Author: lifenetwork

Il-Fondazzjoni favur il-Ħajja u l-Familja, Life Network Foundation Malta qalet li fl-emendi fl-Att dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun li ġew ippubblikati lbieraħ “jidher ċar li hemm logħba fil-lingwaġġ użat u logħba bid-definizzjonijiet”.

Fost l-oħrajn l-emendi ppreżentati mill-Gvern qed jittrattaw il-kiri tal-ġuf u l-iffriżar tal-embrijuni.

Dwar id-donazzjoni tal-isperma u l-bajda, iċ-Chairperson tal-Life Network Foundation Dr Miriam Sciberras saħqet li il-Gvern qed jilgħab bil-lingwaġġ użatt u qed jagħmel “logħba bid-definizzjonijiet”.

Saħqet li dan l-abbozz qed jagħmilha legali li wieħed jabdika mir-responsabilitajiet u obbligi dovuti lil kull wild minħabba li b’donazzjoni tal-gameti anonima (bajda tal-mara u sperma tar-raġel) wieħed jiċħad l-ulied li bioloġikament huma tiegħu b’għażla.

Ir-reazzjoni titkellem ukoll dwar il-kliem “omm”, “missier” jew “koppja mara u raġel” li ġew eliminati u minflok iddaħħlu ġenitur/ġenituri prospettivi meta huwa fatt bioloġiku li biex tinħoloq ħajja ġdida għandek bżonn l-isperma tar-raġel u l-bajda tal-mara.

“L-embrijun mhux oġġett imma ħajja ġdida”

Dr Miriam Sciberras li hija ggradwata fil-Bioetika u magħrufa għax-xogħol tagħha favur il-ħajja, spjegat ukoll li min jirrikorri għall-IVF, ikollu embrijuni trasferiti fil-ġuf u mhux oġġetti u għaldaqstant ma jitwildux oġġetti iżda tfal.

Il-Fondazzjoni qalet ukoll li d-drittijiet tal-ulied li jitwieldu minn din it-teknoloġija la huma ikkunsidrati u lanqas meqjusa.

Tista’ taqra r-reazzjoni sħiħa hawnhekk:

 

We are witnessing a new form of ‘feminism’ in the name of emancipating women: the ‘right’ of a pregnant woman to carry out an abortion.

Without beating round the bush, without resorting to any euphemism, we must call this so-called ‘right’ what it actually is: the killing of life conceived in her womb. They are placing in a tug-of-war the pseudo-emancipation of women and the right to life of the person not yet born.

We have to suffer hearing the words of a number of today’s false prophets, misleading contemporary activists, militant and eager to promote powerful propaganda advocating abortion and placing huge pressure on governments to legislate this type of killing.

Among them I mention the multi-millionaire George Soros, who is spending enormous amounts of money in pro-abortion propaganda, and Nils Muiznieks, who ironically is the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe.

In his writings, Muiznieks reiterated that: “Particular attention should be paid to the most vulnerable groups of people, such as children.” It seems that the child in the mother’s womb, according to him, does not belong to the category of the “most vulnerable groups of people” and children.

Today, we talk about what is termed peer pressure: the influence exerted, for example, by young people’s friends being more influential than that of their parents.

I will explain myself. When The Netherlands introduced ‘gay marriage’ it was presented as a sign of being an emancipated country. After The Netherlands, other countries were encouraged to do so (not to look less emancipated than neighbouring countries). The same thing happens in the case of the legalisation of abortion.

First, they portray as retrograde a country that does not accept abortion. Then, it is accepted in “extreme” and “exceptional” cases. Then, the door is always opened even further for other cases.

It is an undisputed fact that life starts at fertilisation. Therefore, when discussing abortion, the question is between the so-called right of the pregnant woman for her personal autonomy and the right to life of the unborn child.

Countries that legalise abortion establish certain limits: till what stage of the pregnancy is abortion legalised? In Albania, it is permitted up to the 12th week of pregnancy. Other countries accept abortion later in the pregnancy and others earlier.

However, it is here that we notice the absurdity of abortion legislation.

If it is not allowed after that time frame, why is it allowed before? Maybe because the foetus is small?

Does that mean that because the foetus is small it has no right to life? Or does it mean that, because it is small, it is less of a human being than an adolescent human being?

Does this imply that the right to life depends on how old one is?

Is it, thus, that an old man has greater right than an adult, an adult more than a youth, a youth more than a boy, a boy more than a baby, and a baby more than a foetus and a foetus of a few months more than a foetus of a few days?

When, the media showed us the lifeless body of a boy less than two years old lying on the sand on a beach of an island near Greece, everyone pitied him.

And when people drown in the Mediterranean Sea and the media tells us with great prominence how many children were among them, no one says: “It does not matter! Those are children!” On the contrary, we pity them even more.

Why is this? Is it because we felt they had a future ahead of them and they have now lost it? And why do we not say the same thing for the foetus who is being targeted for abortion?

Why do we not say: he has a future ahead of him, let us not rob him of his life?

The sin of the Pharisee was that he did not realise he was a sinner.

The sin of today’s society is that it does not want to be aware of its sinfulness when it opens the door for the elimination of lives yet unborn.

After the barbaric killing of a two-year-old by two children aged 10 in Liverpool in 1993, the late Cardinal Basil Hume and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks suggested the setting up of a royal commission to investigate the causes of increased criminality in their country. However, their request went unheeded.

In an interview to the English newspaper The Independent, Cardinal Hume said: “When a society looks at the mirror and does not like what it sees, it either shrugs its shoulders and walks away or pauses and asks: ‘why.”

This is the sin of today’s society; it refuses to open its eyes to wrongs and even when it recognises it is in the wrong, it is not prepared to ask why.

Mgr Ġorġ Frendo is Bishop of Tirana, Albania.

One need not be a discerning political observer to recognise that the groundwork for the legalisation of abortion is being firmly laid, notwithstanding reassurances to the contrary.

“Abortion is not on the agenda” is evidently doublespeak for “lower your guard while we prepare to legalise abortion by stealth”.  The debate has, in the first place, been instigated by various kite-flying techniques. The cause has already been championed by none other than the Commissioner for Human Rights and the Foundation for Women’s Rights.

Efforts are being made to acclimatise the electorate to “acceptable” destruction of life, such as the introduction of abortive morning-after pills, with freezing and disposal of embryos being next in line. Legal protection of the unborn has been weakened by deletion of any reference to the unborn in the Domestic Violence Bill and will predictably be further weakened by amendments to the Embryo Protection Act.

Pro-abortion campaigners use all sorts of stratagems and euphemisms in an attempt to camouflage the stark reality of abortion; it is murder of the unborn child, wilful destruction of the vulnerable who are unable to voice their pain and to defend themselves. Pro-abortion discourse systematically ‘de-personalises’ the embryo, relegating it to a bunch of cells in order to render its destruction less despicable.

Any competent embryologist will however attest to the fact that an embryo is not a mere bunch of cells. Any mother who has miscarried, grieves her unborn child and not a bunch of cells within. Any ultrasound machine which echoes the heartbeat of the unborn child to anxious parents is confirming human life at inception.

We all started off our lives as embryos, the Human Rights Commissioner included. Only a few months separate the embryo from the crying, loving, vulnerable infant that is placed in her mother’s arms a couple of minutes after birth.

Abortion necessarily entails the stoppage of a heartbeat, sometimes the tearing of organs, the crushing of bones, undoubtedly the destruction of life. This notwithstanding, it is reframed as a human rights issue, a women’s rights issue, an equality issue, an autonomy issue, anything other than what it really is; murder of the innocent and the vulnerable.

Let there be no doubt. There exists no fundamental human right to abortion. The European Convention of Human Rights does not refer to any fundamental right to abortion, the European Court of Human Rights never expressed itself to this effect.

Another argument propounded by the pro-abortionists is the “regulatory” argument. Abortion is already a reality, it is argued. Accordingly, in lieu of clandestine abortions, it is better to “regulate” abortion, thereby ensuring that it is carried out in a safe, controlled environment. The destruction of life is wrong whether it takes place openly or clandestinely. By the same token let us have ‘safe’ capital punishment, let us regulate cock fighting, let us sanitise clandestine wrongdoings by transferring them to the public arena.   

The “extreme circumstance” argument ordinarily ushers the point of entry of legalised abortion. Let us introduce abortion in the case of rape, it is argued. Rape is a horrendous crime and a rape victim needs all the support that society could give. But abortion is not the solution.

Legalising abortion in case of rape is meting out the death sentence to one of the innocent victims of the crime. Likewise, situations where mother’s life is at risk are invoked as pretexts for the legalisation of abortion. Faced with life-threatening conditions to mother or child, doctors will do their utmost to save both. Medical protocols are already in existence to cater for the rare cases where a choice is inevitable.    

Pro-life activists should carefully resist the trap set by pro-abortionists to frame the issue as a mother-versus-child issue. We should strive to put in place all the necessary support structures for women facing difficult decisions. The 24/7 Life Line Support chat line recently introduced by the Life Network is a laudable initiative.

If the government is seriously pro-women and pro-life it should follow suit. Mothers and unborn children are both victims of abortion. Both deserve support and compassion. Vulnerable mothers are often hoodwinked to believe that abortion is a straightforward surgical intervention that leaves no lasting effects. The truth is otherwise.

The fact is that pro-‘choicers’ are not defenders of women. They are, consciously or unconsciously, defenders of abortion. 

The dignity of life is not measured or valued in terms of its stage of development, its state of health or illness, the extent of its autonomy or dependability. Life is a precious gift. Let us treasure it.

My sincere appeal goes to all those who are in a position of influence, particularly members of Parliament. Do not be complicit, whether by commission or omission, in the murder of the unborn. As the spectre of legalised abortion draws closer to our shores let us stand up and be compassionately pro-life.

Arthur Galea Salomone is president of the Cana Movement.

The notion of reforming something generally denotes betterment, not regression. In countries governed by dictators, reform normally refers to the end of dictatorship and the beginning of democracy. Indeed, to refer to the reverse as being reform would constitute gross misuse of the word and abuse of the spirit of reform.

Maltese law currently leaves no stone unturned in its effort to protect life in all its stages. Various laws, including the Constitution, the European Convention Act, the Civil Code, the Embryo Protection Act, the Criminal Code and the Domestic Violence Act (as they currently stand), reaffirm and reinforce the inviolability of human life. Rightly, the act of injuring or of taking life is met with punishment. Since law exists to regulate human relationships, one can say that the very fact that laws exist can be taken to mean that the most basic function of law is to protect human life.

Over decades, Malta’s social policy has developed advanced and integrated social services that help people in difficult situations. This safety net carries out the State’s duty to care for its citizens, as opposed to the limited notion of a State whose sole duty is to protect its external borders. The safety net allows those who fall on hard times to turn to the State for help in order to be able to get back on their feet.

The Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe recently saw fit to try to bully Malta into introducing abortion: we must reform our laws in order to be in line with our fellow Council of Europe Member States. According to Nils Muiznieks, extending the protection of law to the first nine months of human life is a violation of human rights.

As a lawyer, that strikes me as rather bizarre logic. How can it be contrary to human rights to protect the life of the youngest humans? It follows logically that amending our laws to allow the killing of children does not constitute reform, but regression. Introducing abortion would do a fantastic job of taking Malta to the Stone Age. The only thing left for us to do would be to start sacrificing children to false gods at Ħaġar Qim.

Muiznieks’ statement that parties to the European Convention on Human Rights have a human rights-based obligation to allow abortion is wrong. In various cases involving the beginning of human life and the recognition of parentage, the Court has repeatedly ruled that countries enjoy wide discretion, a “wide margin of appreciation”, in defining such matters. The Court essentially stated that the matter of when life begins is not within its competence to decide.

Muiznieks himself admits that the only times the Court ruled in favour of abortion was when it ruled on cases where it was already legal in the country in question. However, nowhere has the Court ever said that a country that did not allow abortion was acting in violation of human rights. In any case, were the Court ever to say that, it would be plain wrong.

In view of Muiznieks’ misinformed denial of a prenatal right to life, it is opportune to refer to the Declaration on the Rights of the Child (1959), which served as a basis for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). The preamble to the declaration 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”.

Muiznieks also confuses the concept of abortion with the notion of care. One can refer to care either in the medical sense of healthcare or in the simpler sense of one person caring for, or showing genuine concern, for another person. The introduction of abortion, which Muiznieks is so eager to see, fits neither the medical sense nor the personal notion of care and concern.

Medically, one refers to the Hippocratic oath, which obliges physicians to do no harm. If killing a pre-born child does not classify as harm, then I honestly do not know what does.

The second sense of the word ‘care’ can easily depict the mother or the father caring for their son or daughter. Alternatively, it can refer to a friend supporting a mother going through an unplanned pregnancy in such a way as to reassure her that there is always hope, and killing the baby is not necessary.

If one truly cares about someone, one does not kill the person one cares about. Caring and killing are mutually exclusive. Since Muiznieks does not question the humanity of babies, it is puzzling that he can refer to abortion – which results in the death of a child – as care.

Maltese law on abortion needs no reform. The only reform Maltese society needs is to accompany people in difficult situations with greater love and compassion. Of their nature, authentic love and authentic compassion affirm life, not destroy it. This is what Maltese society should aspire to.

Ramon Bonett Sladden is a lawyer.

It’s quite fascinating that all those in favour of abortion have already been born. One would think that as civilised society, we ought to consider the eventual reservations unborn children might have before ending their life prematurely. But not all share this view.

Last Sunday I had the displeasure of watching Lara Dimitrijevic of the so-called “Women’s rights Foundation” fumble away her ‘argument’ for abortion, if you could even call it that.

During the interview, no attempt was made to resolve the right to life with what she insisted is a woman’s “right to end a pregnancy”. It’s quite bizarre that the human life inside the womb was never really considered except to implicitly underline that it apparently isn’t entitled to the same rights enjoyed by other humans in Ms Dimitrijevic’s view.

Immediately, any viewer with even a modicum of common sense is taken aback, as Ms Dimitrijevic self-assuredly declares that abortion is “not an issue related to a man, but is specifically related to a woman”. Really? This jaw-dropping insight is just too much to handle already. But in any case, here’s a bombshell observation: No woman can conceive a child without the spermatozoa of a man.

If you want a grownup discussion and to be taken seriously, please revisit your elementary biology classes beforehand, Ms Dimitrijevic.

To highlight one of her many contradictions, at one point she says: “the right to abortion is not a fundamental right but right to access to abortion is a fundamental human right.”Prior to this, in the beginning of the interview, Ms Dimitrijevic had just said that “reproductive rights are also fundamental human rights. But the problem with fundamental human rights is that you can put one against the other.”

Could you please make up your mind?

Not only have you refuted your own point, but you’ve also admitted that the human life inside the womb is also entitled to “fundamental human rights”. Either you haven’t a clue of what you’re saying, or you mistake self-composure as a substitute for coherent arguments. If you’re going to robotically repeat the phrase “fundamental human right” with each breath, then at least try to be consistent.

As soon as you place human rights on a pedestal, which include the absolute right to life, then you do not have a leg to stand on when you exempt unborn humans from this absolute. In other words, the same way one does not have the right to kill her neighbour, one does not have the right to kill her own baby. This isn’t rocket science.

Adding to the comical nature of these contradictory assertions, for which Ms Dimitrijevic goes out of her way to render insufferable, she also tries to substantiate her clumsy claims through repetition – because if you repeat a falsehood for long enough you’ll eventually believe it -rationalising your way through your own made-up fiction. In fact, this is a great example of what the total abnegation of reason looks like.

The interviewer then asks: “given that the argument is that it already happens, then why does it need to be put into a legal structure?” To which Ms Dimitrijevic’s answer is that “it all boils down to choice,” revealing her true intentions in the process. She also alludes to the fact that other countries do it, which is presented as some kind of supportive claim – it isn’t. Do not take comfort in the false security of consensus, as you may find that you’re on the wrong side.

As you continue to sift through the interview in futile attempts to detect some semblance of logic, you realise that it’s not about special cases where “the mother’s life is in danger”. Such highly unusual circumstances – for which modern medical technology drastically mitigates – are only presented for their sentimental social currency, masking the true underlying beliefs and intentions. Even so, there is no logic in making the exception the norm, which is precisely what you’re arguing for, all be it incoherent “from the get-go”, as you would say.

To dehumanise life in the womb by omission, which incidentally is what murderers do before they kill their victim, is to voluntarily choose to reject your sacred human rights and replace them with a twisted and convenient ideological narrative. And since this can only come about either through profound ignorance or malevolence, pro-life exponents – whose ethical, moral and reasonable stance on abortion is as clear as anything could ever get – need only call out these feminist harpies for the liars or ignoramuses that they are – either of which is ample reason to exempt them from the discussion.

So irrespective of what semantics game pro-abortionists want to play, which I suspect is the next phase, those who value logical consistency can treat those who attempt to redefine human life without including biological reality as if they’re saying that 2 + 2 = 5.This is to say that those determined to repeatedly demonstrate their foolishness should be treated as fools. Either that or they are knowingly lying to you about their motives.

The left supposedly stands for the down-trodden, for the innocent who don’t have a voice or the defenceless who haven’t the means to articulate their wishes. Who speaks for the unborn in your one-way street, Ms Dimitrijevic?

And in the absence of any real arguments or coverage against abortion by our activist media masquerading as news outlets, one ought to consider the side-lined bloody history of this slaughterhouse, which exists independently of anecdotal sob-stories and non-arguments. Indeed, the Johnston Archive in combination with the Abortion Worldwide report published abortion figures in the communist paradise previously known as the USSR, for which the same nonsensical arguments for abortion were made.

The figures are astounding, to say the least. Three years after the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, there were 4,816,000 live births to 10,000 abortions. By the end of the regime in 1991, that rate exploded to 4,599,840 births to 6,014,000 abortions every year. That’s 1.6 abortions for every live birth – entire generations of people, future doctors, scientists and scholars, erased, wiped out of existence because of an idiotic and sinister idea that paints murder as a human right.

Not only do those who call for the normalisation of abortion have no recognition of the masses of graves that have been allowed to happen, either due to direct omission or convenient negligence, but they also have nothing to say about the fact that abortion eventually becomes the de facto method of contraception, regardless of whether the government is made to subsidize people’s sex lives –another luminary proposition by brain dead progressives.

I expect accusations of “fear mongering,” but know that facts exist irrespective of these pitiful claims – used by cowards and repeated by morons.

In the end, I can see no instance where giving a child up for adoption isn’t preferable to killing it.

As such, there isn’t much left to say except to restate the blindingly obvious observation that one cannot be for “fundamental human rights” and simultaneously advocate for abortion. The two are diametrically opposed.

With this truth in mind, it’s time to instantiate the unconditional right to life from the moment of conception in the constitution before this propagandistic madness infects more impressionable minds.

As evolutionary behavioural scientist Dr Gad Saad would say, the progressive tsunami of lunacy never breaks from smashing against the shores of your sanity.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-04-01/newspaper-opinions/The-folly-of-pro-abortion-activism-6736187267

We made a difference last week at the United Nations. Thanks in part to thousands of Citizengoers, the anti-family and anti-life agenda did not advance at the Commission on the Status of Women.

I hope you received my note last week regarding CitizenGO’s activities at the United Nations. Six members of the CitizenGO team travelled to New York City to defend our shared values at the 62nd Commission on the Status of Women. Our team travelled from Slovakia, Hungary, Canada, Kenya, and the United States to bring your voice to the UN.

Our goals?

• To delete abortion and comprehensive sexuality education from the commission’s agreed conclusions.
• To encourage the UN to support the family.
• To ask the UN to focus their resources on initiatives that promote the real needs of rural women, including clean water, eradicating hunger and poverty, and maternal health.
• To ensure that gender ideology is not enshrined in another international agreement.

I am happy to report that we were successful on each of these fronts!

The final agreed conclusions:

• Do not enshrine Abortion or LGBT rights.
• Qualify “reproductive rights” to exclude abortion.
• Ensure that “direction and guidance from parents and legal guardians” is included in sex education.
• Do not include the term “Women in all their diversity” (code for transgender rights).
• Do not include the term “Family diversity” (code for homosexual rights).

These are just a few of the ways we saw victory for life, family, and freedom at the 62nd Commission on the Status of Women.

How did CitizenGO help make this possible? 

During our time in New York, we encouraged country delegates to push back against the “abortion rights” and “gender ideology” movement at the UN.

We delivered over 150,000 petition signatures to country delegates. We had nonstop conversations with delegates and NGO representatives in the halls of the UN. We handed out hundreds of pamphlets that discussed the dangers of Comprehensive Sexuality Education. We partnered with Family Watch International to co-sponsor their rally against Comprehensive Sexuality Education. We attended and supported events that discussed the cultural imperialism of the abortion movement, that called out the eugenic movement against down syndrome babies, and that supported other worthy causes.

These are just a few of the ways we acted to encourage the pro-life and pro-family movement at the United Nations.

And our actions made a difference! Just ask the liberal lobby at the UN. In a UN Dispatch, a Program Officer for International Policy at the International Women’s Health Coalition specifically called out CitizenGO for pushing back against “sexual orientation and gender identity” and “sexual and reproductive rights.” Jacobson states:

Unfortunately, we have seen a massive influx of anti-human rights and anti-gender equality organizations occupying the space, blocking progress and spreading misinformation. Last year, for example, a European organization called Citizen Go brought their “hate bus” to the CSW. These groups have brought an intense polarization based on lies to some of the most important topics that the CSW should address, including sexual orientation and gender identity, sexual and reproductive rights, and child, early and forced marriage. This polarization is incredibly damaging at the CSW because it operates through consensus. The result is that on some key issues a small group of anti-human rights countries water down commitments to the lowest common denominator – they’re basically negotiating our human rights away.

We know we are doing something right when we are called out for resisting the anti-life and anti-family ideology at the UN. Congratulations!

We also made a difference in the minds of individual delegates. 

Miriam Kuzarova, CitizenGO’s representative from Slovakia, discussed Comprehensive Sexuality Education with a delegate from the United Kingdom. The delegate confronted Miriam, blaming her for spreading lies about the Comprehensive Sexuality Education curriculum. Miriam told her to check for herself, using the information and links we provided in our handout (links to UN documents!). Later that day, the delegate approached Miriam and apologized, telling Miriam that she was right. The UK delegate could not believe what was included in the Comprehensive Sexuality Curriculum!

Many delegates willfully push for comprehensive sexuality education despite its evils, but many others are simply ignorant of the evils present in the curriculum. We provided information to these delegates and opened their eyes to these evils.

I wish I could tell you more about each of the conversations we had, each of the events we attended, and each of the ways we saw hearts and minds change, but I know you are busy. I hope this message encourages you and shows you that your voice was present at the United Nations last week!

Thank you for standing with us to defend life, family, and freedom around the world. We could not do our work without your support.

Sincerely,

Caroline Craddock and the entire CitizenGO team

P.S. I want to leave you with a few photos from our time at the UN. As you can see, we kept ourselves busy! 

 

CitizenGO representatives Eszter Zaymus (far left) and Caroline Craddock (far right) at a rally against Comprehensive Sexuality Education.

 

CitizenGO’s Slovakian representative Miriam Kuzarova delivered signatures to the Slovakian delegation.

 

CitizenGO Canada representative David Cooke (far left) with representatives of other NGOs. David stayed at the UN until 5:00am on Thursday to encourage pro-life and pro-family delegates during heated (all-night!) negotiations. 

 

CitizenGO representatives Eszter Zaymus, Caroline Craddock, Miriam Kuzarova, and Ann Kioko at the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York. We took an afternoon to lobby for the pro-life movement in Ireland.

 

CitizenGO representatives Caroline Craddock, Gregory Mertz, Eszter Zaymus, Miriam Kuzarova, and David Cooke delivered over 150,000 signatures for life and family at the UN. 

 

CitizenGO representative Ann Kioko delivered over 150,000 petition signatures to US representatives.

 

The Gender-Based Violence and Domestic Violence Bill purports to incorporate the Istanbul Convention on Domestic Violence into our laws.

In fact, it does more than that. It amends the previous Domestic Violence Act of 2006, piloted by former minister Dolores Cristina, and removes from the definition of household member any previous reference to “the child conceived but yet unborn” of any person living with another in a marriage or extramarital relationship.

The Life Network and other non-governmental organisations have rightly objected to this deletion. Deleting any reference to the unborn child means that the beneficial effects of the new Bill cannot be applied to the unborn. This includes drafting and implementing an action plan, as required by the Bill, to be monitored by a new commission regarding domestic violence.

So, apart from the conceptual objections to the removal of a reference to the unborn child, there are also practical implications, since the deletion would diminish the protection even as regards prevention, which existed under the 2006 Act.

I am not saying that the deletion of any reference to the unborn child renders abortion legal in Malta.

Abortion remains a crime under the Criminal Code; what I am stating is that a protection as regards prevention which applied to the unborn child applies no more under the new Bill.

The government has repeatedly stated that it is against the wilful termination of a pregnancy, so why insist on the removal of any reference to the unborn child in the new Bill?

The Prime Minister and the piloting minister, Helena Dalli, were quoted as saying that the reference is superfluous, since the word ‘descendants’ found in the Bill includes the unborn child.

However, apart from the fact that any first-year law student would soon tell you that under our law, a reference to an unborn child, to be legally effective, has to be specific. The Attorney General told a parliamentary committee he does not know of any law in Malta which includes an unborn child under the definition of ‘descendant’, and he is right and correct at law. 

Consequently, in view of this clear statement, does it make sense to continue to insist that the deletion should stand?

This was no lapsus or mistake, for when the Opposition moved an amendment to reintroduce the reference to the unborn child, it was vehemently resisted, rejected and defeated by the government.

It is therefore natural that pro-life activists and ordinary citizens are questioning the purpose of such a deletion.

Was it the result of pressure from the “liberal and progressive” lobby ensconced in Dalli’s ministry, which also proposes an equality commission which will fine any organisation which does not abide by its dictates on what is morally acceptable?

As stated in the position paper issued by the Church in Malta, the proposal contains a clear risk of subjective interpretation, such as penalising a pamphlet or literature which promotes the Christian concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Besides, the proposal inverts the burden of proof so that anyone accused of imaginary discrimination will have to prove that he is innocent rather than the authorities having to prove his guilt.

A recent survey showed that over 85 per cent of Maltese are against any form of abortion. This will should be respected, even though the issue of life or death should not be gauged by popularity in surveys or otherwise.

The sanctity of life is enmeshed in the idea of human dignity irrespective of popular recognition.

But when a government insists that it is right on an issue where all legal pundits say that it is wrong, then indeed everyone has the right to come to their own conclusions as to whether there is some hidden agenda in the government’s mind.

Nor should the government, in trying to justify its errors, attack others, falsely accusing them of an ambivalent attitude on the right to life when the only ambivalence is that of the government on this issue.

When the Prime Minister, a fortnight ago, accused me of stating, during the hearing for my approval as a European Commissioner in November 2012, that there was one law in Malta and I apply another law within the EU, he knew that this was not true.

What I said during the hearing was that while I affirmed my belief that human life starts at conception, under EU law, the Commission had no right to interfere on the issue, which was governed exclusively by the separate laws of Member States.

Now is the time for a government which boasts of its pro-life credentials to eliminate any ambivalent or equivocal impression and reintroduce the protection of the unborn child in the Bill.

If it does not, everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusion about the commitment of the government to protect life from conception.

Indeed, this Bill, like so many other things done in recent years, could be truly the thin end of the wedge, diluting the law on protection of unborn human life.

Tonio Borg is a former deputy prime minister and European commissioner.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180328/opinion/the-thin-end-of-the-wedge-tonio-borg.674697

Nicole  Borg  –  26/03/18 05:12 PM

Jeanesse Abela, mara b’diżabbiltà li kontinwament tissielet sabiex turi lis-soċjetà li ħadd m’għandu jwarrab persuni bħalha, temmen li allaħares ommha għamlet abort.

Ma’ Newsbook.com.mt, Jeanesse spjegat li kieku ħafna servizzi għall-persuni b’diżabbiltà ma jeżistux għax hi kompliet dak li bdew għadd ta’ ġenituri f’NGO favur id-diżabbiltà.

Fissret li meta twieldet hi, lil ommha qalulha li mhix se titkellem u li se tgħix ħajjitha fi stat veġetali. Madanakollu, id-determinazzjoni ta’ Jeanesse li tgħix ħajja normali ssorprendiet lil kulħadd.

Sostniet li qatt ma tista’ taqbel mal-abort, għax temmen li kulħadd għandu kapaċitajiet li jista’ jiżviluppa.

Jeanesse insisitiet li t-tobba qegħdin hemmhekk biex jagħtu l-pariri u mhux joqtlu, u għalhekk, jekk jagħtu l-parir lil xi omm biex tagħmel abort, ikunu ħatja ta’ qtil huma wkoll.

Hi għamlet ukoll l-appell tagħha lil dawk il-ġenituri li qed jistennew tarbija u li jsiru jafu li se tkun diżabbli, sabiex jirrifjutaw li jagħmlu abort u jirrealizzaw li llum il-ġurnata hawn is-sapport kollu meħtieġ sabiex persuni b’diżabbilità jgħixu ħajja kemm jista’ jkun normali.

Il-ġurnata ta’ Jeanesse hija waħda tipika. Taħdem bħal kull persuna oħra, toħroġ ma’ sħabha, u tgawdi l-ħajja. Hija wkoll iżżomm ruħha attiva fis-soċjetà u sabiex tagħti sapport lin-nies bħala, flimkien ma’ persuni oħra, kienet waqqfet l-għaqda L.A.N.D. li toffri post lil persuni b’diżabilità fiżika biex jiltaqgħu u jissoċjalizzaw.

Filwaqt li taf li għandha l-limitazzjonijiet tagħha u li għandha bżonn ammont ta’ għajnuna minn persuni oħra sabiex tkun tista’ tkompli b’ħajjitha, Jeanesse tidher determinata li qatt mhi se taqta’ qalbha milli tkompli turi lil kulħadd kemm persuni b’diżabbiltà kapaċi jaslu fil-ħajja.

Jekk tixtieq tagħmel kuntatt ma’ Jeanesse u tisma’ u tara l-esperjenzi tagħha tista’ tingħaqad mal-grupp li ħolqot fuq Facebook bl-isem ta’ Janna’s Club.

Ref: http://www.newsbook.com.mt/artikli/2018/3/26/%22allahares-ommi-ghamlet-abort%22—mara-b%27dizabilita.73106/