Last night, the University Philosophical Society (the Phil) invited students to partake in the ongoing conversation currently surrounding abortion in Ireland by hosting a highly anticipated debate on the subject. The motion stood as “This House Supports Unrestricted Access to Abortion”.
First-year Jewish and Islamic civilisations and Russian student, Izzy Sweeney, opened the case for the proposition by outlining the ways in which we, as a society, tend to distrust women and the consequential discrimination they face. She underlined the fact that abortion is a difficult choice and that each individual woman is best placed to make this decision for herself. She urged those on the opposing side to question why they would not trust women to make this decision.
Ciara O’Rourke, a fourth-year philosophy student, opened her argument for the opposition by attempting to clear up some myths about those she termed “pro-life”. She said the idea that they are merely well-intentioned but ideologically driven, rather than driven by real experiences, is not true, saying that everyone knows or have been close to someone who has had an unplanned or difficult pregnancy or was born as a result of one. However, she then went on to reference a 2005 Guttmacher institute study, which stated that the top reasons given by those who have had abortions are more about the burden a child would bring once it was born, or how difficult it can be to have children in certain situations, rather than a desire not to be pregnant anymore. O”Rourke then outlined the main reason for her pro-life views to be very simple: she considers all humans to be equal, stating that “living, growing organisms with human parents are human, too.” She then moved on to discuss the second part of her argument, in which she noted that in order to achieve a truly equal society, she believes women should not be made to choose between a career and a child. Although a laudable sentiment, this argument failed to address those people who would not want a child even if a fully equal society could be achieved. O’Rourke also argued that abortions discriminate against those who have not developed fully enough yet or are conscious enough yet, stating that moral progress is about recognising the humanity of those left outside the circle of empathy.
Anna Cosgrave, abortion rights activist and the founder of the Repeal Project, began her speech by saying it was good to be back in the chamber where she had first learned to debate. She argued that in a utopia where pleasure and pregnancy weren’t so closely linked or contraception worked every single time, abortion wouldn’t be necessary. She emphasised that abortion is an absolute reality: 12 Irish women travel abroad every day to seek a termination. She believes the “pro-life” argument is more of a “pro-birth” one. Cosgrave dismissed the idea that unrestricted access to abortion would massively increase the abortion rate, stating that a similar number of women seek terminations in Nordic countries where it is widely available. She asked why we don’t trust women to make a decision about termination but expect them to have a child. Cosgrave then asked the audience to look around the room and consider whether they would trust the women there to have this choice. She finished her speech by saying: “It is okay that you don’t agree with me but do not limit my choice to make a decision that is in the best interests of my healthcare and my life.”
Senior freshman law and political science student Hugh Fitzgibbon began his speech with the caveat that he is pro-choice and an activist. He agreed with Sweeney’s argument that society places a judgment on women. However, he argued that completely unrestricted access is more of a grey area, for him and many others. He purported that abortions should not be allowed in the third trimester unless medically advised. Fitzgibbon acknowledged that the vast majority of terminations do take place early in the pregnancy. He argued that the rights of the unborn changes throughout the pregnancy, and should grow and expand as the pregnancy advances. Fitzgibbon then stressed the importance of looking beyond Trinity’s liberal echo chamber as the majority of people in the country are concerned about what would replace the eighth amendment if it was repealed and to dismiss these concerns would probably result in a failed referendum if it was held tomorrow. Fitzgibbon’s speech was a nuanced one which recognised that this was not a debate between pro-life and pro-choice, but about whether restrictions are appropriate.
Ferdy Emmet, a senior freshman English and drama student, criticised the myths surrounding sex and the failure of schools to provide adequate education for their students. He accepted that there is no scientific consensus on when life begins. Emmet argued that unrestricted access to abortion should be the ultimate aim, as every individual case is different and not every person has the privilege of knowing that they would be supported through a pregnancy. He stressed that it is not up to us to say what is best for others.
Blánaid Ní Bhraonáin, junior sophister law student, described herself as a feminist. She raised her discomfort with the way that the foetus is defined, arguing that defining a human by what they can do is an inherently ableist view. Referencing the high rates of pregnancies in France and UK that end in abortion when the foetus has Down Syndrome, Ní Bhraonáin stated that this debate is excluding women with disabilities. She also raised the case of sex selective abortions in favour of males, saying that without this there would be 163 million more girls in the world. Ní Bhraonáin argued that the solution is to fix the stigma around pregnancy and children, and that an end to patriarchal values would bring about a utopian society.
Journalist and abortion rights activist Una Mullaly countered that it is dishonest to put forward a “faux feminist argument” that characterises the denial of bodily autonomy as somehow liberating. She underlined the constitutional right of bodily autonomy – the idea that the state may not do anything to harm the life and health of its citizens- which is violated by denying abortions. She drew attention to the use of the term “unrestricted” itself, describing it as a weighty term that insinuates that healthcare for women should be restricted by default and that women’s bodies need to be controlled and policed by a state or religion. The language around abortion, she argued, is a product of its restriction. Mullaly stressed that all other forms of medical care is unrestricted. We don’t hear about lung transplants on demand for chronic smokers or unrestricted knee surgeries, nor do we question viagra prescriptions or vasectomies. She asked why we show inherent mistrust in women’s ability to make decisions. For her, a lack of restrictions is a practicality of medical care, not a judgment call or moral quandary. She ended her speech with a powerful question: “Who are you to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body?”
Kate Kleinle, a second-year philosophy, politics, economics and sociology (PPES) student, closed the case for the opposition by distancing herself from religion and politics. She stated that it is the primary duty of the government to protect the lives and quality of life of their citizens. She emphasised that the foetus is a unique living human organism and says the fact that it cannot feel pain is not a reason to be pro-choice. She did acknowledge that this does mean abortion is less inhumane than it is often painted to be and that a lot of thought is put into the decision to have an abortion. Kleinle identifies as a feminist and again raised the issue of sex selective abortions and higher rates of abortion for disabled foetuses, going on to say that the idea that only neurotypical people deserve to be alive is the worst ableism she ever heard. She also dismissed the idea of not having an abortion herself if she was personally opposed but allowing others to make their own decisions, saying that asking her to allow abortion would be like asking her to allow people to engage in murder.
The motion was put to the floor and passed.
Correction: February 10th, 2017
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that O’Rourke said all those who are pro-life knows someone who had an unplanned or difficult pregnancy, or was born as a result of one. In fact, she stated that everyone knows someone who had an unplanned or difficult pregnancy, or was born as a result of one.
