The seismic change in political attitudes to abortion signalled in the fifth progress report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee is in danger of being submerged by cynical commentary. The major political parties in Ireland are now signed up to the idea that abortion is an Irish reality, although it may take place on British soil, and that measures can and must be taken to reduce the numbers of women who feel that abortion is their only option.
Most commentators and broadcasting interviewers have given that new consensus a cursory nod, and then gone on to whinge that there is nothing new in this 700-page document, that there still is not consensus on the legal aspects, and to shudder at the prospect of another divisive debate.
At first, when I heard abortion was being kicked to touch to an all-party committee, I was probably as cynical as the rest. But watching the committee in action and having the privilege of appearing before it was a revelation.
Debate on abortion in the past took place mostly in the heat of referendum campaigns in TV and radio studios. None of this contributed to thoughtfulness or insight as people were forced into soundbite responses to profound human problems.
The All-Party Committee demonstrated that it is possible to speak in a civilised fashion of these issues. None of the members left their convictions outside the door, but the atmosphere was one of genuine respect for difference and a desire really to tease out the complexities of this question.
It is sad that there was not sufficient interest among broadcasters to overcome the difficulties there might have been in televising the proceedings. The televised hearings of the Dail Committee of Public Accounts allowed us to see people being questioned who never normally face public scrutiny. The committee was in search of wrongdoing and so, obviously, the dynamic of the hearings on abortion was therefore entirely different. But it was equally fascinating to hear senior doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists and activists of all hues being carefully questioned, at a depth which is completely impossible in a heated political radio or TV debate.
So far from there being nothing new in this 700-page document, the process which brought it about was innovative and wise. Sadly, because the results of that process are contained in a telephone book-sized tome, few will take the trouble to plough through them. That is why broadcasting of the proceedings would have been such an act of public service.
Is there any hope that the atmosphere of the hearings can be carried over into public debate? Very little if, on the one hand, commentators bemoan the divisive nature of abortion and, on the other, seem hell-bent on emphasising conflict and polarisation.
Of course abortion is divisive. It is a good thing that people care passionately about abortion and its consequences for women, their partners and families. It shows that in spite of 6,000 women travelling to Britain, we have not become jaded and cynical, that from all sides there is a consensus that other choices, real choices, must be made available.
We also need to face up to the fact that there are no easy solutions.
For years it has been thrown at antiabortion campaigners that a referendum on its own does nothing to change the reality of abortion for women. It is about time that we admitted that legislation on its own does nothing either to change the difficult circumstances which often make women feel that they have no option other than abortion.
Legislating on the grounds given in the X case would allow for abortion only where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, including suicide. It emerges very clearly from the abortion hearings that few, if any , women travel on these grounds.
More importantly, our maternal mortality record and the testimony of top obstetricians show that current medical practice already protects women very well.
Women travel from all around Europe to Britain to evade more restrictive laws in their own jurisdictions. The only way that women would stop travelling from Ireland is if we had an abortion regime here comparable with Britain's which is, basically, that if you want an abortion you will get one up to and, in specific circumstances, even beyond 24 weeks.
Even if such a comparable regime prevailed here, many women would still choose to travel. Having an abortion in Ireland where the nurse may be your next-door neighbour would be a source of horror for many Irish women.
Another key finding of the hearings was that the risk of suicide in pregnant women is very low, and that no psychiatrist can accurately predict the risk. Dr Anthony Clare quoted the late Dr Michael Kelleher's research, which showed that medical predictions were wrong 97 times out of 100. Scarcely reliable indicators for a legal judgment.
The abortion hearings show that the X case was fatally flawed as a judgment because no medical evidence was called, and medical indicators would not point to abortion as a treatment for suicidal tendencies anyway. We cannot allow the X judgment to remain as it is, with the nightmare possibility of case after case continuing to flow from it.
Simply legislating for the X judgment does not solve anything. It is fraught with even more contradictions and difficulties than other options.
The commitment of the three major political parties to spending £50 million reducing the incidence of crisis pregnancy clears the field for real debate.
There is a tiny and unrepresentative minority in this country who are ideologically committed to a position where a woman's right to choose trumps all other moral considerations. How unrepresentative they are is demonstrated by the only major research conducted among Irish women who have had abortions, the Women and Crisis Pregnancy Study, which showed that the woman's right to choose ideology was irrelevant to the real-life experience of these women.
This unrepresentative minority sees itself being sidelined, not by extremists but by the emergence of a majority middle-ground consensus which has had very little space in this debate to date. Yet that compassionate middle ground has ultimately more to offer women, their partners and families.
An American writer, Frederica Mathewes Green, once wrote something which became a slogan of the pro-choice movement: A woman does not want an abortion as she wants an ice cream or a Porsche; she wants it as an animal in a trap wants to gnaw off its own limb to escape.
Legislating for abortion simply allows women to gnaw off their own limbs closer to home. The middle ground wants to spring the trap before such drastic action is necessary.
bobrien@irish-times.ie