Do we need an abortion debate at all?

THE forthcoming debate on abortion, in the context of the referendum on whether or not to retain the Eighth Amendment, promises to be just as fractious and divisive as the original back in 1983.

That is why we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question about how we proceed: do we actually need a debate at all?

‘Debate’ implies that people of both sides will simultaneously discuss the issue and, as we know in Ireland, emotion and volume have a long history of eclipsing the issue at hand. How many times have we listened to radio and TV debates to end up frustrated by those with opposite viewpoints talking over each other, to the point where nothing is heard or digested at all?

Paving the way for the referendum, the amendment was considered by the Citizens’ Assembly and all-party Oireachtas committee. The format for both forums was similar to that of a courtroom. Witnesses and experts gave uninterrupted testimony, allowing listeners to form their own view. Crucially, they were able to arrive at a conclusion because they heard what was being said and didn’t have to sift through a brawl.

If that worked for the assembly and the Oireachtas, why not for the electorate? It would be better if those on all sides of the debate were allowed to set out their respective stalls without interruption (and, yes, unchallenged, even if what they say subsequently proves erroneous).

We could hear from women who had abortions and regretted them; women who still believe their abortion was the best option at the time, and couples who faced the heartbreak of fatal foetal abnormality, as well as from medical experts, Churches, politicians and from men who have every right to be heard in the debate, too.

Whatever the result of the referendum, it will park the issue of abortion for at least another generation. This is too serious to be set up as good radio and television – it cannot simply be treated as some sort of reality show, chasing ratings.

No matter which side prevails, wouldn’t it be better that it did so on the back of proper testimony, uncontaminated by the name-calling, rancour and bitterness that marked previous ‘debates’ on the most important social issue of our time?