Author: lifenetwork

I write about the law on embryo freezing being discussed in Parliament, on social media and in every corner of the island at this time. Before now, I could not put words to paper as I feared being criticised for attempting to impose my opinion and interfere in other people’s lives. Such are the arguments that are currently being thrown at whoever takes such a stand.

But after some reflection, I realised I have no need to withhold my opinion for the following reasons. With the war raging in Syria, do we take a passive stance based on the argument that it is not my life, not my country so I will decide to look on passively and not interfere? We don’t.

Those who have a minimum level of civic duty will try to think of ways of how to help, how to take a stand to stop it. We do not stand back because it doesn’t concern us, rationalising our apathy with the mantra ‘it’s not my country and not my family’.

When that happens, we often judge such persons as apathetic and self-centered living in their cozy bubble, not giving a hoot about anything else except their own level of comfort. In my opinion, the same can be said in response to this argument being thrown at anti-embryo freezing lobbyists.

It is argued: if it is not affecting my embryos, or my life, why should I interfere? Well the answer is simple: if it attacks human life, whether it is eight cells, a foetus, a baby or an adult, with all due respect, then the issue stops being a private matter, it becomes public; it stops being a personal one but becomes a national one. 

Several deceptive tactics are being used to manipulate popular opinion. Firstly, it is ludicrous how the argument about human life is being reduced to a discussion about eight cells. As if the number is important.

By constantly quoting the number ‘eight’, does one want to imply that since one is only talking of eight cells, ‘what is all the fuss about?’ Really? Nothing could be more deceptive.

Furthermore, some go further as to compare these cells to any other eight cells in our body, following it up with the argument: if all cells contain our DNA, even skin cells and hair follicles, is it being implied that those should also be saved? How ridiculous!

When I reflect about my existence, does it really make any difference that in the beginning those eight cells were only a ‘potential me’?

Is this totally inaccurate and incorrect scientific information being used to justify such arguments and draw final conclusions?

Who has a basic knowledge of biology knows that while all cells share the same DNA not all are programmed to develop into a human being. Coincidentally, these eight cells do. There is little in the point that they are just eight. It may be inconvenient and uncomfortable to some? Maybe, but this doesn’t make it less true.

In a statement, local geneticists and molecular biologists came forward to confirm that whatever the number, those cells are the beginning of a human life (in fact, of no other species) and if left to follow their process have everything necessary to develop into a human being.

Demarcation lines between different stages are artificial and relative, the rest is a scientific truth. So where is the confusion? Even more farcical they say, “outside of the womb, these eight cells would not survive, so this would confirm further that they are not a person”.

But I would not go down that road. Would a baby survive out alone in the cold? Of course not, but no one questions whether a baby is a person.

Others have thought to strengthen their argument by quoting Fr Peter Serracino Inglott who had stated that what is “potentially human is not human”. But let’s call a spade a spade and not get lost in philosophical rationalisations even quoted from a person who carried a reputation of being intellectually gifted.

In the same way that I was taught to question and not to swallow whole whatever is given to me, no matter the source, I hope that just by quoting Fr Peter does not mean we have to accept all that he has ever said, just because he said it.

When I reflect about my existence, does it really make any difference that in the beginning those eight cells were only a ‘potential me’ even though perhaps Fr Peter’s philosophical thinking brought him to make this distinction? Beyond these highly intellectual philosophical rationalisations, if someone meddled with them would I exist today? No.

So what is the confusion? It’s truly simple. If everybody made this question, truly personal, they would realise that embryo freezing is not only someone’s private matter, it’s a universal one. If we all recognised that those eight cells were crucial for our existence and if meddled with, we might not be alive today, I am convinced that more would thoroughly defend these eight cells because such a reflection would return to these eight cells, their rightful dignity.

I appeal to lawmakers to realise that in the passing of this legislation, it is the future of these eight cells that is being decided, ironically, the future of human life.  In this way, I sincerely ask those who are passing the law to make a true examination of conscience before choosing the ethical principles that will guide their decisions.

Louisa Mifsud Houlton works in the education sector.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180526/opinion/Eight-unique-cells-Louisa-Mifsud-Houlton.680018

Regrettably, the article ‘IVF and human rights’ (May 17), penned by Silvan Agius and Gabi Calleja as government appointees, was loaded with unfounded assertions presented as human rights or scientific certainties.

The authors choose to completely ignore professionals in the field, psychologists, social workers, medical doctors and scientists who asserted the opposite. Worst of all, they arrogantly assert that “We now [as officials] need to ensure that the amendments proposed go through…”, irrespective of what everyone else thinks – including those whose rights we infringe and whose life we put in danger – and the moral and ethical issues at stake.

Interestingly, they make this statement when the minister piloting the Bill has promised to widen consultation. Are the authors implying the process is a sham, like when the Equal Opportunities Minister Helena Dalli boasted of deceiving the Maltese people when speaking at an international forum?

They claim that “scientific consensus is that embryos should not be considered the same as fully developed human beings”. How wrong and very dangerous are the stereotype pro-abortion arguments. By that same argument we can allow the killing of teenagers by their parents because they too are not fully developed.

Twenty-four local scientists have unequivocally stated the complete opposite; no genuine doctor will make such a statement unless blinded by money. Health Minister Chris Fearne himself admitted in Parliament that the embryo is a human life, though, shortly after, he trivialises that by speaking of only eight cells to justify freezing.

Embryo freezing infringes a fundamental scientific fact: life starts at conception and, as humans, we have an obligation to protect it. A recent survey by MaltaToday indicated that 95.2 per cent of the Maltese population believe so. This would include the vast majority of Labourites too.

Many have spoken, others have remained silent, fearful of being seen as dissenting. There are then those who prefer to believe government rhetoric without questioning.

Agius and Calleja claim their approach is human-rights based and not seeking to trespass the rights of others.

Fact: the proposed amendments do not protect all people, certainly not the frozen children, born from ‘donations’ and being denied their parents, and surrogate mothers who will simply be commodified under the guise of altruism.

In the UN declaration for human rights preamble we read that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”. Note the word “human”; no limitation on stage of development, this including all members of the human family, even the embryo. So much so that, in the recent debate on the Gender Protection Act, the government gave repeated assurances that the unborn child was still protected under the law as the definition of family includes descendants that also refers to the unborn.

Furthermore, article 2 refers to “Everyone… without distinction of any kind”. Ironically, the second paragraph of the preamble states that “disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind”.

The list is endless: genocides, the holocaust, slavery, trafficking of people and the modern barbaric act of abortion.

The conscience of the Maltese population is outraged against embryo freezing because its justification is founded on the same premise as abortion.

From a secular perspective, if science tells us that life begins at conception, then the embryo is human. If so, then article 3 of the convention applies: “Everyone has the right to life”. How do I enjoy my right to life if you freeze me? Does not freezing breach article 5, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment?

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in its preamble clearly affirms the rights of the unborn child when it states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Allow me to repeat “before as well as after birth”.

The UN convention is very clear. Because it is not fully developed, the unborn needs protection. If anyone wants to ignore these rights, as the proposed amendments do, then the rights of children are being trespassed. Another mind-blowing assertion was that there is “no international consensus that there is the right to know the identity of one’s biological parents”. Since when do we need international consensus to tell us that we need air and food to live, that being born of the same parents makes us brothers and sisters and that a child belongs to its biological parents? Conventions are not there to state the obvious.

Children are not a symbol of equality but a gift to love

On the other hand, when it came to education, because past governments abused the education systems to brainwash children, the convention says clearly in article 26.3 that “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”. Such is the sense of belonging and the close relationship between the children and their parents.

The fact that a single mother chooses not to declare who the father is does not weaken the rights of children; they would have been violated as a worker’s right to work is violated when s/he is unemployed.

In article 3 1 of this UN convention we read: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Can it honestly be said that the best interest of the child is to be frozen, put in suspended mode, with possibly no hope of continuation? Is it the best interest of the child to intentionally be created an orphan through embryo adoption and gamete donation? Is it the best interest of the child to be deprived of its natural parents, be treated like an object that can be given away, ignoring the psychological risks the child is exposed to, including the emotional hardship so evident in many stories of children born out of such donations?

In reality, there is no convention that states that people, whatever their status, have a right to have children. This applies for heterosexual couples, same-sex couples and single men or women. There is clearly no discrimination, not even indirect, as claimed by the authors, because the disadvantage is proportionate and justifiable, that is, there is good reason.

Single persons cannot have children because they need the opposite sex, just like same-sex couples. This is not discrimination, this is nature’s design. Even when a heterosexual couple consent, a child is not guaranteed.

Not having children does not make a person less dignified or less equal to those who have children. Children are not a symbol of equality but a gift to love and love is not about my rights but the child we want to love. That is why the embryo needs to be loved and protected.

The Embryo Protection Act is not only constitutional but in line with the UN convention for the protection of children, putting the best interest of the child at the centre of legislation. The proposed amend­­-ments significantly fall short of a compromise. That is why they remain unacceptable.

Tonio Fenech is a former finance minister.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180525/opinion/No-symbol-of-equality-Tonio-Fenech.679923

Il-Life Network Foundation qalet li min se jivvota favur l-emendi proposti għal-Liġi tal-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun se jkollu jerfa’ responsabbiltà kbira li tinkludi l-mewt tal-embrijuni u kull effett negattiv li tispiċċa tbati s-soċjetà minħabba t-tibdil.

Il-proposti fl-Att jinkludu li l-embrijuni se jiġu ffriżati jekk il-koppja tagħti l-kunsens għall-addozzjoni u li l-kiri tal-ġuf ma jibqax kontra l-liġi f’xi każijiet.

Fi stqarrija, il-Life Network Foundation appellat lill-Membri Parlamentari biex jirriflettu fuq l-implikazzjonijiet serji tal-emendi proposti għal-Liġi tal-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun.

Skont il-Fondazzjoni, hemm qbil bejn il-professjonisti li huma konta l-emendi. Qalet ukoll li hemm eluf ta’ Maltin mħassba dwar il-proposti. Rat ukoll attentati għad-disumanizzazzjoni tal-embrijun u li d-drittjiet tat-tfal twarrbu għal ġenb.

Il-Fondazzjoni stqarret ukoll li l-esperti ma tħallewx jindirizzaw lill-Parlament.

Il-Life Network Foundation qal li studji u osservazzjonijiet oħra juru li:

• Il-bniedem huwa organiżmu uniku
• Il-ħajja tibda mal-konċepiment
• L-embrijun fl-istat bikri tiegħu huwa bniedem uman
• Il-krijopreservazzjoni tpoġġi l-ħajja tal-embrijuni f’riskju
• Il-problema tal-embrijuni ffriżati żejda għadha ma ssolvietx
• Mhemmx studji li juru li l-kiri tal-ġuf, donazzjoni tal-bajda, l-isperma, jew tal-embrijun m’għandhomx effetti psikoloġiċi negattivi fuq it-tfal u fuq l-ommijiet bijoloġiċi
• Mhix ġustizzja soċjali li ttaffi l-ferita tal-infertilità tal-koppji ta’ din il-ġenerazzjoni billi tneħħi d-dritt tal-ġenerazzjoni ta’ wara li tkun taf min huma l-ġenituri tagħha

 

Ref: http://www.newsbook.com.mt/artikli/2018/5/23/emendi-embrijuni:-min-jivvota-favur-responsabbli-ghall-mewt-taghhom-life-network.75513/

A disability scholar is warning that choosing an embryo over another because of possible disabilities is based on a myth that a disabled life is a lesser life.

“When you choose between embryos, you don’t really know what you are choosing. You might discard an impaired embryo and choose one that looks perfect, but that perfect child might give you much more trouble than a disabled child,” Eva Feder Kittay told this newspaper.

“A disabled child might give you much more happiness and have a much better life. We make the immediate assumption that a disabled life is a lesser life… This is a myth,” she insisted.

Prof. Kittay was in Malta to deliver lectures and meet with stakeholders in the disability field. Her visit coincided with a nationwide discussion on the divisive amendments to the IVF law.

Among others, Pierre Schembri Wismayer, who contributed to drafting the existing legislation, has noted that embryologists will select the “best two” embryos of the permitted five for IVF treatment to have a higher probability of success.

Prof. Kittay notes that choosing the healthiest embryos raises similar questions to that of prenatal testing. Living in an ableist society, it seems inevitable that people will want to choose embryos. However, she insists, people with a disability claim as much satisfaction with their lives, “except that they have to deal with a lot of nonsense from society”.

Prof. Kittay is one of the theorists who worked to develop the idea of ‘the ethics of care’, first introduced by American psychologist Carol Gilligan.

While several disability activists stress the idea of independence, she believes dependency is at the heart of society. “Dependence is a feature of all human life. But the dependency of those of us who are more privileged is less visible. You and I think we are independent, as we earn a wage, however we are dependent on our employer, who, in turn, is dependent on their customers.”

Looking at it this way, one realises that dependency is not necessarily a bad or a good thing. “Some very rich people are dependent on their housekeeper, chauffeur and maid. What happens when you take those people away from them?

But that is not the kind of dependence that we stigmatise. “I’m emotionally very dependent on my daughter. Hopefully, she can go on without me. It would be terrible if I had to go on without her,” she said.

For Prof. Kittay, independence is not an end in itself but rather a means to a more flourishing life. Sometimes, dependence is a means to a more flourishing life.

During her stay, Prof. Kittay was a keynote speaker, sponsored by the US Fulbright Programme, at a conference themed Emerging Disability Issues and organised by the Department of Disability Studies.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180521/local/a-disabled-life-is-not-a-lesser-life.679608

Declaring that an eight-cell human embryo is not a human being has a purpose. The idea is to convince people by spinning a tale – that the embryo is not human but only a product, a commodity, and being a product it can be used and abused in any way which the powers that be decide. Being a product it could be used with business as a means to an end and may be disposed of accordingly. This effort to reduce a human being to the level of a product also shows that individuals are now patting themselves on the back for having achieved the capacity to create and eugenically choose or reject human products and in their arrogance feeling as if they have achieved the status of a god. Arrogance of power goes very much with thinking that one is a god or demi-god and treating us mere ordinary mortals as the little people that we are.

Human Science shows us that the reality lies elsewhere. Cell biology and those who study it, as well as embryologists show that the life of a human being begins when the human ovum is fertilised by the human sperm cell. This is the real science and all other opinions are just that, opinions. A human embryo whether one cell, eight cells, 32 cells, blastocyst, eight weeks remains a human being. It remains a human being in its development to birth, childhood, and adulthood to old age until death. These are just different stages of the same human being.

Why is it a human being? That it is human is never in doubt as it is the result or fruit of the interaction between two other human beings and contains a human genetic blueprint. That it is a human organism is also not in doubt as it is moving under its own steam with a self-moving active potency to develop as all independent organisms do from the single cell amoeba to the trillion-cell human. This capacity to develop is attained the moment that the new genetic identity is fused inside the new embryo cell which gives it a new and unique human identity and allows development to start with the building of proteins necessary to its development and survival. Like in any other organism, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts and continues to remain so until death. The Church has nothing to do with the defining moment of when we become human. The Church only insists that when science says that a human organism exists, that life should be protected and it has always done so. So much so that in the Middle Ages when the little science known then believed, according to Aristotle of ancient Greece, that human life started after 60 or 90 days of human embryological development, that was the time the Church believed that human life should be protected. However, science has now advanced sufficiently and shown us the truth, and those who now bring in the Church to confuse matters, obviously have other motives in mind.

A human embryo is fully a human being, a human organism and natural reason tells us that if it is fully human then it should be defended and it is a prima facie right to protect it. Therefore, it should not be destroyed or forced to lose its dignity such as by freezing which both kills embryos and destroys their human dignity.

However, the human embryo is entirely a human being and also a fully human person. Those who point out a distinction here only do so to lay a trap for fools. Personhood is considered an individual member of the human species, so any individual member of the human species is enough to make him or her, a person. Personhood objectively defined means any individuated being of a rational nature, a self-reflecting nature. This nature is attained during fertilisation when the unique genetic and epigenetic features of the new human individual are laid down together with this self-moving potency to develop, a potency we refer to as the form, essence, nature or soul of the human being. It is this rational nature of each human being which make it a person and not the individual functions that are exhibited by this nature or form in matter. We do not always think, move or talk, but we are always human persons even in a comatose or anaesthetised state. Greek philosophy clearly laid down that a form and matter produced an individualised human substance. Boethius expressed this very clearly in his famous ‘Consolation of Philosophy’ as Persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia. An individual substance of a rational nature! This concept has been a principle of ancient Greek philosophy from the times of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus among others. When later Descartes in the 1600s came up with the dictum of cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am, he was in no way trying to reverse this definition of person. He was just pointing out that thinking and self-reflection were features that defined the human species from other species and was one of the functions exhibited specifically by our nature or form as a species. In effect it was always from the beginning of civilisation a concept of ‘sum ergo cogito’, I am therefore I think. Thinking is an ultimate expression of human nature not the other way round. Thinking comes from the nature, from the form, from the essence of humanity not the form of humanity from thinking! Therefore, a human embryo is also a human person by nature of being a human organism not only a simple human cell as some would have us believe and in the process subjectively reversing four thousand years of philosophy.

The subjective corruption of the definition of person and also now of the definition of the human organism is just a feeble attempt of those who want to render the human being and person simply as a human product. Being a human product to be used and abused according to the dictates of others in order to return to the times of slavery when human beings were just products. This attitude is borne out of an arrogance of power, idiocy and the wish to make human beings a source of commercial profit, an end for business and money. Those who expound it have other interests at heart, definitely not the interests of human dignity. The interest of human dignity is clearly expressed in our Constitution. Every human person has a right to life. Our Constitution defines the limits of the right to life specifically when such a life is intentionally threatened with intended malignant violence by another, so that the right to self-defence from a bad intentioned violator arises. In pointing out this only exception, our Constitution also underlines that the right to innocent human life is an absolute right and ultimately this is the principle which our government plans to do away with for obvious reasons, and to pave the way for future assaults on innocent human life!

 michael.asciak@parlament.mt

Dr Asciak is Senior Lecturer II in Applied Science at MCAST.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-05-20/newspaper-opinions/It-is-a-human-product-not-a-human-being-6736190106

In the debate for or against the government’s decision to change the Embryo Protection Act, the people terribly caught in the crossfire are the “so described” infertile couples.  These persons have been used and abused by government as the justification to open the floodgates of change to the Embryo Protection Act, despite the wide and serious underlying consequences, on the same families, their children, the respect and dignity of very human life and the opposition of professional, academics and the public at large.

Why “so described” rather than simply infertile couples?  I think describing a couple infertile is demeaning, presented as inferior simply because they are childless.   We make them feel inferior, every time we meet them and pass an insensitive comment like “ghadkom bla tfal?” 

I come from parents that, not by design, spent their first 10 married years childless.  They loved children, wanting their own, but it seemed we were not intending to come.   Why after 10 years the floodgates opened and they had first my sister, then my brother and then me is anyone’s guess.

Were they too stressed, wanting children too much, was is it physical? Frankly I don’t know.   What I do know is that the period of so called infertility made my parents no less human beings that any other human beings who had children.  Who we are has nothing to do with whether we are parents or not.

There are many couples out there who are without children, who have accepted lovingly their state of being, and found a different purpose to their life and marriage.  All of a sudden, they are being told that they have something missing, they need these amendments to solve it, the miracle of embryo freezing.

Many of these people have already solved it- they live happy lives in full acceptance of their reality.  They found meaning in what they do, the value of their love for each other and others outside their family, many times in voluntary service, with people in need, acts of charity and other meaningful interests.  Why are we telling these people they are inferior?   We are so lost in presenting children as the be all and end all of one’s existence that we are insulting the same people we say we want to help.

We forget that there are men and women who actually choose not to marry and have children to give themselves in service to others.  Who can say that Mother Teresa or Dun Gorg Preca were childless?  We all can have a good purpose in life, find fulfilment in what we do.  It is also wrong to present children as the guarantee of happiness.  Unfortunately, the world is filled with stories of rejection, stories of parents who share their sadness at having been abandoned by their children, parents who lost their children through severe sicknesses or saw them fail and fall into addictions, crime, suicide despite the love they gave them and which make these realities all the more painful. 

Childless couples have suffering and parents have suffering.  Pope Francis says that “Jesus teaches us to live the pain by accepting the reality of life with trust and hope, bringing the love of God and neighbour, even in suffering: and love transforms everything.”

I am not arguing that a couple that have fertility challenges should not seek help, even medical help in an attempt to have their own child.  However, in doing so they need to take care of each other as a couple, their health and all the children they will create with the IVF technology, even the frozen ones.   The present Act finds this right balance, unfortunately the new amendments compromise on life of the children that will be created and frozen, and in the case of gamete donation, introduce a third person in the relationship which can cause severe stress and consequences on the marriage itself.  Studies have shown that many husbands fail to bond with a child that their wife has had through another man and their marriages tend to break up.  Knowing that his wife bore a child with the sperm of another can be a very humiliating experience.  In a heated moment, not rare in a relationship, unloving words are said like “because I’m his mother” as though “you’re not his father” or “what do you know of my child” as though not yours too.  These sentiments are many times hidden in the subconscious just waiting for a trigger to surface and manifest themselves in a painful way.

If government really wants to help childless couples, there are other more effective, less risky and morally correct ways.  Government knows that the proposed changes to the IVF bill will only marginally improve the chances of success.  Minister Fearne stated that from the last cycle of 26 couples only six managed to become pregnant, making the point that with freezing two other couples may become pregnant.   In simple terms the minister is saying that embryo freezing increases the chance of the 20 couples by 10%. Undeniably despite our success rates compare well with many countries, we all would like to see more couples succeed.  However, improving rates cannot be at the cost of lives, ignoring the moral and ethical concerns, surrounding embryo freezing, gamete donation and surrogacy, at the cost of asking couples to put their children (embryos) in a freezer, very likely to be forgotten. People are not statistics; Government should stop over-selling these amendments as the magic wand that will make infertile couples fertile as improvements will be very marginal.

If government is serious about helping the 20 couples, and others in similar situations, it should help them with providing safe, secure and affordable adoption opportunities.  Many couples have found their parental fulfilment in adoption and fostering.   Adoption is costly, in a very “jungle” -like situation. Adopting a child from outside Malta (as not much opportunities from Malta) costs around €40,000.  There are no regulated agencies, you don’t know for what you are paying, and no guarantees.   For a start government should set up an agency that opens new opportunities from where children can be adopted making it more certain, cheaper for prospective parents, and ensuring that no shady activity is involved.  The government should also address the legal difficulties surrounding unwanted Maltese children trapped in institutional or fostering homes when adoption is in their best interest.  Encourage fostering not just financially but also providing the child and the fostering family with more stability.

If we are serious about helping these couples, let’s use our brains and efforts, time in Parliament and money to effectively help them and not sell them false hope.   Let’s call a spade a spade it is becoming more apparent that the government’s real motive is in not infertile couples, whose chances will not increase much more with freezing embryos, but same sex-couples.  Same-sex couples are not infertile couples, while they have every right to their choices, society cannot be blamed for what nature has dictated. 

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-05-21/newspaper-opinions/Helping-childless-couples-6736190173

I know that the anguished cry of our fellow embryonic human beings (April 24) is being heard by others too. There are those who do not hear it and will not hear. They block their ears and endo-secrete morphine into their moribund conscience.

There are those who do not see a human embryo as human and will not see. They cover their eyes (the childish gesture) and bury their head in the sand (the sand of their own petty – and party – interests and public approval, even adulation). They do not want to perceive the truth.

There are those who may well hear and see but are struck dumb by cowardice and/or slavery to the lie.

One need not be a moral theologian (as I am) to perceive and acknowledge the truth (absolute, immutable, not subject to, nor influenced by, anything or anyone). Honest reasoning would bring the honest person to the conclusion that the very concept of mores and ethics is related to the existence of truth that is out of reach of meddling hands.

This is alien to someone schooled in post-modernistic relativism with their “your truth/my truth” nonsense. Deception, distraction and diversion characterise their modus operandi. The hijacking of meaning, Humpty Dumpty style, is a hallmark of their philosophy.

“When I say a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less” (Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland).

These, with devilish determination, will drive roughshod over you and/or will plunge their putrid death-dealing policies down your throat, while screaming that they are being imposed upon. Oh, the lie!

One need not be a doctor (as I am) to acknowledge the embryonic human being. Honest, logical reasoning will bring you to it, and any honest mother will teach you.

I know that I am in very good company in being appalled by the barbaric aggression and insult (which is what embryo freezing is), inflicted on my embryonic fellow human beings – this by my professional brothers, we who are privileged with the trust and faith of our fellow human beings to heal (physiologically, psychologically and spiritually) but first and foremost and fundamentally, to do no harm.

Need I spell it out? If you must count infertility as a disease, nevertheless you may not treat that disease of your patient by assaulting the life of another.

This is the fundamental principle. Oh that word again!

In our profession, we are fundamentalists. The “do no harm” rule trumps all other claims of benefit. Those seeking to procure a child through a procedure that involves embryo freezing must be clearly taught what this entails along with details of survivability and the quality of life expected on thawing. Moreover, explanation and justification must be made to the procurer as to whom is sent to the freezer.

Let the doctor be reminded of the noble, sacred ethos of his art; he is not a salesman nor a technician. The public needs to know that there is a very lucrative business in babies: embryo factories and banks for the harvesting of stem cells, organs etc. Indeed he will bear special responsibility for this barbarism. I plead with doctors concerned: desist.

Let all those who, in any way, aid and abet embryo freezing be aware that they are complicit in the act and its effect.

Let members of Parliament be aware that any vote of theirs that leads to legalising/decriminalising embryo freezing know that ultimately they will have to answer to God not only for the barbaric, inhuman act and its effects but also for the fact that this facilitates the legalising/decriminalising of abortion. That is not the end of this serpent.

Due to the commodifying of human beings, eventually no one unable to defend oneself would be safe in hospital.

Let the bishops lead their priests in preaching these aforementioned truths from the pulpit. If you do not use it, you shall lose it. Failure to do so places their own souls in jeopardy.

Let anyone who feels hurt by what I have written try very, very hard to turn his gaze away from his navel and consider someone else and then, humanity. Keep trying very, very hard to recognise the hurt, insult and injury (physical, psychological, spiritual) inflicted on their human embryonic fellow by that inhuman act of embryo freezing.

Then they are to keep trying very, very hard to realise that the inhuman act of embryo freezing declares “open day” to other acts of inhumanity (abortion, euthanasia… eugenics).

I shall not be distracted nor deflected by red herrings thrown about nor straw men set up, being a former military officer, I recognise these for what they are: feint attacks and smokescreens and dummy targets. By the way, if you are not a fundamentalist then you are a superficialist, a trivialist and a subjectivist – a pathetic character.

As for religion, well everyone has a soul that adheres to religion. Mine is the Catholic faith, yours may be the “Me-first-and-über-alles” faith. You bring your religion into your stand point, as you must, as do I. Here is God’s word for those Catholic claimants, who fail to witness to Christ: “Whoever denies Me before others I will deny before My Father.” (Mt 10, 33). I am focused on the incoming cruise missile: the Maltese government’s proposed legislation on IVF/embryo freezing. Unless this proposed legislation is voted out of Parliament, this ‘missile’ will blast the way wide open for the reign of Inhumanity.

In summary:

The embryo is denied its inherent and intrinsic humanity. The embryo is not acknowledged as a human being, but counted as a thing (a blob of cells), the property of another person or entity. Embryos, then are not counted as “untermenschen” but as “nicht-menschen”, not servile persons but non-persons.

The arbitrary withdrawal of human status, dignity and rights could then be applied to any stage in the life cycle.

The dehumanised being, stripped of humanity, becomes an object, a commodity, a resource and, probably, a medical cobbler’s plaything.

With eugenics the human race becomes the play thing.

Would that anyone who has the Prime Minister’s ear spell this out to him and would that the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and stop in his tracks.                                                                                     

Peter Micallef-Eynaud is a medical doctor, theologian and former military officer.

In his article Eight cells in the lab  (May 2) Mark Sant, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, a consultant at the Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic at Mater Dei Hospital, said that “he wants to concentrate on the situation wherein a heterosexual couple come to me asking for help after several years of trying to conceive to no avail”. 

He wrote: “I don’t tell them that nature does not mean for them to complete their family.” That’s a very good compassionate approach from an obstetrician and gynaecologist.

He added: “The European Charter of Human Rights states that everyone has a right to health, and infertility is listed as a health issue, too.” That’s also a very good approach  to begin with.

He added further: “In the very same way that all specialists in medicine have an obligation to remain up to date in their area of expertise, to be able to offer the best possible care to their patients, we who work in infertility are no different.”

Sant seems to be keeping himself up to date selectively, only about one particular medical model to resolve the issue of infertility, the IVF and embryo freezing method. He  seems to be  totally  unaware of the natural method to infertility, another non-medical model. One may  ask a nutritionist and dietician on this, anywhere in  the world, including Malta, and he or she starts to talk at length on the great benefits of this model.

It is true, as Sant says, that the rate of infertility is increasing in many parts of the world, including Malta, and that many couples in particular, are desperate to conceive. Sant should have defined the main problem he was writing about – what are the causes of infertility – before  making gratuitous statements.

These causes are not only physiological to be treated by gynaecologists and obstetricians like Sant.

In  the description of “the best natural infertility treatment” by leading nutritionists and dieticians it includes poor nutrition, emotional stress, sexually transmitted diseases, thyroid disorders, medical conditions, eating disorders, excessive obesity, and hormonal problems.

Caffeine also can cause hormonal imbalances, dehydration and lead to mineral deficiencies. High consumption has been shown to interfere with fertility. Lowering caffeine or giving it up entirely is a smart idea when one is trying to get pregnant.

Drugs, like marijuana, can negatively affect fertility by making ovulation more difficult each month.

To cure infertility nutritionists and dieticians recommend not IVF and embryo freezing but eating a healing diet.

Another natural infertility treatment is to consume more fertility-promoting supplements.

The good news, nutritionists say, is that most couples will eventually conceive, without costly and often invasive infertility treatments. The success rate here is about 80 per cent. The success rate of IVF and embryo freezing is about 25 per cent.

If Sant knows about the natural method to fertility, and as a gynaecologist he must know about it,  it is obvious he is deliberately discarding it,  as frozen embryos are eventually discarded  in his medical model to infertility. 

At a certain point  in his article, Sant said that “he would have loved to be acclaimed as the Maltese pioneer to have put forward certain beliefs on this subject”, and  then quoted Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, a philosopher, not a scientist, who, according to Sant, “did not equate the early embryo to a human being and had no qualms with embryo freezing”.

He added further: “And I’m not even mentioning science.” That was a stark admission that he is leaving science, altogether, out of the fertility/infertility problem.

Notwithstanding, he felt presumptuously comfortable in making a gratuitous scientific declaration that “eight cells in the laboratory is not a human being. It has the potential to become one using very extraordinary measures. The potential ‘to be’ is not equivalent to ‘being’.”

The deputy prime minister said it before.   

Sant seems to possess the credentials of a champion of the throw-away culture at its best. 

In 1960, Bernard Nathanson, an obstetrician and gynaecologist like Sant, was for a time the director of the Centre for Reproductive and Sexual Health (CRASH), seemingly also like Sant at Mater Dei Hospital. CRASH was then the largest freestanding abortion facility in the world.

In 1974 Nathanson wrote: “I am deeply troubled by my own increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths.”

Nathanson  developed in 1996 what he called the “vector theory of life”, which states that from the moment of conception there exists “a self-directed force of life that, if not interrupted, will lead to the birth of a human baby”.

In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. Jerome Lejeune, professor of genetics at the University of Descartes in Paris and the discoverer of the chromosome pattern of Down Syndrome, told the judiciary subcommittee that “after fertilisation has taken place a new human being has come into being”. 

He stated that this “is no longer a matter of taste or opinion”  and “not a metaphysical contention: it is plain experimental evidence… Each individual  has a very neat beginning at conception.”

Sant seems not to have heard about Nathanson and Lejeune. 

He also lambasted all those who do not agree with him: “All the vociferous anti-IVF-reform campaigners have one thing in common. They have staunch extreme Catholic beliefs.” He forgot he had previously quoted a  Catholic philosopher-priest to prove his point.

Very respectable local institutions like the Malta Paediatric Association, the Faculty of Social Well-Being of the University of Malta, and 100 academics practically from all the university faculties,  expressed their views on this subject publicly and categorically, very contrary to his own.    

There is also adoption and fostering for childless couples. The government should subsidise these services much more, especially adoption.  

This newspaper should be congratulated for advising that “women who eat fast food and little or no fruit take longer to become pregnant” (May 5) while also  showing the beauty and greatness  of adoption services in its May issue of Pink magazine.

Sant should really lead. He should work also for the strengthening of these services to help infertile couples have children. That’s his pledge to them.

Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

An embryo is a new, unique individual produced when an egg from a woman is fertilised by a sperm from a man. An embryo is made up of cells, a new born baby from a larger number of cells and an adult is made of an even larger number of cells. Indeed, one needs to watch out for terms such as ‘fertilized eggs’, ‘fertilized cells’, or ‘cells from fertilized eggs’  being used instead of the term ‘embryo’, as this may desensitise us to the fact that the embryo is a new human life.

The proposed Bill regarding embryos discriminates against these individuals both when they are still embryos but also way after they are born.

It also forces already vulnerable IVF couples to choose between increasing their chances of becoming parents but then donating their extra embryos for adoption by unknown individuals, or doing IVF with a decreased chance of success.

Research conducted abroad shows that over 80 per cent of IVF couples would rather let their embryos die or be donated to research, than having to live with the knowledge of having their biological children being brought up by people who they have no say in choosing. Can we blame them?

Moreover, both the children of the couple and those adopted will essentially know they have full siblings who they can never know about or get to know.

People born as a result of embryo adoption will have the right to access the anonymised medical records of their biological parents.

But, anonymous records cannot be updated. This means that biological children of a 20-year-old donor who was in good health at the time of donation but still died young from an inherited medical condition will have no clue as to what their risks are.

Under normal circumstances, of course, the children of such a person would be tested and have their health managed. But no such luck for these children.

Another reality for extra embryos is that with the introduction of sperm and egg donation, the chances of the embryos being adopted is small in the first place.

Most same-sex couples, that have been mentioned as those interested in adopting, would rather have the biological child of one of them, given the choice. Especially since the frozen embryos that will be up for adoption will be those not chosen for the couple producing them, i.e. not the ‘best’.

This means most embryos will be left to disintegrate, die or otherwise be lost.

The fact is that thawing embryos already kills one out of three and apart from this, alarms and apparati can fail, as we have seen lately in the case where several couples lost their embryos.

Sperm and egg donation create another set of problems which can affect both the couples receiving the donation and their future children. The Bill proposes that there would be an Embryo Authority which will licence clinics offering the service.

However, it leaves the vetting of who can donate up to the licensed clinics.

The clinic will have to send all records to the authority but donations will be anonymous. So, how will the authority be able to prevent a person donating more than once and prevent half siblings having children between themselves in future?

It is not like in our tiny Malta the chances of meeting is small.

The possibility of inheritance of serious genetic conditions would be considerable in these cases. Also, how will the clinics vet for genetic conditions in the first place?

These are serious problems which the Bill does not even begin to address.

Presently, pregnant mothers are tested for common genetic conditions. If a mother is found to be a carrier of a condition the father is tested. In the case of anonymous sperm donation this will be impossible. This likely possibility is also not addressed in the new Bill.

Considering all the issues and all the individuals that will have their lives affected by this Bill, more time and care should be given in order to best protect all parties involved.

Rushing through the process, as presently done, is both reckless and insane.

Svetlana Schembri Wismayer is a Junior College senior lecturer.

As women’s rights activists call for the legalisation of abortion, particularly in cases of rape, Lara Sierra, herself a rape victim, speaks to a pro-life campaigner, born of rape, about her international campaign to remove the parental rights of rapists. It is out of gratitude that her life was somehow protected that she now wants to protect others.

Rebecca Kiessling arrives in a sparkly jumper, with her big blonde hair and an American drawl. Best of all is her outlandish, multi-coloured, phone-shaped handbag, which actually works as a phone. But underneath her feminine flamboyance is a soft-spoken woman, with the ability to move mountains with her words.

“I am a pro-life activist and a lawyer,” she explains. “I have been working on a law for 10 years, which [Barack] Obama signed in 2016. It is called the Rape Survivor Child Custody Act – to terminate the parental rights of rapists without requiring a rape conviction.” 

Yes, that is correct. Rapists have parental rights to any offspring that are a consequence of their crime. Yet, without a rape conviction, how are they proven guilty? 

“I deal with this all over the world,” Rebecca, a guest of Life Network, answers. “In other circumstances, you do not need to have a conviction to remove the rights of a parent. For child molestation, or child abuse, you need a heightened standard of evidence. In the US, we call it clear and convincing evidence. 

“We looked at the law in Malta in 2016 with a team of lawyers and there is a judicial standard that allows for the termination of parental rights, so it would be the same for mothers with children born of rape. It’s the same way I’ve dealt with this in the US and other countries I’ve worked with,” Rebecca explains.

“This law was designed to be part of a package for gender violence… Some legislators question how often these cases actually occur? But that is such an ignorant view. They don’t understand how prevalent rape is. It is wildly under-reported.” 

Statistics worldwide make for depressing reading. In the US, 994 perpetrators out of 1,000 reported cases of rape will walk free, mostly because victims will drop their charges for one reason or another. In the UK, only 15 per cent of cases of sexual abuse are reported to the police. In Malta, around 160 cases of rape were reported in the last decade, but that is not at all an indication of the amount that actually happen. 

Unreported rape statistics exist across the whole of Europe: it is estimated that about 67 per cent go unreported, yet this average is woefully inaccurate for each country. It includes, for example, the UK, which had a 173 per cent rise in reported sexual violence between 2008 and 2015.

Not in a hurry to go back to the UK after reading that? Don’t be; high reporting statistics are not necessarily bad news and could be an indication that victims trust their politicians and police enough to know they will be safe and protected when reporting an act of violence against them. 

Hopefully, what happened at the end of 2017 will make a dramatic difference to this too. The Harvey Weinstein revelations set off a cascade of revelatory stories of sexual abuse across the Western world, including the ensuing #metoo campaign and yet more stories involving high-profile figures against males, females and children no less. 

Rebecca sighs. “The problem with #metoo is that women whose perpetrators are still at large were unable to speak out. They had to use a pseudonym, or not speak out at all.”

It’s a valid point, and more evidence that women are often too fearful to report a rape. I was one of the luckier ones. I was drugged and raped by someone who lived on the other side of the world; who had very few personal details about me. Yet I did not go to the police either. Why not? Because, as many other victims feel, I felt shame, guilt and disgust at myself. 

There was clear evidence that I had been attacked; I awoke with blood on my clothes, bruises on my thighs and bite marks on my torso. Yet the mental state that perpetuated over the next few years was one of such self-loathing that I came to believe the attack was my fault. This is a symptom of trauma. And in cases of rape, where other symptoms often also include memory loss and low levels of self-esteem, no wonder so few victims go to the police. 

Since making my story known, I have had many people coming to me, privately and secretly, confessing crimes committed against them too, and none of them had reported their attacks either. This is proof, then, that the problem exists in Malta, even if we don’t have the statistics on it. And, in a bitter twist of fate, this reluctance to report an attack is a massive thumbs-up for the attackers. It keeps them walking free and confidently continuing their wicked ways.

Rebecca too has her own experience of rape. “I was conceived in rape and put up for adoption,” she explains. “My birth mother was abducted at knife point by a serial rapist. She never knew who he was. I found out a year-and-a-half ago, due to new DNA technology, and we both hoped that he would either be in prison, or dead. But no, he has never been convicted. 

“I was frequently sexually assaulted, aged 10, by an adult, and I was also raped by a boyfriend when I was 19. He broke my jaw,” she pauses. “I’ve never spoken about this in Malta.” 

Rebecca’s life story is heart-breaking, yes, but inspirational too. “I met my birth mother when I was 19, after deciding to find out who she was. I received non-identifying information, which had all sorts of information about her. But all it said about my father is that he was Caucasian and of large build. I felt devalued. I felt like I now had to justify my own existence. 

I called my case worker and asked her if my birth mother had been raped and she said: ‘I didn’t want to tell you.’ 

“I felt like my life had become a feather, just floating, and I wanted to feel safe and grounded that she would never have aborted me. But no, when we met, she told me she had sought out two illegal abortions. I felt like I was not supposed to be there; I just happened to be saved. It’s out of gratitude for my life being protected that I want to protect others. I wasn’t lucky, but I was protected. Legality matters.”

Rebecca always wanted to be a lawyer. “Absolutely! My adopted dad took me to see a film called The Verdict, and straight away, I wanted to be that hero and defend victims. People used to say: ‘Oh you want to be a lawyer… Does that mean you’re a feminist?’ I thought, yes, I believe in women; I want to defend women’s rights. But then I started to hear that feminists are pro-abortion, and I thought, what does being a feminist have to do with killing babies? It didn’t make sense. One of the great things about women is how loving and nurturing they are. This is what makes us special.”

It is undeniable that abortion is not loving, nor nurturing, but it is important to state the other side of the argument too. The Women’s Rights Foundation, for example, calls abortion a human right, which should be given at least to save a woman’s life, to preserve her physical and mental health, in cases of rape and incest and in the eventuality of fatal foetus impairment.

It has also called for the decriminalisation of abortion so that Maltese women who access abortion in other countries, or through telemedicine, do not face criminal proceedings and risk three years imprisonment especially when accessing local health services for possible post-abortion complications.

It is an interesting point; and a valid one when considering the amount of women taking a quick ‘holiday’ to the UK or Sicily in times of desperation. That figure is unknown, but according to Dr Miriam Sciberras, pro-life activist for Life Network, there were about 90 reported cases of illegal abortions in Malta in 2016. 

She, along with the rest of Life Network, are launching a helpline, and meeting groups for women who are in pregnancy crisis. “We believe that anything that threatens human life is an abuse,” she says. Yet their line will also support women who are struggling post-abortion. 

Life Line is a 24-hour, fully confidential, pregnancy support network for females in crisis, regarding pregnancy, negative pregnancy results and post-abortion healing, including for family and friends. 

The support is available via an online chat and telephone service. It aims to provide a warm, non-judgemental and friendly interface to help empower women to make life-affirming choices.

“A big problem is that people are against abortion except in cases of rape,” Rebecca says. “What’s more, a lot of rape victims are seen as bad feminists and bad rape victims when they decide to keep their child. The children are called ‘Satan’s spawn’ and ‘demon child’… Yet many women come to me asking for forgiveness. ‘Would my baby forgive me for aborting it?’ I tell them that in heaven, there are no more tears.”

People tend to use biblical references when seeking moral direction, and yet, Rebecca says, it was her atheist adopted grandmother who is responsible for her pro-life beliefs. 

“Being pro-life does not require a biblical base. I am a child of God and I am also a child of a rape victim. I know my worth and it is not that I am a lawyer, and I don’t have to show you my finances. 

“I have a wonderful husband and I have five children. When my daughter was six, she wrote a book, which she showed me. Inside, she had written: ‘Conceived in rape is not bad. Because that’s my mum’.”

You can’t argue with that. And really, it is quite simple. Rape is bad; life is good. But unfortunately, life is also complicated, challenging, and at times, extraordinarily difficult. Women often get the raw end of the deal. But, really, that just makes them stronger, and more understanding of others.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180511/life-features/i-am-a-child-of-god-and-i-am-also-a-child-of-a-rape-victim.678479?utm_source=tom&utm_campaign=top5&utm_medium=widget