Author: lifenetwork

Born to first generation Latvian immigrants in the USA, born, raised and educated in the United States of America, Nils Muiznieks obtained a Ph.D. in political science at the University of California at Berkeley (1993). Prior to that, he graduated as a Bachelor of Arts in politics at Princeton University summa cum laude and obtained a Master of Arts degree in political science from the same university (1988). Prior to his appointment as Commissioner for Human Rights, he held prominent posts such as Programme Director at the Soros Foundation-Latvia, Director of the Advanced Social and Political Research Institute at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Latvia in Riga (2005-2012); Chairman of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (2010-2012); Latvian minister responsible for social integration, anti-discrimination, minority rights, and civil society development (2002-2004); and Director of the Latvian Centre for Human Rights and Ethnic Studies (now Latvian Centre for Human Rights) (1994-2002). Member of Latvia’s First Party (Incidentally a party of the Right, 2003-2005), its co-chairman and one of its ministers in the government. His academic and political background speaks for itself as does the slip showing under his dress!

I had been a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg for seven years and among my portfolios were membership of the Human Rights Sub-Committee. I know enough from my experience there, that Nils’ sudden urge and enthusiasm to promote abortion in Malta is not one of the requirements of his political office but his own personal agenda. The office of Human Rights Commissioner is there to enforce the letter and spirit of the European Convention of Human Rights and the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECHR). Nowhere do any of these instruments of law or judgements mention or attempt to enforce abortion in any country of the Council of Europe member states or even attempt to state that abortion is a fundamental right. I believe that Nil’s remit should be to stick to the written and judgemental decisions of these august bodies rather than try and bring about new abortion rights on his initiative and own agenda.

However, just to remind him about what is written in the European Convention for Human Rights, there is a clause which mentions a right to life – not a right to adult life, nor a right to a child’s life but a right to the life of a human being. As any doctor and embryologist are able to tell him, human life scientifically starts at fertilisation. There is no particular stage of development after that which makes a human life a non-human being. There is not a single judgement of the European Court (ECHR) that purports to enforce the rule that life should only be protected after birth and that the right of a woman to choose is a prima facie right compared to the life of the unborn child. This could only be construed therefore as pushing his personal agenda.

Prima facie rights in law and ethics tend to weigh importance and consider the outcome when a number of rights pertaining to different human beings tend to clash. The court or the individual body of rational or legal judgement then weighs which is the more important right for whom. Is it the right to life of a human being at any stage of development or is it the right for a woman to choose. As opposed to American law, no European Higher Court has ever decided this in terms of a preference of the woman right to choose. Reason clearly shows us, as do social studies and Abraham Maslow’s pyramid of needs which puts self-actualization especially, the acceptance of facts (you cannot self-actualize if you are not there), at the pinnacle of his pyramid. What is more important at law and in ethics: the preservation of the very existence of a human being or the right of another individual on the expedient choice on what to do with this other human being due to personal issues on the quality of a particular life? It is obvious to anyone that the right to innocent human life and dignity trumps all other rights. It stands at the top of the pyramid of rights. I need to exist to have any rights at all.

Nils should know this. As the son of a Latvian medical doctor and architectural historian who needed to escape the ravages of Nazi Germany and fly as refugees to the USA, I ask him whether the purported right of the self-actualization and integrity of his immigrant parents were secondary to other people’s rights on how to treat them? There is no doubt that the right to life of innocent human beings at any stage of life is prima facie right and primary to the rights of choice of any other human being, including that of choice. It is prima facie wrong to take the life of innocent human beings be they born, unborn, senior citizens, people with disabilities or refugees!

So rectification of intention and way are called for here as his position in challenging the Maltese right to exercise subsidiarity on the proper enforcement of these Maltese and European rights is being taken to task by a Commissioner who is supposed to be enforcing those rights and the judgements of the ECHR and also respecting our subsidiarity. Since Nils seems to have lost track of his front and derriere I suggest the following. First that he desists in insulting all the Maltese people who cherish the rights and freedoms of innocent human beings and know where their priorities lie and have chosen to put their priorities first in law. Second, to desist from denigrating the principle of subsidiarity of an independent and sovereign proud people who respect their beginnings and ends and choose to respect the beginnings and ends of others. Third, to desist from interfering in the affairs of a member state of the European Union which lists the respect to human dignity as the first point in its Charter of Fundamental Rights and has a clause in its membership treaty against abortion and in favour of the rights of the unborn (and born). Fourth, to stick to the remit to which he was elected and leave personal agendas out of his job.

If I were still a Maltese member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (nothing to do with the European Union – Malta joined in 1965 after independence), of which we have four, two from both sides of the House, I would raise this issue at the quarterly Assembly meetings in Strasbourg and in the multiple committee meetings in Paris. I would kindly but firmly raise the matter that Nils is grossly out of order and point out that he is interfering in the sovereign rights of a people and nation, that it is not within his official remit to enforce abortion and that subsequently he should know where to withdraw, get off his high horse and show us his derriere! Otherwise the government should do this through the proper channels (if it wants to – seriously), as can do other organisations represented on the CoE such as the Church! Men and women should be made of sterner stuff.

Dr Asciak is Senior Lecturer II in the Institute of Applied Science at MCAST

Abortion Has No Business in Malta

Abortion is illegal in Malta and the populace plans to keep it that way. In fact, before the country  joined the European Union (EU), it received assurances that the nation would not be pressured to legalize abortion. Now the Council of Europe is interjecting itself into Maltese affairs.

Now pro-life Maltese are furious, and rightly so. February 27^th Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner, published an opinion piece in The Times of Malta, pontificating that Maltese should have access to abortion. He then proceeded to list examples of past censures by other bodies on other pro-life nations such as Ireland and Poland, to “justify” his argument. And ironically, he speaks of the mother’s “right to life,” but also states: “It is clear to me that this right does not apply prior to birth.”

Council of Europe Powerless

The Council of Europe has no binding power on Malta or other nations. Human Life International stands with The Gift of Life Foundation in Malta, which quickly responded to the non-native Latvian Commissioner’s comments. Gift of Life’s Paul Vincenti:

“This is the second time this year that Nils Muižnieks, Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner, has attempted to kick start a political debate on legalizing abortion in Malta. Most likely, the new group of radical feminists in Malta that was set up two years ago is attempting to influence our pro-life laws via a coordinated attack on life from various sources internationally. We do expect to see additional attacks on Malta’s pro-life laws from international bodies working in coordination with this radical feminist group.

A recent poll carried out by a local newspaper showed clearly that the Maltese are in their vast majority against the legalization of abortion. A link to this research is available.

We remain confident that this will have no immediate effect on Maltese law. However, we are proactive in thwarting the devastating effects that will come about if we ignore the resolve of pro-abortion movement in Malta.”

HLI Director for International Outreach and Expansion, Dr. Joseph Meaney, just returned from Malta. In the soon-to-be-issued Mission Report for March, he writes:

“After I gave several radio interviews and a public lecture on “pro-life answers to pro-abortion questions”, the prime minister’s office felt compelled to put out a statement that there are no plans to legalize abortion. It further added Maltese public opinion does not favor abortion, nor was there an electoral mandate to change abortion.”

This article is available at https://www.hli.org/2018/02/malta-furious-council-europe/

Human Life International (HLI) is the world’s largest pro-life organization. Founded by Fr. Paul Marx nearly fifty years ago and currently led by Fr. Shenan J. Bouquet, HLI is actively in 100 nations around the globe. Faithful to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, it works in collaboration with Vatican curial offices and Catholic dioceses around the world. Recently the Holy See’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life listed HLI as one of thirteen pro-life websites. For more information see www.hli.org.

Is it possible that we re­main so utterly uninformed as to automatically accuse anyone opposing a new Bill of supporting domestic violence? It should be obvious to all that the least one should do is to have first read and fully understood the proposed law and its implications before indulging in violent retaliation against any opposition to it.

It is a paramount duty to act against domestic violence at national and international level and it is laudable that the punishment for rape be raised. However, it is no more than cheap political showmanship when members of Parliament choose to slang each other off over a Bill that even the Hungarian Parliament has declared a Trojan Horse.

Maltese citizens must not be duped into believing that this Bill is intended simply to protect victims of domestic violence when it is designed to repeal the present Domestic Violence Act while stripping away the rights of parents as primary educators.

This is an appeal to all Maltese parents and educators to look more closely at what is being proposed, there being no greater evidence that this Bill is fundamentally flawed than when members of Parliament resort exclusively to direct attack on all voices of dissent, having found no other way of defending it.

We demand genuine discussion on the true content of this Bill. At its most basic level, it makes no legislative sense to repeal a law that has already transposed the Istanbul Convention.

Despite its name, this Bill is less concerned with the protection of victims of domestic violence than it is with the creation of universally gender-neutral language. It is intended to create the illusion of Parliament enforcing the Istanbul Convention when the reality is that the Convention is already part of our law, specifically chapter 532 of the laws of Malta.

What does it say of our Parliament when it shamelessly resorts to cheap attempts to trick and make a mockery of the Maltese people in its efforts to push through laws that purport to be something other than what they really are?

This Bill is not about protecting victims of domestic violence. They are already protected under the current local laws. It is about redefining the defined and sabotaging the rights of the Maltese people to leave them at the mercy of an ideological agenda.

While the Istanbul Convention contains many useful provisions that could effectively help victims of domestic violence (shelters, legal aid, restraining orders) the vast majority of these positive provisions are already regulated by the national legislation.

This Bill, as it stands, defeats the purpose of the Istanbul Convention, which is that of increasing protection of women specifically because they are women. Instead, it renders women gender-neutral, robbing them of the exclusive characteristic that the Istanbul Convention sets out to protect.

How can we claim that this Bill is intended to introduce a more robust protection for victims of domestic violence when it strikes the unborn child off the list of household members?

The current Domestic Violence Act, Chapter 481 of the laws of Malta, includes and refers to the “child conceived but yet unborn”.  The Bill will repeal this law and, in so doing, omits the unborn child from the list. This is no mere oversight and the fact that no proviso has been made for it can only mean that the carefully-camouflaged pro­cess of stripping away every form of protection for the unborn child has advanced another step.

According to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights, parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. The Istanbul Convention departs from this understanding, resulting in severe infringement of the rights of parents to ensure their children receive education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

If parents oppose controversial sex education classes and correlated books where children are encouraged to explore different sexual orientations, they will henceforth be accused of violence.

Eradicating customs that are based on the inferiority of women is praiseworthy but the Istanbul Convention also seeks to change “social and cultural patterns of behaviour of women and men with a view to eradicating prejudices, customs, traditions and all other practices which are based on… stereotyped roles of women and men”.

Culture, custom, religion, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ shall not be considered as justification for any acts of violence covered by the scope of this Convention. Does this mean criminalising institutions that base their teaching on all the psychological and biological evidence that there do exist differences between men and women?

In Germany, families who wish to opt for home schooling are facing tremendous pressure to conform. In the case of the Wunderlichs family, the German government violently removed children from their home. Such behaviour is not acceptable under Germany’s international obligations to the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

This sort of Marxist aggression should provide a deterrent to European countries from using such in terrorem tactics against families. When the State sabotages the “prior rights of parents to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children”, it justifiably lays itself open to accusations of domestic and even national violence.

Sara Portelli is a lawyer.

The fact that Edwin Vassallo chose to vote against the Domestic Violence Bill should have been a wake-up call for our MPs.

Nationalist Party MP Vassallo has made a name for himself by risking his political career when he defied the imposition of the then party leader Simon Busuttil, to disallow MPs to vote according to their conscience on the issue of ‘gay marriage’.

The proposed Domestic Violence Bill sounds nice and the government propaganda machine presented it in the most glowing of terms. Obviously, tighter and harsher laws against domestic violence are welcome and underscore that society should fight violence, domestic or otherwise.

Yet, embedded in this fine-sounding Bill lies a sinister agenda that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with domestic violence. After all, the current laws in Malta are more than adequate to address this issue. So, one should ask, why the proposed change, and why the urgency?

The very least the people can expect from their representatives in Parliament is that before voting on a Bill, parliamentarians take their responsibility seriously enough, to read the proposed legislation, understand it and study its implications most carefully.

It is mind-boggling if not outright scandalous that time and time again, laws that impact the core values of society are rushed through without time for reflection and debate. By now, it should be blindingly obvious that the government is infiltrated with activists who have a well-defined malevolent agenda.

Under the guise of the smokescreen of positive slogans championing equality, freedom, inclusion and what have you, lies a deliberate strategy to undermine values that have underpinned our society for centuries. 

The Domestic Violence Bill intentionally excludes clear protection of the unborn child, fortifies further the gender ideology and for good measure usurps the right of parents to raise their children according to their religious and ethical convictions.

Various people writing in the press tell us that these changes might have been inadvertently included and it is just a matter of proposing a few amendments to correcting the shortcomings to make the Bill acceptable. Following what has happened with previous legislation, this is very doubtful.

For instance, it is shocking that the Istanbul Convention will now accuse and punish parents who refuse to have their children indoctrinated with controversial sex education and teachings that bring into question and deny the biological reality of male and female.

A previous attempt to peddle books promoting homosexuality in schools were aborted mainly thanks to Ivan Grech Mintoff who alerted parents to what was afoot and marshalled a vigorous public reaction.

The Domestic Violence Bill, as it stands, goes a step further. It even adds changes to the Istanbul Convention itself, making matters even worse. To pretend that such changes to the Istanbul Convention in this drafted Bill were made inadvertently beggars belief. By now, only an ostrich could fail to see the well-crafted programme that is steadily trying to further whittle away legal safeguards of life and the traditional family.

It is most disheartening that only Vassallo bothered to do his homework and expose the rot. Now that he has done so, one expects all our MPs to follow suit, examine the Bill with a magnifying glass and go through it with a toothcomb.

In turn, it is the responsibility of all people of goodwill to be acutely vigilant. It is of crucial importance that the public is enlightened by being informed of what is actually going on.

Klaus Vella Bardon is deputy chairman of Life Network Foundation Malta.

In one of the first interviews given in 2008 by Joseph Muscat, newly elected Leader of the then Malta Labour Party, he was asked which politician he admired most and who his role model was. His immediate reply was Zapatero, the then Prime Minister of Spain. Maltese observers of the political scene in Spain were taken aback and wondered at the time if Joseph Muscat really intended to emulate Zapatero and introduce such deep cultural changes in Malta.

From 2004 to 2011, Spain was governed by the extreme socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, a radical gender ideologue who knew what he wanted – “Today Spain is on the cutting edge of a radical international project that will deeply affect the family… a far reaching project to change the cultural values that will determine Spain’s social and historical identity for a long time.” This radical international project marched behind a concept of freedom that had been ’emancipated’ from reality. In his words: “It is freedom that makes us true. Not the truth that makes us free.” (Ref: Demographic Deficit. Family rights and human capital in Europe. Experiments on families – Member States experiences and consequences: SPAIN,” ECR Group, Brussels, November 17, 2010).

As Zapatero said,” We stand before a global project of social transformation with the goal of destroying the old order and building a new order. We have never passed so many laws in such a short time that change the lives of the individual.”

During his time in office, Zapatero used “legislation as the decisive key to cultural change”. The following laws were passed under his regime: a law against gender violence; a quickie divorce law (the number  of divorces soared from 51,000 in 2004 to almost 122,000 in 2008); free distribution of the morning after pill without prescription; legalisation of artificial methods of reproduction; free choice of gender identity; legalisation of same sex “marriage”; equal treatment and anti-discrimination laws; reform of the law on religious freedom; legalisation of abortion-on-demand; legalisation of therapeutic cloning and the introduction of obligatory sex education in favour of “diversity” and against “homophobia”(children have been taken out of their homes and put into social care in instances where parents refused compulsory education), and the introduction of obligatory education in gender biology.

The Zapatero regime came to an abrupt end. The destruction of the culture as well as extreme financial mismanagement led to the government’s ousting in 2011. Zapatero’s dream was over, but the legally mandated Cultural Revolution during his seven-year regime left behind a deeply torn society that is still grappling with this situation today. The cost in terms of the fight for life, respect for the family, and for the inviolable dignity of the person is incomprehensible and will take years to undo. Unfortunately, the European Union is pursuing very similar anti-life goals for the 500 million residents of its member states and in the process usurping parental rights, pushing abortion as part of comprehensive sexual health and imposing gender mainstreaming.

Is this where Malta is going? What is next? Are the Honourable Members of both sides of the House aware of all this? The authentic freedom of all EU citizens is at stake. This ideological dictatorship will collapse one day as did the reign of Zapatero and many others before him who experimented on the unsuspecting citizens. However, the damage in the aftermath will affect us all. Maltese society as we know it now will have disappeared.

Why would we barter what we have? Why sell our life and family values? At present, life in Malta is protected from its conception by the Embryo Protection Act, but if one follows the media circus, it is evident that this is specifically being targeted. The slow introduction of gender mainstreaming threatens the heart of family life and values as we know them. Eradication of gender stereotypes is an attack on the scientifically proven complementarity of man and woman, mother and father, brother and sister. These are not words but also role models that every child needs and craves for in his or her holistic development. Maternal bonding starts in utero – this is also scientifically proven, but we only use science when it is convenient.

Religious freedom is also a human right. Gender mainstreaming will try to limit religion to the private sphere. The major religions will never accept the marriage other than that between a biological man and a biological woman open to life. That is part of the transmission of faith. Will anyone who dares to believe this and teach it to his children be criminalised? Will parents who refuse to teach only biological sex in the school curriculum as only that between man and woman be criminalised? Will parents be given the right to opt out? Will parents be able to decide what books their children will read? The upcoming Istanbul Convention implementation into our laws (Bill 14) includes undermining parental authority and religious freedom. Are the citizens aware of this or are we being intentionally misled? When will the leaders of our communities wake up? Will Joseph Muscat and our government continue in the steps of the shoemaker?

Dr Sciberras is the Chairman of the Life Network Foundation Malta

During the Christmas season more than any other time, the Maltese generously seek to help the needy of every kind. At the highest levels, this is also accomplished through legislation which seeks to protect the most vulnerable. An example of this is legislation providing for further protection of women who go through domestic violence.

While the Gender-Based Violence and Domestic Violence Bill seeks to prevent and combat such violence, it is observed that another vulnerable group of human beings, namely the unborn, has been left out.

There is no doubt that neither the government nor the Opposition intend to deprive the unborn of protection. Indeed, it was very clear under the Domestic Violence Act that the unborn child deserves protection from domestic violence just like any other household member.

However, the new Gender-Based Violence and Domestic Violence Bill seeks to transpose the Istanbul Convention and to repeal the Domestic Violence Act.

Thus, the vulnerable unborn children which Parliament sought to protect through the Domestic Violence Act of 2006, are being overlooked.

In view of this, it is imperative to include the unborn child in the definition of “family or domestic unit” as surely the Maltese people want the unborn child to remain protected from violence.

The Istanbul Convention holds that it will not prejudice provisions of internal law under which more favourable rights are accorded. Therefore, adding to the list of protected persons under the definition of “family unit”, “the child conceived but yet unborn”, is in perfect accord with the principles of the convention.

Concerns have been raised regarding the fact that according to Article 39 of the Istanbul Convention transposed in this Bill, it is only a criminal offence for a woman to be forced to undergo an abortion. Article 39 does not criminalise abortion when the woman consents and does not oblige Malta to introduce abortion.

Under the Bill, the Maltese Criminal Code, which criminalises abortion in all circumstances, whether or not the mother consents, remains intact.

This has been confirmed by the government which declared that abortion will remain illegal in Malta.

Since the Istanbul Convention holds that where any ordinary law is inconsistent with the rights set out in the convention, it is the convention that prevails, this would render Maltese law inconsistent with the convention.

In the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Attorney General to draft an opinion confirming the government’s statement. This would clarify the matter and underline the protection due to unborn children.

If it is truly the aim of Parliament to protect all persons who fall victimto gender-based violence and punish perpetrators appropriately, then the unborn child should not be left out of such protection.

This is no far-fetched safeguard when local cases of unborn children killed through domestic violence made headlines only a few months ago.

Sarah Portelli and Ramon Bonett Sladden are lawyers.

I am writing this as Bill 14, incorporating the underhand imposition of the Istanbul Convention ‘a la carte’ dressed up as ‘the Bill for domestic violence’, moves one step closer to becoming the law of the land.

Before I am lambasted as being anti-feminist or in favour of domestic violence, let me make my position clear. Violence of any kind is always unacceptable. This includes obvious physical and other kinds of violence imposed on the vulnerable sectors of society such as vulnerable children (preborn and from conception), the elderly, the disabled, the infirm, etc. The proposed convention does not include all the vulnerable groups who are at risk.

For example, in our current domestic violence law, the preborn child is defined as a member of the household and is protected. Now, they will no longer be protected in this Bill.  Maybe this is an oversight that hopefully will be addressed at committee stage.

Parental rights in the education of their children are also threatened in the Istanbul Convention. Parents are the primary educators of their children, a fundamental right upheld by several international human rights conventions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes it clear that parents have the primary right to educate their children.

The Istanbul Convention violates this right. If it becomes law, this convention will deny the right of parents to refuse any school lessons and/or curricula that include sexuality or comprehensive sexual health issues not in line with their values.

There have been examples in other countries in Europe where children have been taken away from their parents and put into social care because the parents did not approve of what was being taught in the curriculum. The State took over the rights of the parents who were accused of being homophobic.

The convention comes with a mandatory set-up of a policing system. ‘Thought police’, officials responsible for suppressing ideas different from those imposed by the State, will become the order of the day. They will be empowered to usurp what the parents want to teach their children. Tolerance will disappear as laws tighten and the gender ideologues seek to indoctrinate our children. It will no longer be a free society that embraces differences but one where disagreement with what is being imposed puts you at risk.

Political correctness will limit free speech and journalistic freedom. One will no longer be able to speak out on issues pertaining to the family as we know it. We already have a law, that has removed the terms husband, wife, mother, father, son and daughter, to be neutral. Imposing this further in the name of eradicating gender stereotypes is very serious and no one is speaking about it.

Religious freedom and religious conscientious objection will also be endangered. The major religions will be stigmatised as they teach the concept of marriage as that between one man and one woman. Traditional gender roles and stereotypes based on science and natural law will be “challenged” in school curricula. Will ecclesiastical and value-based schools be excluded from this or will this become compulsory teaching?

The recent media attacks on Edwin Vassallo illustrate how ‘tolerance’ will function in practice. If one bothers to examine what the honourable MP said, one will see that he is being subjected to character assassination. He categorically stated that he is against all forms of violence. He even went on to point out that this law would go much further. MP David Agius also mentioned issues that are worrying in this law.

While one may agree or disagree with what was said or with the voting pattern, the journalistic alarm bells should be alerted. Checking out the facts is a serious journalistic challenge. Who will dare take it on?

In a free society, we should see press interviews that dig in to find the facts and expose what, if any, are the worrying aspects of a proposed legislation.

Eliminating inferiority and promoting equality for women is laudable. Eradicating all that makes a woman,including maternity and other typical feminine traits, as part of stereotyping is anti-woman and will not solve domestic violence.

An education campaign aimed at empowering women and vulnerable people together with the teaching of human dignity to boys and girls would be much more effective than trying to impose this model on a slumbering society that will one day wake up to realise that the Trojan horse of domestic violence has overtaken their lives and basic freedoms, resulting with State intrusion in family life, where one set of ‘stereotypes’ has been exchanged for another set that includes labels such as ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘homophobic’.

Miriam Sciberras is chairman Life Network Foundation Malta.

Mother Teresa said: “Once living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily.” Will this be the case in Malta? What is the evidence that contraception encourages abortion? The figures are strongly suggestive.

In the US, oral contraceptive use started in the early 1960s and reached a plateau of about 10 million users by the early 1970s. Abortion started to increase about 10 years after the introduction of ‘the pill’ in 1970, and reached a peak of 25 per cent of births about 10 years later. The steep increase of abortion mirrors the rapid uptake of oral contraceptives 10 years earlier.

While this does not prove a causal connection, the link is very plausible for several reasons: the contraceptive culture encourages sex outside of marriage; contracepted sex is presumed to be protected from pregnancy; unanticipated pregnancy often causes a person to resort to abortion; and abortion has become a method of contraception, with 37 per cent of abortions in the UK in 2012 being repeats, 4,500 women having at least four and 33 women terminating nine or more pregnancies.

Abortion is not just a women’s issue. It is a major, lucrative industry, as well as a huge social and political issue, and both women and men are involved. What is difficult to understand, however, is how entrenched those who are pro-abortion are in denying the rights, life, individuality and personhood of the unborn child.

This is despite clear, overwhelming scientific demonstration that a zygote has a full adult DNA complement at conception.

With the pill, we were able for the first time to regularly and reliably separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. On one hand this means being able to control when life is conceived. On the other, it potentially turns the marital act of starting or increasing a family into a new, risk-of-pregnancy-free, genital, recreative pastime.

These two changes together must have a huge effect on the human pysche. This likely includes effects on self-perception of our power over life, effects on how free people feel they are to choose what they desire (autonomy) and on the very meaning of sex and procreation.

John Paul II stated that the danger with contraception is that it puts personal fulfilment at the centre of life’s meaning and fosters a self-centredness divorced from truth. Neurobiological research into the effects of the pill is in its infancy, but several worrying effects have been found, including, somewhat predictably, changes in reward processing by the brain. (Reward is the motivational property of a stimulus that induces pleasure.)

St Augustine believed lust has a strong subconscious power to undermine the direction of our wills. He used the image of a rider on a horse to explain how conscience steers our free will. At the base of the will is an innate drive to love and justice. A second level of the will then selects specific desires, as goals to pursue. A rational third level of the will identifies different courses of action to achieve its goal.

Finally conscience judges whether the chosen act should proceed (the free-will component) and an action is carried out. If a significant section of society accepts even subconsciously that recreational sex without procreation is a new, desirable goal, this will very likely tip the balance of the will. The ‘horse’ thinks it is riding straight but in fact it will be turning off course.

Conscience is also multilayered. At the base of conscience are moral values common to all humans. Any specific moral code that has been taught (as in a religion) is superimposed at a second level. Then at a third level are the norms of at any particular time or society (which are changeable).

Conscience is therefore going to be affected in a major way if what used to be morally wrong is now accepted. This will particularly affect those who have never been taught a clear moral code or have been brought up in the contraceptive age.

So with habitual contraception, the rider is not controlling the horse properly, and anyway, the horse is veering off without the person knowing. Although this is a simplistic analogy, it explains how a goal of the will might subconsciously be switched to sexual enjoyment rather than to welcoming the life of the child that comes with sex.

It would not be a large step to see an unborn child as unimportant and as a barrier to our desires or will. Contraceptives are therefore likely very powerful manipulators of how we act as a society and how free we feel to choose – and not simply a method of preventing a pregnancy. They may be turning our wills against the vulnerable unborn without us knowing it.

Women’s groups in the US are beginning to realise how insidious their effects are and are voluntarily discontinuing them (quite independent of any religious teaching on the issue).

In Malta we have the advantage of fifty years’ research and knowledge on the pill, and we should not ignore its insidious, potentially devastating side effects.

Patrick Pullicino is a neurologist studying for the priesthood.

On November 22, this newspaper’s sister publication published a very brave and commendable editorial which hit several nails right on the head. It was correctly pointed out that the term ‘reproductive rights’ is nothing but camouflage for abortion.

The correctness of this statement has been proved the world over. The vagueness of the term serves to enable it to include under its umbrella not only contraception, abortion and late-term or partial-birth abortion, but also any other pretended right that may be claimed as such in future. It is no secret that everywhere the term has been used, it has been used to bring about the spectre of abortion.

Needless to say, an editorial with such foresight is sure to attract naysaying and senseless hand-wringing from those who wish to take Malta back to the dark ages of mediaeval butchery and child sacrifice.

Abortion is an amalgam of every social ill. It is sexism, racism, ableism and classism all rolled into one. Abortion is sexist when in so many places around the world, millions of girls are aborted for the simple fact that they are girls (gendercide). Abortion is racist when, in New York City and in other places, an inordinate proportion of abortions are carried out on black women, and hence, black babies. Abortion discriminates against disabled people when it takes place for the sole reason that the baby would have been diagnosed with some disability or malady in utero. Abortion is classist when it is marketed to the less well-off who are persuaded that their situation is too desperate and too dire to afford a child.

Why are pro-social justice left-wingers not up in arms about this? Why are all those who decry inequality between men and women not shouting and protesting the tragedy of gendercide in the streets? Where is the social justice in killing another person?

It sometimes happens that men are attacked for opposing abortion because they are men. This is clearly ridiculous. Must one be personally affected in order to voice oneself? Of course not! Opposition to abortion is rooted in deep love and respect for all human life.

If the mother seeking an abortion is doing so out of adverse conditions, why not help that woman instead? If she is in poverty, why not utilise existing social ser­vices and create new ones to support her? If she is a victim of rape or of domestic violence, why not ensure that mother and child are safe and well-cared for in a secure environment? If she is herself ill, why not provide the necessary treatment and medi­cation, provided one applies the double-effect principle properly, and provided one tries to save the mother as well as the child? 

Fundamentally, are any of the above the child’s fault? If not, then why kill the child to solve the problem?

The same reasoning can apply to when the alleged non-viability of the child is raised as an exception to the child’s right to life. Irrespective of the illness, condition or circumstance that the child may suffer from, no one can possibly claim the autho­rity to kill that child due to such illness, condition or circumstance that may make the child non-viable. Furthermore, advances in medicine have made it possible for babies to be born far earlier than normal.

Abortion advocates in Malta claim that rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life should be exceptions to the right to life. This contrasts with other places in the world where the ‘Shout your abortion’ movement has sprung up. This movement seeks to remove all stigma from abortion by encouraging women who have had abortions to proudly announce that they had one or more abortions in the past, for whatever reason.

Although the current abortion advocates in Malta would not admit this, there will come a time when those who are currently pushing for abortion will themselves be considered antiquated and conservative when the even more repugnant ‘abortion on demand and without apology’ band comes in.

Clearly, current abortion advocates are labouring under the delusion that if introduced, abortion will be ‘safe, legal and rare’. However, statistics in other countries show that following legalisation, abortion rates skyrocketed. Legalisation of something is never meant to make it rare. Neither is legalisation a guarantee of safety, and more so when the law ends up permitting the killing of a child.

Do we really know how abortion takes place? We suspect most people either do not know or do not wish to know. Abortion is not some clean, simple and easy medical procedure. Oftentimes it involves active butchery in which the baby is quite simply torn apart limb from limb.

If it takes place earlier in the pregnancy, a heart-stopping potassium injection to the baby’s heart takes place. The mother is then told she can give birth to a dead child and get on with her life. To all those who believe that the film The Silent Scream is untruthful or propagandistic, I would pose the question: How would you depict the biological reality of an abortion?

There is lack of moral certainty about many things in life. However, as human beings endowed with reason, our lives should consist of an active search for truth in order to turn seas of murky grey into enlightening clarity. The truth is astonishingly simple and clear: every child has a right to live, irrespective of health, sex and any other consideration.

As Maltese with a rich tradition of gene­rosity and hospitality, let us not be afraid to extend a helping hand to those less fortunate. A helping hand does not kill.

Ramon Bonett Sladden and Sara Portelli are lawyers.

‘Boy, oh boy, where to begin?’ This is how Alice Taylor set the tone for her piece in The Malta Independent on Sunday (24 December), conjuring up a mental image of herself rubbing her hands together lasciviously, drooling in anticipation of all the spots she’s going to knock off her opponents. Only, this is not the prelude to a bar-room brawl but a column in one of Malta’s leading newspapers, no less.

There is little evidence that the literary standards of the local media have improved much in recent years, but if Alice Taylor’s work is anything to go by then they have deteriorated a lot more than is generally supposed. I don’t know who Alice Taylor actually is, but it is clear that, as argumentative commentary goes, she’s not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And insofar as the debate on abortion is concerned, I’d worry only if I found myself on the same side as her.

Taylor’s tactic, if indeed it even qualifies as one, seems to be that of hurling epithets at speakers and leaving it at that. Someone needs to point out to her that even the meanest of intellects can call a statement ‘rubbish’. The problem is following it up with a reason why it is so. And this is where Taylor is so clearly unable to deliver, leaving the reader with the inescapable impression that the accuser herself isn’t quite sure. Neither oratory nor argumentative style are Taylor’s strong points, but nowhere does she put her foot in it more emphatically than in her claim that to be opposed to her point of view is to be ‘unable to think critically, logically or even outside the box’. Coming from someone who has yet to demonstrate the most rudimentary familiarity with these skills, that is indeed an interesting comment.

It gets worse though. Taylor relies exclusively on a hotchpotch of outdated clichés and endlessly recycled slogans in her search for some sort of prop for her accusations. Having scraped the barrel clean on these, she takes a deep breath for her denouement: a dramatic denunciation of all opponents to her views as lacking any understanding of biology, human rights and contraception, intent only on misinformation and the fomentation of hatred. This, from someone whose combined knowledge of human embryology, as well as the Charter of Human Rights, would fit comfortably onto a small StickyNote. Heady stuff indeed!

Her gravest error, however, lies in her comments on Rebecca Kiessling’s recent visit (her second) to Malta. This seems to have irritated Ms Taylor no end. It was almost certainly something Rebecca said but it is less clear what exactly that was, because Taylor’s response was directed nearly exclusively at the allegation that Rebecca Kiessling makes her living, or at least part of it, from speaking publicly on the issue of abortion.

Quite apart from the fact that one would have expected a purported newspaper columnist to occasionally address the message, as opposed to the messenger, there is also the issue of the actual accuracy of Taylor’s allegations. The fact is that Rebecca Kiessling never received a cent for either of her two visits to Malta, staying in a host home on both occasions. Rebecca’s mission is speaking and the great bulk of it is done voluntarily.

Furthermore, she receives no payment from within her own organisation. She travels world-wide to create awareness on life choices, defending the vulnerable. She speaks about the right to life of the child born from rape. As a true femminist, she speaks about the protection of women from rapists and promotes termination of the parental rights of the rapist to protect the women after they give birth. As a lawyer, she and others have defended human embryos who, in couple separation cases, often end up losing their lives. Unlike most of Taylor’s splutterings, all this is documented and verifiable. I believe it would be a good idea at this point to draw Taylor’s attention to these details and ask her, publicly, if she wishes to stand by them, rethink them or even, perhaps, withdraw them altogether.

In the course of her uninspired meanderings, Taylor goes out of her way to express her personal glee at the anticipation of the introduction of abortion in Malta. She may well be right in this, but I would leave her with the following observation by Douglas Gwyn, nonetheless: ‘Truth is not determined by majority vote’.

Dr Miriam Sciberras BChD (Hons) MA Bioethics

Chairwoman Life Network Foundation Malta