logic, another may be biased in their view.. But with Mr Binchy and Ms Casey there is a very definite agenda – one could view their involvement in the pro life campaign as quite instrumental.. So while at least the bias is out in the open, it is a very clear bias.

      Their penchant for trotting out fallacies and bad science is also quite telling..

      Reply
  • The Journal is doing an excellent job of reporting on this debate including an excellent explanatory guide before the Committee hearings started and a superb point by point almost real time account of the points made by the experts. Informative, timely and objective reporting sets a good context for comments and posts.

    I admit that I am pro-choice but why are are so many of the pro life posters so strident, abrasive, accusatory, provocative and even in some cases personally abusive? Is there something in the absolutism of the pro-life position which attracts those who have a very extremist and harsh mien?

    Most of the pro-life posters don’t makes any attempt to persuade, reason, explain, concede, engage or interact. They declaim, describe a foetus as a “baby”, “child”, “person” without using even the oxymoronic “unborn”.

    I won’t personalise this by naming the more abusive posters but at least I can now say that through the comments I have personally witnessed the highly vituperative and condemnatory tone of the pro-life posters. I think that the dialogue and debate would be improved if lines of reasoning, evidence and explanation were provided. I know that many of the pro-life lobby are sincere, well motivated, have some arguments to present but they appear determined to present themselves and their arguments as unsympathetically as possible.

    I realise that these comments will be equally unpalatable to both sides of the debate but I am genuinely trying to understand what is behind the declamatory tone of many, not all, but many on the pro-life side.

    Some wonderful contributions today and yesterday from the experts.

    I don’t understand why the religious input tomorrow is required for a pre legislative consultation process. As a former Roman Catholic, I know the position of the Roman Catholic Church and I fully understand the nature and consequences of the harm it did in promoting the Eight Amendment. I don’t think that religion should influence civil legislation. The Roman Catholic Church has plenty of platforms and over 80 per cent of the TDs are or we’re Roman Catholics. Do the RC TDs not already know the position of the RC Church?

    Reply
    • Agreed on all counts Peter!
      RE the abuse etc., all I’ll say there is “empty vessel”.
      RE the religious contributions, agreed. There isn’t anything that any of the groups can say that’ll shock me personally, and I’d hazard a guess that it will be the same lingo trotted out as it is over and over again, without substance and wishy washy.
      One can hope I guess. Set your standards for low, that way if anything at all comes out of tomorrow your standards will be exceeded!

      Reply
    • @ James, certainly, the only surprise I would have is if the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference presented tomorrow as moderate, deferential, constructive and non dogmatic. We will see. The rumour mill is that the representatives are receiving intensive communications training and that may moderate their presentation.

      I fear that there may be excessive deference, even some ingratiating questions and a leaning over backwards to placate the representatives. We will see.

      What ai would like to see is empathy for pregnant women, respect for pregnant women, an acceptance of the worth of women and an unequivocal that the life and health of women takes precedence over the foetus and that a woman should never be deprived of optimum medical treatment on account of the foetus.

      I would cheer if the Bishops Conference declared that legislation and its form and content are the exclusive domain of the Dail and that it is not for the Roman Catholic Church to insist that it’s dogman musy be reflected in law .

      I think that I am looking at the Carlsberg Committee!

      Reply
    • @ James, certainly, the only surprise I would have is if the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference presented tomorrow as moderate, deferential, constructive and non dogmatic. We will see. The rumour mill is that the representatives are receiving intensive communications training and that may moderate their presentation.

      I fear that there may be excessive deference, even some ingratiating questions and a leaning over backwards to placate the representatives. We will see.

      What I would like to see is empathy for pregnant women, respect for pregnant women, an acceptance of the worth of women and an unequivocal that the life and health of women takes precedence over the foetus and that a woman should never be deprived of optimum medical treatment on account of the foetus.

      I would cheer if the Bishops Conference declared that legislation and its form and content are the exclusive domain of the Dail and that it is not for the Roman Catholic Church to insist that it’s dogman musy be reflected in law .

      I think that I am looking at the Carlsberg Committee!

      Reply
    • sakipol 09/01/13 #

      @Peter Richardson – there are abusive comments coming from both sides, and I have the impression that the majority of abusive comments are coming from the pro-choice rather than the pro-life camp. Certainly there are a lot of people who don’t seem to be able to engage in a rational debate on both sides.

      The debate would be enriched by a sense of tolerance for other people’s views and engagement with the issues, rather than the automatic derision which seems to proceed from certain quarters.

      Reply
    • @ sakipol, we will have to agree to disagree.

      I went back over some of the comments and, although I see some pro-choice comments jump to the bait of provocation, I have looked at three posters who are pro-life who have made highly inflammatory comments and even had some of their comments deleted. I won’t mention names, that is too accusatory, but the severity and extremity of the posters is surprising, especially when they purport to speak from a Christian religious perspective.

      It seems that there is too great a gulf to be bridged and it seems that no compromise or negotiated middle solution will be achieved.

      Reply
    • You should look at twitter.It’s the opposite there. I find it can be very abusive here which is why I don’t post as much as I used to. Particular derision is reserved for anyone who mentions that that subscribe to a religion.

      Reply
  • There is middle ground…and I’m on it Vincent! Wouldn’t hang my hat with either side because its most certainly not a black and white issue!

    Reply
  • Two people, one body. That’s what complicates everything.

    Reply
  • There is no middle ground on Abortion. People see it as a life or death. It’s the ultimate black or white issue. That’s why it’s so emotive.

    Reply
    • I think she sees the middle ground as abortion in cases of foetal abnormalities and possibly suicide & rapes cases but doesn’t agree with what you’d call ‘abortion-on-demand’ (that was my own impression from today, could be wrong obviously).

      I guess that’s the problem with this though. You’ll think she’s advocating baby killing by saying that and I’ll think she’s still stripping away a woman’s choice and not trusting the individual’s reason and judgement abilities.

      That said we are the both sides of the coin she’s telling them to ignore, from what I can tell the middle ground in Ireland is where I think she’s advocating. If that’s the case than so be it.

      Reply
    • Vincent –
      Here’s the situation.
      Two people need to use the one body.
      Two sets of rights in law.
      There is not a middle ground, but a potential for conflict when life is endangered.
      This needs legislation to set out how both sets of rights are to be vindicated.

      Reply
  • Not quite sure what she means.

    Reply
  • MVM 09/01/13 #

    Ah yes why didn we think of that..

    Reply
  • Ter 09/01/13 #

    There’s no ground for murder protect life always.

    Reply
    • Er, that’s what they are trying to do..
      They aren’t trying to legislate for open access to abortion, they are legislating for when the woman’s life is in danger.

      In case you hadn’t noticed, if the woman’s life is in danger as a result of the pregnancy then denying her an abortion may result not only in the life of the foetus being lost – but the life of the woman who carries it.

      If you care about “protecting life” you should be supporting this legislation. If you don’t then you don’t truly care about protecting all life, just unborn life..

      Reply

Add New Comment