Who Fears to Speak

Gene Kerrigan was in Dublin South for a Fianna Fail contribution to The Great Debate.

Ogra Fianna Fail is that party's youth section. It isn't an independent body like Young Fine Gael; it is kept much closer to the structure of the party itself. In the words of one senior Fianna Fail deputy, "What's the point of having a youth organisation if it just embarrasses you?"  Ogra Fianna Fail, Dublin South Central, held its first public debate last month in Churchtown. They chose Garret FitzGerald's Amendment as their subject. The hall was almost full. There were three speakers for the Amendment and three against, all imported from outside. At least, that's the way it started out.  The arguments for the Amendment were put by Professor John Bonnar; Patsy Buckley of SPUC; and Brendan Shorthall, PRO for the campaign. The arguments against were put by a woman from the Rape Crisis Centre; Adrian Hardiman, a lawyer; and Dr Maura Woods.  The arguments are mostly familiar by now, Professor Bonnar claiming that any medical necessity for abortion has ceased to exist, that "if Ireland doesn't take a stand the pro-abortion tide' will sweep Ireland very quickly." Oddly enough, he used an argument that is usually put by the opposition — that Ireland already has abortion, via Britain. One in every 22 Irish pregnancies is aborted, he said. He didn't say what should be done about this or what relevance the Amendment would have to these figures. Patsy Buckley said that the Amendment would "extend backwards by nine months the right to life that you and I enjoy", that life starts at conception and that "we are 9 months old when born". The Amendment would "restrain the doctors who if given a quarter of a chance would carry out abortions in Ireland." Brendan Shorthall wanted to build "into the system a brake of some kind" so that "abortion is not thrust upon us".  At this point Fianna Fail politician Seamus Brennan entered the hall, looked around, walked up the aisle, took a seat from the front row and sat up on the stage.  The arguments against the Amendment are also familiar by now. That the Amendment would affect the availability of certain widely used forms of contraception particularly suited to older women, women who had already had large families and women with heart disease. It would also affect the treatment of rape victims. And what, it was asked, were the Amendment people really up to? Why were they opposed to an Amendment which simply prohibits abortion; why insist on a "pro-life" Amendment? It was suggested that they had chosen the "one issue bound to blind reasonable debate" and were set on using it to "stamp their morality on the Constitution". Maura Woods questioned the reality of the claim that "life begins at fertilisation", pointing out that a large percentage of fertilised eggs pass out with the next menstrual flow. She said that the logic of the pro-Amendment case was that every menstrual flow should be baptised.  Kathy, the woman from the Rape Crisis Centre, said the Amendment aimed at "holding ourselves up as the moral superiors of Europe while we ship our abortions abroad".  Another politician, Tom Kitt, got up and sat on the platform.  There was about an hour of question and answer, during which the various points were developed. Most of the questions were from pro-Amendment people, the anti-Amendment people keeping quiet. The applause for speakers and for points made was about 50-50.  The Ogra people were pleased at the success of their meeting, having been anxious that it not be heated or drowned in agro. In the event, it was a tame affair compared with some of the meetings which the pro-Amendment people have attempted to break up. The points were fairly put, fairly heard. A normal, balanced debate.  Then it was eleven o'clock and some people were putting on their coats - and the politicians, unbilled, unscheduled, decided to put in their tuppence worth.  Tom Kitt didn't say much basically, he thinks it's a complicated issue. Seamus Brennan, however, became a fourth pro-Amendment speaker, making an extraordinary speech. He said it was difficult to come to grips with the legal and medical technicalities but "we can express what we want". What he wanted was some "phrase, series of words, a paragraph, whatever ... " to reinforce the law. No doubt "the technicalities will be fought for many years by the lawyers and medical people, but we shouldn't get bogged down in them". He said, "we may be deciding if a future generation of Irish people will actually be born or not".  Change the Constitution, argue about it afterwards. The people left the hall having heard two sides put their arguments. And having heard a politician speak.