We are not where we were in 1992. Nine long years have passed since the X case, four of which have been filled with the most extensive consultations probably ever held anywhere on the topic of abortion. And, miracle of miracles, it was not a cynical exercise in long-fingering. Instead, we have been presented with a thoughtful, tightly drafted piece of legislation which manages to guarantee the rights of mothers to all necessary medical treatment while protecting the rights of the unborn.
All we need now is a matching miracle - a calm, dignified, informed debate on the proposals. Sadly, some are already howling that this drags us back to the past. The real blast from the past was the motion carried at the Labour Party conference, an ill-thought out call for the woman's right to choose straight from the strident 60s. It was also completely incoherent, because it decried any attempt to hold a divisive referendum.
Did no one remember that in order to implement the so-called woman's right to choose, we would need a referendum? It may have been a revealing Freudian slip, showing a mindset which believes that a referendum to outlaw abortion is somehow divisive in a way in which implementing an abortion regime is not. The conference motion brings us nowhere, opens no new avenues of communication, offers no possibility of broad consensus, in contrast to the proposed amendment and legislation.
The debate has moved on from seeing this as a simple matter of choice for a woman as an individual, to a sensitive discussion on the impact on and responsibilities of all of society. Sadly, the proposers did not seem to notice that.
Anyone saying that the Government's proposal is a replay of 1992 either did not understand what was on offer in 1992, or has not read the new legislation. In 1992, we were asked to sign a blank cheque, in which suicide would be removed as a grounds for abortion, but a right to abortion on the grounds of threat to a mother's life would be enshrined in the constitution.
In contrast, what is on offer today manages to make the distinction between abortion and necessary medical treatment in a way we were told could not be done. Well, it took a long time, but it has been done. We know what is on offer before we vote.
We are very dependent on those conducting interviews on the airwaves to ensure that this is a balanced and fair debate. For example, it is already being claimed that this proposed legislation and constitutional amendment threatens women's lives. Given that this is such an emotive and frightening claim, it would be great to hear those making it challenged to show how it can be substantiated.
The legislation for the first time gives legal underpinning to current medical practice, in which women are given all necessary medical treatment even when it may harm the child in the womb.
Whatever faint doubt that doctors may have had that they could find themselves in some legal grey area by acting in this way will be removed.
The only way in which it could possibly be construed that a woman would be in danger is if removing suicide as a grounds would threaten women's lives.
I take the threat of suicide very seriously, having once failed completely to see the warning signs in someone I loved very much, and suffering agonies of remorse for years after. So I do not think it is enough to say just that the occurrence of suicide in pregnant women is extremely rare, even though that is true.
Nor is it even enough to say, perfectly truthfully, that it is impossible to predict who will and will not commit suicide and therefore impossible to legislate. No, for me the crucial point is the very real risk of increasing the possibility of suicide or suicide attempts afterwards. I recognise the compassionate motivation of those who feel you cannot force a raped teenager to carry a child. But what if acceding to abortion actually made things worse?
A recent major study in Finland showed that the risk of suicide is seven times higher after an abortion than after a completed pregnancy.
It would be great to hear someone who objects to suicide being removed as a grounds for abortion being asked what makes them so sure that abortion is an appropriate treatment for suicidal tendencies? Or to explain how they are so sure that their kindly motivated action will not cause greater suffering?
For those who claim that the voices of women who have had abortions are not being heard in this debate, remember that there is more than one story to be told, post-abortion. While some feel relief, many many more feel lifelong grief.
Some of the most harrowing hours I have spent, acutely conscious of my inadequacy and lack of qualification, have been listening to women relive over and over their grief for their lost child. If we are serious about hearing women, we have to hear those voices too.
The Crisis Pregnancy Agency represents a chance to make a practical difference in people's lives, so that fewer and fewer will feel forced into a course of action which they may later greatly regret.
It is vitally important that the Crisis Pregnancy Agency be given full support, and that it is seen to represent a cross-section of Irish society.
I believe that its role should not be to re-invent the wheel, but to commission extensive research, not just on the causes of abortion but on what has worked elsewhere to reduce abortion rates. And please, no junkets to the Netherlands to see what they can teach us. On 1999 figures, they have similar rates of abortion to ourselves, despite the urban mythology which says they have cracked the question of abortion.
The sad fact is that no society has cracked the abortion question, no matter how liberal or otherwise the regime. It is true that women in Ireland will continue to travel for abortions. But this package represents an opportunity not only to sort out the legal morass but to reduce those numbers. Can we afford to let that opportunity slip?
bobrien@irish-times.ie