After the amendment

It is interesting, if not ironic, to see two current parallel arguments in the media regarding the right to life.

On one hand there is a campaign to support a constitutional amendment banning abortion; on the other there is an open discussion about the morality of in-vitro fertilisation. We are witnessing a discussion on whether the ban on termination of pregnancies should be entrenched in the Constitution and simultaneously we are also discussing legalising certain fertility treatments, with the consequences of creating many unused fertilised human beings. In my view the two issues are linked intrinsically and a consistent and coherent moral approach in both is essential.

No man is an island. We all have an intrinsic value to ourselves and to everyone else. Our existence and interactions also create a mutual burden of care. Perhaps if we really valued life more than our desires to be parents, we would appreciate better the consequences of creating "unused" human beings.

The right to life does not stop at birth! The constitutional amendment banning abortion will truly be meaningless unless it is supported by a practical commitment and a priority by the state to support and sustain all human life.

Such a commitment would entail that not only would it be illegal to abort an unwanted child but that the child will receive all the support it needs as a right (not as an optional charity) guaranteed as a priority by the state. That is, from us the taxpayers.

This means that a single parent will receive enough support from the state to raise the child. This support is naturally not to be conditional on the ability or disability of the child but proportionate to the needs.

Such an affirmation of the rights of the child, and of the child carers, should make abortion less of an option, and more shown up to be a criminal act. A publicly sustained position in favour of the children should reduce the pressures that induce towards abortion.

How one finances and manages institutions to provide this care and support and how one balances out the support given to those who rear children within the nuclear family unit compared to those in the single parent situation is a delicate balancing act. But it must be addressed otherwise the entrenchment of the law against abortion will be a lip-service or, worse, an alienation and not a true affirmation of the right to life.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta once said: "All life belongs to God. Abortion destroys peace in the world. If you make a mistake, I ask you to not destroy the child. Help each other to love and welcome this unborn child. Don't kill him, because you cannot erase a mistake with a crime. If you do not want the children, give them to me".

If we truly want to entrench solidarity in our Constitution, and concretely in our practice, I think we can do no better than to make her words our own.