When abortion and euthanasia are first introduced in a given country, we are usually told that the grounds on which they can take place are very limited. But over time those grounds become ever more elastic.  

For example, earlier this year the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute doctors who performed sex selective abortions.

It was widely believed that abortions on the grounds of the sex of the baby was illegal. However, the DPP, Keir Starmer, decided that it was “not in the public interest” to prosecute.

As it stands, the law in Britain permits abortion when two doctors decide the health (physical or psychological) risks of continuing with a pregnancy outweigh those of termination.

It is extremely hard to see how this law can possibly justify sex selective abortions, but Mr Starmer has managed it.

He said: “The pregnant woman’s views about the effect of the sex of the foetus on her situation and on her existing children should nevertheless be carefully considered. In some circumstances doctors may come to the conclusion that the effects are so severe as to provide legal and ethical justification for a termination”.

So there it is.  What we’re seeing here is how elastic the grounds for abortion can be. When abortion is introduced we’re normally told that the grounds are very strict, but over time the grounds are interpreted in ever more inventive ways. This happens time and again.

The exact same process is at work in respect of euthanasia in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands. Euthanasia was initially introduced to deal with “unbearable suffering”. It was said this would only cover people in terrible pain and who were dying.

But as recent cases in both countries have shown, “unbearable suffering” now includes going blind or having a failed “sex change” operation.

It remains to be seen how elastic the current grounds for abortion in Ireland will become over time. To put it mildly, the international experience does not augur well.