The human foetus is a living being and I regard that life, however frail and dependent it may be, as precious. It is the duty of society not only to validate the value and worth of that life but also to nurture, sustain and protect the development of that life. I also believe that the living foetus is a potential person whose potential for maturing to person-hood should be jealously guarded and defended.
The human mother is also a living being and I regard that life as precious and of ultimate value. It is the duty of society to validate the value and worth of that life and to protect the development of that life. The mother, however, is not a potential person Eshe is a developed person Eand that is of crucial importance. She has developed and matured physically, mentally, emotionally, socially and culturally.
Her developed life brings with it certain responsibilities. She has responsibilities to herself and to her family, particularly to her living children if she has any. She has also a responsibility to the life growing within her. Any one area of the mothers developed life alone, or any combination of factors within these areas, together with a wide range of other physical, psychological and societal pressures, may cause tensions and pressures that lead to a conflict of interest, to a clash of values, and to a prioritising of responsibilities.
In such circumstances a woman may come to the point where a termination of her pregnancy seems to be the only solution for her. A woman in such a position deserves our support and our generosity not our prejudice, our censure or our vilification. It is not our place to play God and to sit in judgement on women and families who believe that they have made the right choice for them.
In a democracy politicians have a duty to ensure that there is legislation in place to facilitate the exercising of choices and the accessing of options. Society has a duty to ensure that when women (and men) have to face the agonising choice of whether to continue with a pregnancy or to opt for a termination, there are spiritual and societal support systems in place to offer guidance within an atmosphere of love, compassion and mercy.
When conflicts of interest arise and where one set of responsibilities must be subordinated to another set of responsibilities, one party will suffer. This is part of the cut and thrust of human life. It is not our place to make moral judgements on the outcome of agonising personal decisions taken by mothers caught on the horns of a dilemma. It is our task to help lessen the pain and mollify the hurt that might be felt by them. We have a duty to help to regulate and limit the extent of their suffering and to respond with love, compassion, understanding and controlled emotion.
Forcing 2,000 women a year to travel to England for a termination does not lessen the hurt or regulate the suffering. On the contrary it only exacerbates the hurt, prolongs the suffering and deepens the trauma. Branding such women as baby killers only adds further to their hurt and suffering.
I believe in legislative equality and the freedom to choose, even when persons preferred choice may be diametrically opposed to my own choice. If we genuinely believe in a democratic and pluralist society we must support the right of individuals to make free and independent personal choices within the law.
The right to choose is not just about the choice to opt for a termination. It is also about the right to continue with a pregnancy. We must support the right of a mother to give birth to a baby knowing that by so doing she may endanger her own personal health. We must support the right of a mother to give birth to a baby knowing that it may be born with severe physical or mental disability. This same right to choose must also apply to the doctor, the nurse or the midwife who refuses on principle to assist in performing an abortion.
No mother or member of the medical profession should be penalised for refusing to opt for, or to participate in, the termination of a pregnancy. No one in a democracy should be penalised for exercising his or her lawful right to choose.
The principle of dialogue has been at the heart of the peace process and I believe that it is time that pro-life and pro-choice advocates came together in constructive dialogue to help prevent a bitter debate on the issue. Dialogue is different from debate. Debate is about persuading others that your views are "right" and that the views of others are "wrong." Debate tends to create winners and losers and often leads to pain and divisiveness when the subject is sensitive and people's views are as heart-felt as they tend to be on the issue of abortion.
Dialogue is a gentler, more respectful process than debate. The spirit of dialogue is to acknowledge and honour the humanity of all persons present regardless of their points of view. The goals of dialogue centre on increasing understanding and being understood rather than persuading others and being "right."
