An ugly little truth

It may come as something of a revelation to Lara Dimitrijevic and Andreana Dibben (‘What are you afraid of?’, December 9) but there actually do exist moral absolutes in this world. This, despite the unstinting efforts of a growing body of individuals and organisations who, for reasons best not gone into, try their hardest to muddy the waters.

The right to life of all human beings, without exception, recognises one such. It is from this absolute moral right that the moral imperative not to kill is derived. The fact that these are moral absolutes means that no amount of legislation can render them anything other than what they are and what they will be always.

Legislation may allow a moral wrong, it may encourage a moral wrong, laud it even but all it can ever do is make wrong permissible. What it cannot do is make wrong right.

Law, at least in theory, is supposed to be based on morality, not the other way round. Today, however, we live in a world in which good and evil have been fully inverted with the imprimatur of law.

The trouble is, we know evil when we see it, even if only at an unconscious level. Controversy arises when law violates our innate sense of right and wrong and nowhere is this more evident than in the arena of abortion legislation where, instead of diminishing with the passage of time, the resistance and opposition to abortion has become more intense over the years, with no sign of slowing down.

Of course, I am but a lowly man and thus ruled out of contributing to the discussion by the illiberal liberals. Interestingly, however, whereas I have witnessed a great deal of attempted shaming of men whose sole intention was that of saving the lives of their children, I have never observed any parallel condemnation of pro-abortion men, of any age, even when many of these are caught abusing women and coercing them into having abortions – but that’s the face of tolerance for you, at least as practised by abortionists.

I therefore feel a level of entitlement to engage in this debate notwithstanding any sexist, intolerant, discriminatory claims to the contrary.

Let us be clear about two things from the start.

There exists no such thing as a human right to abortion. Throughout the gamut of shabby, nonsensical, worn out clichés and non-arguments that constitute the entire case for abortion, this one is arguably the most pervasive. It bears repeating: abortion is not a human right.

When officials from the EU, or anywhere else, refer to a right to abortion they are misinformed. Or worse.

The discussion that is being touted with such loud enthusiasm has nothing to do with women’s rights, far less with women’s health. No one is the least bit interested in discussing pre- or post-natal care, pregnancy support, PAP tests, cancer screening or breast examinations.

The umbrella phrase ‘reproductive rights’ means one thing only. It is abortion, and abortion alone, that fires the enthusiasm of the ‘reproductive rights’ brigade the world over.

This euphemism (let us refrain from calling it cynical) was dreamt up by highly paid professional advertisers several decades ago and it has been freely bandied about ever since, its sole purpose being that of providing a camouflage for the grisly reality of abortion.

There is an ugly little truth that runs like a poisonous thread throughout the entire argument and it is this – no one would be discussing abortion, anywhere, were it not such a hugely profitable business.

The abortion racket has little interest in women’s well-being and none whatsoever in helping them. It is an industry driven by profit alone and, in the course of achieving its targets, it has spun a web of deceit on a scale undreamt of by Machiavelli in his wildest imaginings.

Women are cash machines to the abortion industry. They are unwitting victims to the purveyors of abortion worldwide.

They are victims to the men who get them pregnant in the first place, then coerce them into having an abortion.

They are victims to the promoters of abortion, who persuade them that it’s ok to kill their own children, then leave them to get on with it.

They are victims to the ghoulish practitioners of abortion, who assure them that it’s a simple procedure and that that will be the end of it.

Let us then have a discussion on abortion. But let us dispense with the reproductive rights rubbish from the outset. And next, why restrict ourselves to the one discussion alone? Why should we not have a concurrent debate on rape, while we’re at it? And another on slavery? And on human trafficking too?

Every single foul practice in the history of humanity has had its adherents and every single one of them has claimed justification for their actions at one point or another.

The history of women is a history of victimisation. The clamour for abortion is nothing more than the modern-day version of the physical, psychological and spiritual degradation of women that has characterised human society throughout time.

The 21st century, in this regard, is no better than all the others that preceded it. It saw the emergence of a hitherto unheard of dichotomy between baby and woman that has now dominated the abortion debate for decades. Women and children, of course, are not natural enemies and it was only a perversion of feminism that brought about this dichotomy in the first instance.

The fact is, pro-‘choicers’ are not defenders of women but defenders of abortion.

The difference is that today, more than ever before, there is a realisation, and an acceptance, that women have been given a raw deal throughout history. Abortion is, emphatically, not an act of empowerment but the result of abandonment, desperation and betrayal.

After all this time, are we really incapable of coming up with any better guarantee of a woman’s right to participate fully in the social and political life of society than one conditioned on surgery and the sacrificing of her children ?

Women deserve better than abortion.

Ivan Padovani is a member of Life Network (Malta).

The post-rational man (and woman)

In our categorising of human political, economic and philosophical thought we often tend to use terms such as analytical and then post-analytical thought, modern and then post-modern thought. Now I believe we have arrived at a new category of man: we have had rational man but now we are entering the new period of post-rational man!

It is becoming increasingly obvious that, initially, man started to waive the concept of God because he believed that God was restrictive to his will and freedom. Therefore man fell on the next best thing to God, which is God’s gift to man – human reason. Mankind is the only biological species that is able to be self-reflective, reasonable. We are able to overcome our instinct – even our emotions – to be ultimately a rational species. We pride ourselves on turning to science and philosophy to be able to explain what goes on in the natural world around us and what goes on in our reasonable thoughts. If man cannot explain why something happened from the divine perspective he can turn to the rational perspective. Those who, like Nietzsche, sought to declare that God is dead were able to add that they had science to carry them through! Science could give them the bedrock on which they could build their belief and their actions would ensue from the cathedrals of science.

Now, alas, this is no longer enough! Man is aspiring to go beyond the scientific, the rational. Rationality is no longer enough to appease the disquiet of the human individual. Rational thought and behaviour is no longer sufficient to show someone what the truth of a matter is. Today, you show people the scientific truth and they will just say that it is not true because, based on their ‘perceptions’, the truth lies elsewhere.

This behaviour is, I think, developing as an extension of the development of the social media, where – in an android world – it is often difficult to discern between what is true and what is a concoction of the vivid human imagination! We are losing our capacity to discern what is true and what is false. Any scientific truth one presents is not judged in the peer-reviewed scientific magazines and accepted as sufficient, but considered as ‘fake news’ on a whim and then discarded by the individual!

Nowhere is this more true than when deciding where the beginning of an individual life starts! The science responsible for determining where the beginning of an new individual human being – a member of the species Homo sapiens – is, falls on the science of anatomy, specifically the section of anatomy that deals with the inception of developing human life, in a womb or outside it, specifically termed ‘human embryology’. Now, human embryology makes it very, very clear that the first cell of the human new individual is the human zygote formed by the fusion of the human sperm cell from the father and the ovum from the mother. The academic ‘dean’ of human embryology is the publication by O’Rahilly and Mueller whose authors sit on the international Nomenclatura Embryologica.This important academic publication makes it clear that the beginning of human life begins at conception or fertilisation.

This scientific rational truth obviously presents an obstacle to those who would like to do things to a human embryo which they would not do their other biological peers. Things such as experimentation or direct removal, destruction or killing – call it what you like! This is the point at which people usually relieve themselves of their rational faculties and turn on their perceptive emotional faculties, faculties known to be wrong and often grosslywrong.

We then start to describe this scientific fact as fake news and begin to bring in categories that are nothing but the fruit of our fancies: terms such as ‘pre-embryo’ or concepts that aim at divesting the developing human being of any human faculties. We say that it does not think, we say that it is not a person, we say that it is a pre-embryo, conveniently not stating where the embryo is; we say that it is not moving, we say that it is not feeling, we say that it interferes with our freedom of choice and – the best recent one of all – is that we say categorically that it is fake news! Facts show that, once the human embryo is formed, it never stops developing through its active, self-moving potential. At eight weeks it is fully formed, and it only grows in size until term, at 40 weeks. Facts show that it develops continually, from one early cell to the several trillion cells of which the adult body is composed.

However, after rejecting divinity, man now also seeks to reject rationality, which does not surprise me at all because faith and reason are intimately linked. The rejection of God is followed by the rejection of reason, because those who sincerely seek reason can never reject God outright. They seek God through reason, in the hope that – ultimately – reason, if not revelation, will lead them to God. Now, however, objective reason is no longer being sought as we look to our emotions and perceptions to establish our foundations and, as we all know, subjective emotions vary widely, especially when we want to do what we like and the subject of discussion is a human being who cannot be seen or vote. Emotions are the new god!

This leads us into a narrow lane, because if man has rejected God – so evidently manifest and immanent in nature, and if man now rejects reason, he will eventually also find fault with his emotional god and God only knows what follows that: maybe we can revert to our animal nature so that we can then literally start to eat each other.

When man destroys God, then the nature around him, then rationality, then man is well on the road to destroying himself. It is a culture of death. The reality is that problems of our existent nature are not only physical ones but also metaphysical ones. Man cannot find the answers to his problems in pure emotions, nor ultimately in pure reason. However reason can point to a truth which lies beyond our senses as shown by the philosophers of old.

The fact remains that the first cell – or zygote – of the human species is the first founding cell of the new human being which cell has a totipotent, self-actuating potency to develop to adulthood through childhood. Tinker with this principle and you tinker with human life and innocent human life has an absolute right to our respect and to life. Those who negate this will be killing human beings in the process and will be responsible for the genocide of individual human beings, even if their emotions or intentions seek to tell them that this is ‘fake’ news.

Dr. Michael Asciak MD, M.Phil, PhD.

Senior Lecturer II in Applied Science at MCAST.

Slow build-up to the inevitable

It looks like the final frontier, the last step into a pseudo-liberal world where a new vocabulary displaces reality and truth. One of the fads is ‘reproductive rights’, a term used to camouflage the much more appropriate term: abortion.

The issue raises its head again and again. Earlier this year, the Women’s Rights Foundation said it was not right that pro-life organisations were being invited to schools to teach adolescents on abortion and reproduction. They described abortion as a “complex moral issue and cannot be addressed from a black and white perspective”.

They are wrong. It is a black and white issue. It is a choice between life and death. There are no grey areas as was the case with the morning-after pill. Recently, the foundation said it had no stand on abortion but planned to be more vocal in fighting for women’s rights. Then, earlier this month, it was saying the country could not continue to bury its head in the sand and should debate abortion. It lists reproductive rights with civil rights. It is a human right that is involved ­­­– the right to life.

Equality Minister Helena Dalli was very cautious when asked on abortion. With her LGBTIQ agenda, she has waded too far out to turn back. She introduced new ‘civil rights’ by the bucketful to please the gay lobby and even redefined the institution of marriage. The debate on abortion is a ‘natural’ development to these new ‘rights’ as it is based on the same set of liberal principles that put the individual above all else. Hence, pro-abortionists speak of ‘choice’ when there should be no choice where life is involved.

The Women’s Rights Foundation calls it a dogma but belief in the basic and most fundamental right to life is not a dogma. There is no ‘choice’ either as there is no difference between one child and another. They both have an equal right to life. No one is more worthy to live than another. No one has a right to choose who is to live and who is to die, under the guise of reproductive health.

No doubt, some pregnancies can be immensely difficult and can cause enormous problems for the mother. That is where the State should come in to help, at every possible level.

The call to a debate on abortion, one most recent call coming from the new Alternattiva Demokratika chief Carmel Cacopardo, can only lead in one direction: the eventual acceptance and introduction of abortion.

Dr Dalli said none of the two main political parties had included abortion in their programme but she encourages civil debate. What does that imply? Given Labour’s track record, should the debate turn pro-abortion, there is a danger the government puts on its populist wings and jumps onto the bandwagon. Of course, there could be a political price to pay for that, which is why “debate” is being bandied around instead.

People have every right to favour abortion. But an opinion does not give them the right to murder the most innocent, as no right can ever come at the expense of someone else. No one has the right to take life, no matter what arguments can be put forward.

Sadly, it is all coming across as the final frontier.

This is a Times of Malta print editorial of the 22nd of November 2017

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20171122/editorial/Slow-build-up-to-the-inevitable.663739

Dr. Miriam Sciberras Press Conference

“We care about human Embryos, we do not freeze them, donate them or deprive them of their biological parents as a matter of choice, because to us, children matter too!”

Dr. Miriam Sciberras during LifeNetwork Press Conference with Rebecca Kiessling regarding the Maltese Embryo Protection Act, on the 6th of December 2017.

Rebecca Kiessling Press Conference

Rebecca Kiessling’s full address during LifeNetwork’s Press Conference, regarding the Maltese Embryo Protection Act, on the 6th of December 2017.

Inkomplu nnaqqru d-drittijiet tat-tfal

Dan l-aħħar kellna dibattiti fl-aħbarijiet dwar l-introduzzjoni ta’ Avviż Legali 156 tas-sena 2017, li hu suppost avviż legali innoċenti li tirrigwarda l-leave lil min ikun irid tqala permezz ta’ teknoloġija medikament assistita (IVF). Meta wieħed iħares sewwa lejn din il-legal notice isib li hemm tibdil fid-definizzjoni tal-ġenitri prospettivi, li issa saru definiti bħala “żewġ persuni magħqudin fi żwieġ, unjoni ċivili, ko-abitazzjoni jew li laħqu l-età tagħhom u qegħdin f’relazzjoni stabbli bejniethom” Skont l-Att Dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun, ġenituri prospettivi huma definiti bhala  raġel wieħed u mara waħda.

Jidher li kollox lest għal battalja biex jisfaxxa l-Att Dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun malajr u bil-kwiet, f’isem libertà ġdida li teskludi d-drittijiet tat-tfal. F’dan id-dibattitu qawwi tkun ħaġa ħafifa jitwarrab dak kollu li jfisser dan l-Att li jiddefendi l-ħajja umana mill-waqt tal-konċepiment.

 Dan hu l-Att li jagħmel lil Malta unika fid-difiża tal-ħajja umana. Dan hu wkoll dak li jdejjaq lil ħafna mill-pajjiżi ġirien tagħna Ewropej u fl-istess waqt iġibilna ħafna ammirazzjoni minn dawk il-pajiiżi mifnijin bl-abort u li qed jippruvaw  jagħmlu li jistgħu biex ireġġgħu lura l-eżodu tal-att infami Roe v. Wade li llegalizza l-abort. 

Aħna lesti li neqirdu dil-fruntiera Maltija li tipproteġi l-ħajja? Jekk dan hu l-każ, iċ-ċittadini għandhom id-dritt ikunu jafu l-verità. Li nkissru l-Att Dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun bi ngann hu pass diżonest għall-aħħar. Liġi li tipproteġi lill-embrijun uman twarrab darba għal dejjem il-possibiltà li l-abort qatt jista’ jiġi legalizzat.  

Din il-liġi mhix dwar diskriminazzjoni. Il-Ministri Fearne u Dalli jistgħu jagħmlu kemm-il konferenza stampa jixtiequ, imma ma jistgħu qatt ibiddlu l-fatti tan-natura, u l-Ministru Fearne bħala tabib jaf dan sewwa. Hi l-istess natura li ma tħallix lil koppji omosesswali jkollhom l-ulied b mod naturali, u mhux liġijiet tal-inekwalità. Stqarrijiet bħal “ persuni LGBT għandhom dritt jitħallew iwelldu lil uliedhom” mhumiex veri fin-natura bijoloġika tar-raġel u tal-mara. Dan ma jista qatt ikun imposibbli jekk ma tindaħalx fl-att tar-riproduzzjoni t-tielet persuna li tinjora d-dritt tat-tarbija għal omm u għal missier.  Dan hu li jfissru donazzjoni tal-isperma u s-surrogacy – li sa issa huma llegali f’Malta.

Ulied li twieldu permezz ta’ donazzjoni tal-isperma jiddefinixxu dan l-att bħala abbandun mill-missier ġenetiku tagħhom. Il-paternità ma tistax tiġi abbandunata għaliex l-ulied iridu r-rabta qawwija mal-qraba tagħhom. Fil-pubbliku  qed jissemma li ghalissa  tiddaħħal id-donazzjoni tal-isperma lin-nisa  biss  – ingann ieħor ghaliex bl istess prinċipju ta’ ugwaljanza l-irġiel  jipprotestaw għax jaraw dan bħala diskriminazzjoni kontrihom – u dan hu l-mod kif imbagħad tidħol is-surrogacy.

Ta’ min jgħid illi l-Parlamant Ewropew irrifjuta li jghaddi draft ta’ rapport dwar id-dħul tas-surrogacy fl-UE fi Frar tal-2017. Il-moviment femminista fl-Ewropa hu wkoll kontra s-surrogacy bħala prinċipju u jħares lejn is-surrogacy bħala l-agħar esplojtazzjoni tal-ġisem tal-mara. F’Malta gruppi għad-drittijiet tan-nisa jibqgħu siekta fuq is-suġġett. Ta’ min jistaqsi ghaliex dan is-silenzju.

Fl-argumenti li qed jinġiebu jidher ċar li l-partijiet mhux jagħtu każ l-aktar ħaġa importanti quddiemhom: l-interess tal-istess tarbija. Hi ħaġa ħafifa twarrab l-interess ta’ min ma jistax jitkellem, imma dan iwassal biss għal ħsara u deni kbir lis-soċjetà.

Il-Konvenzjoni tad-Drittijiegt Tat-Tfal, f’Artiklu 3, tiddikkjara illi l-aħjar interess tat-tfal irid ikun l-għan ewlieni waqt it-teħid ta’ deċiżjonijiet li jirrigwardjaw lit-tfal infushom.  Artilu 4 tal-konvenzjoni jesiġi illi l-Gvernijiet huma responsabbli li jieħu kull miżura ħalli d-drittijiet tat-tfal ikunu rispettati, protetti u mwettqin sewwa. Il-Konvenzjoni tirrinforza wkoll id-dritt tal-ulied li jkunu jafu lill-ġenituri bijoloġiċi tagħhom u kemm jista’ jkun li jkunu mrobbijin minnhom. Dan kollu jamplifika l-importanza tar-rabta qawwija tal-ulied mal-ġenituri bijoloġiċi taghhom.Bonding li jibda mil-ġuf.

L-Att tal-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun hu validu u vvutaw favuru il-membri kollha miż-żewġ naħat tal-Kamra fil-Parlament. Wara deliberazzjonijiet u konsultazzjonijiet fit-tul ma diversi esperti l-Att tal-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijun ġie approvat sabiex jgħin lill-koppji li qed isofru minn infertilità, iżda fl-istess ħin l-Att iħares id-drittijiet tat-tarbija li tkun għad trid titwieled li f’dak il-waqt tkun fi stat ta’ embrijun.L-Att hu msejjes fuq drittijiet indaqs fejn tidħol it-tarbija mhix imwielda.

Il-politiċi li tellajna fil-Parlament tellajnihom biex jieħdu ħsiebna, inkluż jieħdu ħsieb dawk il-Maltin, embrijuni umani li  għadhom jistennew biex jitwieldu. Hu dmirhom illi jiddefendu l-ħajja sa mill-konċepiment. Il-maġġoranza assoluta tal-Maltin hekk jistennew minnhom. L-ugwaljanza qed tiġġebbed iżżejjed meta tasal biex twarrab id-drittijiet tat-tfal u l-protezzjoni tagħhom ukoll meta għadhom embrijuni umani innoċenti.

Dr Miriam Sciberras hi ċ-Chairman tal-Life Network Foundation Malta

 
 

When a subsidiary law breaches a primary law

On 4 October 2017, PN MPs David Agius and Stephen Spiteri, two Nationalist Party MPs, tabled a private members Motion, Motion No. 66, in the House of Representatives. They proposed an amendment to the Leave for Medically Assisted Procreation National Standard Order, 2017 (Legal Notice 156 of 2017).

The motion requested that the words ‘prospective parents’ and ‘medically assisted procreation’ in the Legal Notice be defined in terms of the Embryo Protection Act, Chapter 524 of the Laws of Malta. The latter primary law, enacted by Parliament in 2012, defines ‘prospective parents’ as meaning ‘either of two persons of the opposite sex who are united in marriage, or who have attained the age of majority and are in a stable relationship with each other’. In other words, this definition (a) applies only to (i) a heterosexual married couple, whether married by the Catholic Church or by a Marriage Registrar in terms of the Marriage Act, Chapter 255 of the Laws of Malta; or (ii) two heterosexual cohabiting persons; and (b) excludes homosexual couples who are (i) not married together, (ii) in a civil union or (iii) cohabiting together.

On the contrary, the definition of ‘prospective parents’ in Legal Notice 156 of 2017 is more embracing as it means ‘two persons who are united in marriage, civil union, cohabitation, or who have attained the age of majority and are in a stable relationship with each other’. What is purposely excluded under the Embryo Protection Act is intentionally included under Legal Notice 156 of 2017.

Motion No. 66 raises an issue of conflict of laws. On the one hand, the Embryo Protection Act restricts recourse to in vitro fertilisation to heterosexual married or cohabitating couples, whilst the subsidiary law made under the employment law is wider in purport as it allows homosexual employees to utilise paid vacation leave up to 100 hours for the purpose of submitting oneself to in vitro fertilisation procedures abroad.

The issues that arise are (a) whether there is a conflict of laws between the primary law and the subsidiary law; and (b) whether the subsidiary law – which, after all, is made under a different law other than the Embryo Protection Act – can still be made this notwithstanding.

Before answering these questions, it must be admitted that the matter raises more issues than these, though the main issues are the hierarchical nature of the law and public policy. If Parliament has decided to restrict in vitro fertilisation to a heterosexual married or cohabitating couple, can a delegate (in this case a Minister) – though under a different law – go beyond Parliament’s mandate and allow other persons not contemplated by the Embryo Protection Act to avail themselves of such leave facility? Can a distinction be drawn between IVF services in Malta regulated by Maltese Law and IVF services offered overseas regulated by a foreign law? Cannot a person who does not qualify under the Maltese law exercise the right to have IVF treatment abroad?

A subordinate authority to Parliament cannot make subsidiary legislation which runs counter to a primary law, even if that subsidiary law is made under any other law which is not the one to which its subject matter relates. In the case of Louis F. Cassar noe v. Prime Minister the Civil Court, First Hall, had annulled a subsidiary law which ran counter to a primary law. The same reasoning equally applies here even if the subsidiary law is made under another law which is not the Embryo Protection Act. This is because no subsidiary law may run counter to a primary law. Subsidiary laws are intended to supplement, not replace, primary laws.

Moreover, when a Minister is delegated law making powers by Parliament, s/he cannot use those powers to usurp Parliament’s law making function in breach of the doctrine of the separation of powers. A Minister may breach a primary law only and only if, and solely to the extent that, s/he is authorised to do so by an express provision in the primary act. To act otherwise, as is the case of Legal Notice 156 of 2017, is for government to subvert the authority of Parliament, thereby bringing itself in breach not only of the doctrine of the separation of powers but also of the rule of law.

Furthermore, the issue of public policy plays an important role here. If it is Malta’s public policy (as enshrined in the Embryo Protection Act) to offer in vitro fertilisation only to heterosexual couples, whether married or in cohabitation, then if a subsidiary law extents the scope of application of the Embryo Protection Act to non-heterosexual couples, then there is a breach of Malta’s public policy.

Government might argue that the Embryo Protection Act is discriminatory against same-sex couples. However, even if – and only for argument’s sake – this argument is conceded to be correct, this course of action can never justify the Minister in ignoring the will of Parliament, even if the Minister enjoys the backing of Cabinet on this matter. To allow such ministerial reasoning and action – to change a law which is allegedly discriminatory – without going through the proper channels (Parliament or the courts to amend the law or have it declared unconstitutional or in breach of human rights) is arbitrary and in breach of the doctrines of separation of powers and the rule of law apart from injecting an element of uncertainty in the law. Otherwise all primary laws can be brought to naught if a minister, through a legal notice, elects to amend or contravene a primary law. The whole edifice upon which the whole law stands will crumble into pieces and despotic rule will replace indirect democracy.

Unless and until such allegation of discrimination is judicially ascertained or legislatively changed, it is the definition in the Embryo Protection Act which ought to prevail for the purposes of Legal Notice 156 of 2017. This implies that this Legal Notice should be interpreted narrowly to apply only to heterosexual married and cohabitating couples to reconcile it with the will of Parliament. To do otherwise is to opt for the law of the jungle, not for the rule of law. But then who cares about the rule of law in Malta? Surely not government or the Opposition MPs who support Legal Notice 156 of 2017!

Professor Kevin Aquilina is the Dean of the Faculty of Laws at the University of Malta.

Severing the bonds of life

The latest hot discussion in widening the scope of the Embryo Protection Act is for allowing anonymous gamete donation.

This means using a third party, that is, a man or woman, other than the couple, to provide sperm or egg. In this case, the donor is given an altruistic description  comparing this to an act of organ or blood donation when nothing could be further from the truth. It ignores what is required to create these children: exploitation of women and children, health endangerment and the commodification of human life.

Gamete donation carries a heavy responsibility. A human life is created from gametes. This new human life is the child, the baby. The biological link between parent and child is undeniably intimate and, when severed, there are lasting repercussions for all parties.

Why is no one with authority considering the needs and rights of children as the adult-centred discussion rages on?

A local IVF expert has become the front set on removing any boundaries in the process of producing a child.

What should be a discussion that includes all the stakeholders in the issue has become a one-sided front. It risks pitting children against their parents. This is very dangerous, as, in this way, the child can become a means to an end, justifying any method used in his or her conception.

Anonymous sperm or egg donation from abroad is being touted as the solution for single women and infertile couples. We are told “a large sperm pool should set our minds at rest” from problems of consanguinity, as if our children cannot travel, move away or study abroad and meet anonymous half-siblings. In the quest for a child, no one seems to care about the baby.

‘Single mothers by choice’ is being promoted as an option that should be available. Will it also be eligible for social services by choice? Should it not be only offered as a support for those in crisis pregnancy only? Who will make the distinction?

Where are the women’s lobby groups when it comes to surrogacy? Pro-lifers and women’s groups typically come together against surrogacy as the ultimate exploitation of women worldwide. Why are they silent in this blessed country?

 

Where are the voices of the Embryo Protection Authority in this matter? Are they not worried that our children are to be treated in this way? Where is the Commissioner for Children?

The child deserves protection before as well as after birth. In the UK, anonymous gamete donation was banned after the authorities listened to the plea of donor children. There was a highly-publicised court case that led to this, and donor conceived Joanna Rose was in Malta to testify.

The Commissioner for Children has a duty to meet her and others who have children’s rights at heart. Her brief should compel her to speak out on behalf of children born from these technologies.

In the course of my work, I have personally spoken to Rose many times, and, in compiling research for her PhD, she illustrates how the IVF industry blatantly refuses to acknowledge the grief inflicted on children like her.

I have also spoken to British-born Tom Ellis, a young man with a master’s degree from Cambridge, who was also conceived through anonymous gamete donation.

He describes his painful unresolved situation explicitly: “I am reasonably successful but it doesn’t make me feel any better about not knowing who I am. There is a saying that there are two lasting bequests we can give our children: one is roots and the other is wings. I think donor-conception denies a child both of these. I feel like a tree that has half of its roots missing. And without them, I can hardly stand up.”

Maltese society has always protected and valued children from conception, both locally and internationally. Alarm bells should start ringing in this discussion, where we now see a sudden change of ethos towards the protection of life from conception, when ethical issues become dismissed and where doubts are intentionally sown on the beginning of life.

Where are we going with this debate?

Why do adults have a ‘right’ to a child, while a child has no right to a father or mother? Why are we speaking of intentionally robbing children of their genetic parents as progressive treatment?

Are we on the way to making Malta, once a haven for child protection, a popular destination for international, free-for-all, unregulated fertility tourism?

Is this the next political ball game?

My heartfelt plea goes to all our politicians. Please, get your act together and stop this. Consider the facts: embryo protection is the only frontier against abortion.

The stakes for life are high. It took an incredible feat of courage for the entire House of Representatives to come together when the Embryo Protection Act came into law. Let us keep it that way.

Miriam Sciberras is chairwoman of Life Network Foundation Malta.

Welcome to Life News!

Welcome to our first Newsletter!

Life Network Foundation Malta is happy to welcome you to the first edition of Life News. This quarterly newsletter will update you on all current projects and ongoing life related issues. We urge you to download it from here 

Last frontier before abortion

A week ago, I attended an informative seminar on the aspects of surrogacy and gamete donation from a children’s rights perspective. I must confess leaving the conference sad and with my head reeling.

Life Research Unit Malta, in collaboration with Sallux, brought three expert speakers on the subject. They were Frenchman Christophe Foltzenlogel, a jurist at the Strasbourg-based European Centre for Law and Justice, Esme Wiegman-van Meppelen Scheppink, a Dutch former member of Parliament, and Briton Joanna Rose, herself a victim of surrogacy. The seminar was chaired by a young Maltese lawyer, Sara Portelli.

I listened to all of them, but Joanna’s experience struck me the most. She spoke about how surrogacy and gamete donation work. She accentuated the fact that reproductive technologies are most often adult-centric and do not consider the rights of the children born from them.

While the grief of adults who want children is widely acknowledged, and rightly so, when it comes to children, language changes and their grief is not acknowledged or even explored. They are “expected to be grateful that they exist”. But, in truth, the children born from these technologies do not concur.

Joanna said that, for her and many of her friends, love is not enough. They have a right to their own identity and to acknowledge kinship bonds.

When the sense of family history is totally lost or blurred, the child is inconsolable. The child suffers silently, as any attempt to speak out seems ungrateful from the family’s point of view.

She describes what she and others feel as “disenfranchised grief”, more so when they know that their conception was planned that way. Children’s rights, including the right to know their biological mother and father and, as far as possible, to be raised by them, suddenly fly out of the window.

 

I myself have some experience of what it is like to grow up not knowing one’s father, and that was bad enough. My mother was very tight-lipped about him, so I never knew what he had died of till a friend’s mother told me. It was tuberculosis.

I was a very curious child and would try to glean information about him from anyone around me, like aunts, friends of his and so on.

I just wanted to get a picture of who my father was. It was so important to me.

How much more confusing will it be for the children born of gamete donation and/or surrogacy, with the endless combinations of paternity and maternity, biological, commissioning and others.

Why would we venture to do this to children intentionally?

The fact that surrogacy and gamete donation and, of course, abortion laws exist in other countries does not mean we should rush in and ape them. Can we not think clearly and humanely?

Here is this brave woman telling us how she and others feel. There must be hundreds of grown-ups and children who feel the same way. In Malta, we have a strong embryo protection law that protects children and helps couples.

Citing the new amendments and some sort of unequal equality, we are seeing a frontal attack to dismantle embryo protection, the last frontier stopping abortion.

Without embryo protection, babies become objects, commodities, dispensable like rubber dolls.

I urge all who still have a conscience to fight and speak out, not to allow these laws to be passed in Malta. Let us stand up and be counted.

The Maltese are known for their love of children, so let us show the world we choose to be different and stay free of all these shameful laws that make objects out of our preborn children.

Many are concerned to know the Embryo Protection Act is threatened or will be removed. Let us all speak out against this and hold on to our life-protecting legislation.

I still hold on to the dream that we, as an upright people, can and will steer Malta out of these murky waters into calmer seas and regain our peace of mind.

Mary Hilda Camilleri worked for Lifesave the Unborn Child in the UK.