Justice to all the unborn

In his article on the abortion debate recently, Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Carmel Cacopardo made two very important statements. The first was that “AD has radically changed”, the second, that “AD had taken a pro-life stance in the past and he was not proposing to change that”.

On the other hand, Martin Scicluna in his article ‘Pro-choice on abortion’ (October 18) is clamouring again for the introduction of abortion in Malta. The irony is that even though he himself has arrived at the conclusion that “there is no burning need for abortion in Malta on practical or humanitarian grounds”, because even “the figures don’t appear to suggest there is the need”, he keeps harping on its introduction.

According to him: “It is a fact that those relatively few Maltese women who want an abortion – perhaps around 100 each year – (can) obtain one by taking a flight to the UK or Italy and having it performed there.” So why is he shouting so loudly for the introduction of abortion in Malta? One can only speculate.

Apparently, one of the reasons AD has changed and now wants a debate on abortion, according to Cacopardo, is because lately the AD has been informed that some educators had observed that the number of children with Down’s syndrome attending educational facilities had noticeably declined over the past years.

He added that he had been informed that it is not clear whether this decline in numbers is real or perceived. Nor is it clear whether this observation is the direct result of a diminishing birth rate or else whether it has another explanation.

He said he had emphasised then, and reiterates now, that an informed debate on abortion and reproductive health is essential and that it needs to be fuelled by research. In international discourse “reproductive health” is synonymous with abortion.

Cacopardo said that during the last few years, private clinics have been offering pregnant women (presumably in Malta) two specific tests that can indicate whether the foetus has developed Down’s syndrome.

He added: “These tests are not provided by the national health service and so no information is publicly available as to how many such tests were carried out over the years and in how many cases the possibility of developing Down’s syndrome was identified. It is not known what follow-up action was taken by the expectant mothers in each of the cases subject to the above-referred tests.”

This is why, it seems, according to Cacopardo, “the matter needs to be researched and analysed in depth in order that a debate on abortion is carried out”.

The Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) had asked for this kind of research not so long ago. In December 2013, the director general of the National Statistics Office had informed MUCM, upon its request, that the director of the Health Information & Research Department of the Ministry of Health was doing research in this direction.

In fact, in March 2015, the department published a report entitled ‘Congenital Anomalies in Malta’ by Miriam Gatt.

In October, US President Donald Trump affirmed the “inherent dignity” of people with Down’s syndrome and decried the “tragically misguided” sentiment that underlies anti-life attitudes toward them. He condemned discrimination against people with Down’s syndrome and praised “the family members, caregivers, medical professionals, and advocates who have dedicated themselves to ensuring that these extraordinary people enjoy lives filled with love and increasing opportunity”. 

If Cacopardo is suspecting that Maltese parents are opting to abort their unborn babies, probably overseas, because of the detected disability he and AD are not alone. To this extent this has been a very good and insightful reflection, which might have sparked in Cacopardo the need for the abortion debate.

Denmark is on its way to matching Iceland’s 100 per cent abortion rate for unborn babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome. In 2014, the Danish government reported 98 per cent of unborn babies who tested positive for Down’s syndrome were aborted. Denmark is encouraging prenatal testing and promoting discriminatory attitudes. Denmark is working to become “Down’s syndrome-free”, like Iceland, within the next decade.

In this scenario Cacopardo’s loud call for a mature debate on abortion could serve so that during the debate AD, as a pro-life political party, and many other pro-life national institutions, could suggest how abortion of Down’s syndrome unborn children could, and should, be avoided. This, to protect the dignity and rights of all unborn children, the disabled included, from potential harm of any description, including abortion.

The MUCM, with the very active participation of the Labour Party, the Nationalist Party and Alternattiva Demokratika, so far, has been doing this kind of promotion, especially on Pro-Life Days it organised for the last 10 years.

Thomas Verny, psychiatrist and family therapist, a world authority on womb ecology and author of the book, The Secret Life of the Unborn Child writes: “The evidence of intelligent life in the womb is overwhelming. Parents can contribute actively, before and during birth, to giving their child happiness and security for the rest of his or her life.” Pro-life activists will add: “In any situation, normal and not so normal. Not the other way round.”

It is suggested that Cacopardo, who is now leading the environment party, reflects seriously on the paragraphs in the book Environmental Justice and the Rights of the Unborn and Future Generations by Paula Westa, which I mentioned in my article. This to offer to work more closely with MUCM, the other political parties, and other national institutions on the Womb Ecology project agreed upon with the Speaker of the House of Representatives during the MUCM Pro-Life Day in February, where Simon Galea of AD also made a pro-life speech.

I call on Cacopardo and AD now to do that. Also to work for justice to be done to all unborn children, including those with all kinds of disabilities. As an environment party and with him at the helm, AD may turn out to be a chief promotor of human life from conception, after all.

As a pro-lifer, Cacopardo can also say a thing or two to Scicluna and his pro-choice friends; that abortion is always the deliberate killing of innocent human life at its very beginning, at whatever stage of its physical and mental development in a woman’s womb, and not a wart in a woman’s face, or a cancerous growth in a woman’s body, to be removed for very good cosmetic and health reasons.

Also, that there are other good solutions to unwanted pregnancies. Nobody has the right “to choose” to kill a little, defenceless and vulnerable human being.

It is amazing how a man of Scicluna’s calibre and stature, and in his 80s, full of human wisdom, has not yet discovered what many other pro-choice advocates, locally and abroad, among them many distinguished medical and other scientists, have already discovered about the rights and dignity of very little, defenceless, vulnerable and unborn human beings.

Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

Conference on Surrogacy and Gamete donation

 
 
In view of the current discussions on proposed amendments regarding the Embryo Protection Act in Malta, Life Research Unit Malta is organizing a conference on this subject on the 13th of November focusing on surrogacy and gamete donation.
 
Thanks to Sallux, which is generously supporting this event we are excited to announce the European expert speakers who will be giving a holistic perspective on the subject matter of surrogacy and gamete donation to enable an informed discussion and bring the most important aspects to light:
 
 
 
 

Undermining embryo protection

In the past week, we have seen a series of debates explode in the news regarding the introduction of a supposedly innocuous legal notice (156 of 2017) regarding leave for medically assisted procreation.

On close examination of this legal notice, one finds a change in the definition of “prospective parents” to now be “the 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”.

According to the Embryo Protection Act, prospective parents are clearly stated to be one man and one woman.

The battle is set to start to dismantle the Embryo Protection Act quickly and quietly in the name of a new freedom that excludes the rights of the child.

In this heated debate, it is very easy to dismiss what this Act stands for.

It stands for defending life from conception. It makes Malta unique in its defence of life. A stance that irks most of our European neighbours but also a stance that wins us admiration from abortion-torn countries which are doing their very best to overturn the infamous Roe vs Wade that legalised abortion. Are we ready to remove this frontier protecting life?

If so, the people deserve to know the truth. Undermining this Act by stealth is dishonest to say the least. A strong embryo protection law will prevent abortion from ever becoming legal locally.

This law is not about discrimination.

Ministers Chris Fearne and Helena Dalli can have as many press conferences as they wish but they cannot alter the facts of nature, and Fearne, a doctor, is all the more aware of this. It is nature that does not allow homosexual couples to have children, not inequality laws.

The feminist movement in Europe is also against surrogacy in principle, which is seen as the ultimate exploitation of a woman’s body

Statements like “LGBT people should be allowed to give birth to their own children” are untrue to the biological nature of man and woman. This is impossible without introducing third-party reproduction and ignores the right of the child to a mother and a father. This means introducing sperm donation and surrogacy, which to date are illegal in Malta.

Sperm donation as defined by children from these procedures is “the abandoning of children by their genetic fathers”.

Paternity cannot be donated, because children need kinship bonds. By the same principle, if sperm donation is introduced for lesbians, their male counterparts will be up in arms quoting discrimination too, and in this way surrogacy will come in.

Regarding surrogacy, it is pertinent to note that the European Parliament rejected a draft report on surrogacy in the EU in February 2017.

The feminist movement in Europe is also against surrogacy in principle, which is seen as the ultimate exploitation of a woman’s body. In Malta women’s lobby groups are very silent on this issue.

In the arguments that are being put forward it is very clear that all parties are ignoring the ‘elephant in the room, that is the child born from these procedures.

Ignoring the rights of the child is easy, but we do so to the detriment of our society. In the Convention for the Rights of the Child, Article 3, we find that the best interests of children must be the primary concern in making decisions that may affect them.

In Article 4, on the Protection of Rights, governments are entrusted with the responsibility to take all available measures to ensure children’s rights are respected, protected and fulfilled.

The Convention for the Rights of the Child also reinforces children’s rights to know and, as far as possible, to be cared for by their biological parents.

Children also have the right to know their identity. Hence the importance of acknowledging kinship bonds.

The Embryo Protection Act is valid and was voted for by a consensus from both sides of Parliament. This is because although it seeks to help couples suffering from problems of infertility, at the same time it safeguards the rights of the child while still in the embryonic stage.

The Act is based on an equality that includes the preborn child.

Our elected politicians are the elected guardians of the people of Malta, including the preborn. It is their duty to protect life from conception. The absolute majority of the people expect and demand this.

Equality is being taken a step too far when it excludes the rights of children and the protection of embryonic human beings.

Miriam Sciberras is chair of Life Network Foundation Malta.

Upholding the common good

It is customary, on religious occasions marking our national and historical events, that the leader of the Church in Malta takes the golden opportunity to draw the attention of the powers of the land to the moral challenges we face.

This year, on the occasion of the pontificial Mass on Independence Day, Archbishop Charles Scicluna addressed the topic of the common good. This message is underpinned by the rich contribution of the social doctrine of the Church that came to the fore with the landmark encyclical Rerum Novarum of 1891 which had condemned the negative impact unleashed by the Industrial Revolution while warning us of the flawed reaction of socialist ideology.

In his homily, the Archbishop explained the essential criteria of the common good, stressing that upholding and promoting this ideal is the raison d’être of civil authority. He stressed that the crucial principle of subsidiarity also entails the safeguarding of the family. He pointed out that social policy should above all target the needs of the weaker and poorer segments of society and questioned whether “the wealth being generated in our society is creating new forms of economic disparity”.

History should have made us aware that short-sighted policies have unintentional and unexpected adverse consequences. Goodwill is too often clouded by short-term political convenience and even outright greed. Despite economic growth and increased consumption, Malta is witnessing a dysfunctional result that is placing the vulnerable at risk and seriously damaging the environment.

Despite his subdued and diplomatic tone, the Archbishop is prodding the authorities and people of influence to take a critical look at what the real present and future consequences of current policies are. For instance, one does not need too much social awareness to notice that the unbridled construction boom is already having long-term negative environmental consequences and that the rewards are being enjoyed disproportionately.

Political incompetence and corruption can further contribute to flawed decisions, sapping our nation’s well-being.

After all, there is much more to welfare policies than the provision of social housing, health services and the dishing out of meaningless government jobs.

Distributive justice lies at the heart of Catholic social doctrine. It translates itself into a philosophy of empowerment through meaningful employment, sharing of rights and responsibility in economic endeavour. It is not a recipe for either uncontrolled capitalism or socialism.

It is distressing that these principles, which had fired the imagination and conversion of such people as G. K. Chesterton, E. F. Schumacher and Joseph Pearce, seem unfamiliar to, and are ignored by, our political class.

No doubt, there is room for debate in the application of such values according to the times and local situation of each country.

One hopes that the appeal of our Archbishop will not fall on deaf ears or be reduced to an opportunity for partisan mudslinging. If goodwill prevails, the choice and implementation of economic and social policies will have a more sustainable and positive outcome on our country’s future.

These principles are as relevant today as they ever were before, especially in the light of the financial, economic and environmental crises we face which will eventually have such a negative effect on so many families and society in general.

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

Environmental justice

In his article ‘Social, environmental justice’ (September 16) Edward Zammit Lewis, chairman of the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Foreign and European Affairs, wrote that at the core of the Labour government’s beliefs are social mobility and social justice based on equality and environmental justice.

Zammit Lewis said that in the introduction to the Labour Party’s 2017 election manifesto the Prime Minister stressed how the party’s guiding values and principles determined the character of the Labour government, and were driving it forward to achieve the well-being and unity of the Maltese nation.

In May this year Environment Minister José Herrera said the Maltese government had decided to apply the precautionary principle and Malta would vote, at European level, against the renewal of licences for the herbicide glyphosate with potential links to cancer. The minister added: “For the Maltese government, environmental issues are definitely a priority.”

This was a very good initiative by the government in favour of environmental justice.

Hopefully, again, the same guiding values and principles will drive the government to do environmental justice with the first environment to man, the womb or, with the latest development, the petri dish for in vitro fertilisation purposes.

The womb should continue to be protected from abortion. The petri dish should not be used to produce an indiscriminate number of human conceptions which will be discarded (killed) later on as surplus to requirements. Abortion by a collection of words.

In her book Environmental Justice and the Rights of Unborn and Future Generations, Laura Westra, president of the Global Ecological Integrity Group and professor of social science at York University, Canada deals with work on environmental jurisprudence and the link to social justice.

She says: “In many countries a three-month-old foetus can be aborted – so what does the law say about the poisoning of an unborn child by a toxic spill, HIV infection or the future damage of climate change?”

Westra cites conclusive evidence from the World Health Organisation “that children, including unborn children, are particularly vulnerable to environmental threats and suffer consequences such as asthma, neurological developmental disorders, cancers, and birth defects such as children born with flippers rather than feet due to thalidomide exposure”.

Many of these disorders, she notes, are on the rise in developed nations where chemicals and pesticides are a part of daily life.

Westra adds: “Such activities disastrously and irreversibly impact future generations. To deny protection of their most basic rights would be to place our own autonomy over the rights of the defenceless. Many of these harms stretch beyond parental control, and without governmental intervention these harms will continue to plague those unable to speak in their own defence. 

 

“The global community needs to re-evaluate its concept of justice to include a ‘principle of integrity’ that would prohibit any activity that would harm those most vulnerable – the unborn as well as the poor and future generations.”

Reviewers of Westra’s book say that it examines the right of the unborn to health and sends shockwaves through governments, polluting industries, NGOs and legal departments dealing with pollution, human health and the rights of the unborn.

The book contains arguments on environmental harm, justice and the rights of future generations to health, while the traditional concept of social justice is challenged by the notion of a humankind which spans current and future generations.

Ironically, Carmel Cacopardo, the new leader of Alternattiva Demokratika, the environment party, in his maiden speech lately called for a debate on abortion, because a number of Maltese women are having abortion overseas. He seems to be calling for the introduction of abortion in Malta because of the expenses involved in going abroad for an abortion.

Is he suggesting abortion on demand be included in our free health services? What is the “ethical relativism” to which Cacopardo refers when we are talking about the rights and dignity of human life from conception already protected by so many laws of Malta? What exactly he has in mind is not clear at all.

The Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) in an article in this newspaper ‘Abortions overseas’ (October 7, 2007) had suggested that a strategy, a scheme, or a plan should be devised to halt the flight of unborn children out of Malta for the purpose of abortion by creating the necessary compassionate, advisory and therapeutic services for pregnant women, and their partners, who would be considering solving their problems through abortion.

MUCM had argued that if the Gift of Life Foundation, an organisation within MUCM, had found the means to create these services, why not the government, which has much greater human and financial resources at its disposal. MUCM had also suggested a joint venture, a public-private partnership on this subject.

In fact for many years we have had the State’s counselling and supportive services Għożża and Benniena run by the Foundation for Social Welfare Services, similar services by the Church Cana Movement, and the service HOPE run the Gift of Life Foundation for cases of this kind.

The men and women who opt to go abroad to carry out an abortion do so for their own convenience and because the dignity of human life from conception is not a priority to them.

As an environment political party, AD has been promoting environmental justice for unborn children from its very beginning. In fact the Greens of Malta have been making pro-life speeches every year over the last 10 years on the Pro-Life Days organised by MUCM. Their last pro-life speech was on February 5.

Something has changed radically in AD about the beginning of human life. What is it really? Or is Cacopardo’s initiative on this subject  a follow-up to  Arnold Cassola, his predecessor, who in 2016 accompanied a young woman before the Maltese Parliamentary Committee on the morning-after pill to make a case for the introduction of the pill in Malta which, in many quarters, pharmaceutical and medical, locally and overseas, is considered abortifacient?

Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

Freedom and responsibility

In his over enthusiasm to defend liberty and liberalism, Martin Scicluna applauds the direction Malta is taking, intoxicating us with high-sounding catchwords and decrying what he portrays as the bigoted views of others.

For good measure, he slurs the outstandingly positive contribution of Christianity by making sweeping derogatory and indiscriminating references to religion.

He can fill acres of newsprint with slogans and adjectives but, in the end, he has to convince us that our concerns are misplaced. Words such as tolerance, democracy, choice etc. can be bandied about but in themselves are no guarantee of genuine improvement unless anchored to a sound ethical framework.

It is being increasingly realised that the ideals of liberty and personal responsibility have increasingly drifted apart. Although personal responsibility cannot exist without liberty, liberty will not endure without responsibility and will eventually lead to decadence and moral decay.

Progress is a very positive sounding concept but we should also be very concerned about the direction in which it is taking us. For example, what is so liberating about divorce? The very concept of loyalty to one’s vows freely taken is made legally worthless. Rather than making it convenient for couples to take the ‘easy way out’, governments should be supporting the common good by finding solutions to support and strengthen their marriages.

Society esteems those who stick to their commitments. For instance, we admire soldiers on the parade ground but we admire them even more when placed in mortal danger to defend their friends, families and country, their honour, their colours. One does not condone desertion.

The ideals of liberty and personal responsibility have increasingly drifted apart 

The same applies to families. Despite the best intentions and hopes, life is unpredictable and a continual challenge and we admire families most when they face with fortitude and dignity untimely bereavement, illness, financial setbacks and other misfortunes.

A country that wants the best for its people promotes the common good by fostering citizens who are responsible, who value self-control and self-discipline and have the readiness to sacrifice their egoism in the interests of their family and society.

Meanwhile, I fail to see how irresponsible sexual activity fuelled by contraception, abortive pills, drugs and prostitution are welcome developments. On the contrary, the acceptance and promotion of reckless behaviour harms people, impacts on the wider community and even leads to the destruction of the most vulnerable.

And here lies the singular let-down of the Catholic politician which I mentioned in the article Scicluna chose to refer to.

The Nationalist Party, in particular, betrayed its core values that are at the centre of human flourishing. It abstained when adoption was dishonestly linked to civil union between homosexuals. It failed again over the issue of vilification, on the morning after pill and the recent insidious ‘Equality Bill’.

Catholic politicians, especially those in a political party that claims to have a Christian ethos, have shirked their responsibilities by showing that they lack the courage and consistency to live up to their professed ideals.

Thankfully, Edwin Vassallo was the notable exception. He had the resolve and integrity to be true to his beliefs and principles that, after all, are shared by many of the Maltese.

Sadly, unfolding consequences of the current trends will soon show how misplaced Scicluna’s optimistic confidence in liberalism will prove to be.

I conclude with the wise words of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger: “The history of liberation can never occur except as a history of growth in responsibility. Increase of freedom can no longer lie simply in giving more and more latitude to individual rights, which leads to absurdity and to the destruction of those very individual freedoms themselves.”

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

 

L-iffriżar tal-embrijun uman

Nixtieq minn qalbi ngħid prosit lit-tim kollu li ppreżenta d-diska Iffriżajt.

Dan għaliex irnexxielu jerġa’ jqajjem id-diskussjoni dwar l-embrijun uman. Hemm min ħadha qatta’ bla ħabel kontra dan it-tim żaghżugħ u attakkhom bħala insensittivi, jew inkella li dawn qegħdin jattakkaw lill min ma jistax ikollu tfal. Hemm min ikkritika l-vidjow li juri fetu u mhux l-istampa tal-embrijun li huwa ferm aktar żgħir. Jibqa’ l-fatt li żgħir kemm hu żgħir huwa wieħed minna.

George Cassar, Aleandro u Marco Debono qegħdin jagħtu vuċi lill-embrijun vulnerabbli. Ħadd ma jista’ jinnega li l-embrijun huwa wieħed minna, kreatura umana ġdida, bid-DNA u l-karatteristiċi distinti li jagħmlu bniedem uman ġdid.Sa mill-konċepiment għandu d-dritt tal-ħajja protett speċjalment f’Malta. Il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja umana għandha tkun punt li jgħaqqadna lkoll bħala poplu.

Il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja umana ma tistax tkun punt li nilagħbu biha emozzjonalment, jiġifieri li niddefendu l-ħajja meta jaqbel jew ma jaqbilx lilna. L-iffriżar tal-embrijun uman imur kontra d-dritt tal-ħajja ta’ dak l-embrijun involut. Ma jħallihx ikompli ħajtu u ma jagħtihx ċans jitwieled. L-iffriżar tal-embrijuni jagħmel inġustizzja bejn l-aħwa – min jintgħażel biex ikompli ħajtu … u min biex jiġi ffriżat bil-konsegwenzi kollha assoċjati mal-iffriżar.

L-iffriżar tal-embrijuni ħafna drabi jsir ukoll punt li joħloq ħafna tensjoni fil-ġenituri li jkollhom ulied imwielda u oħrajn iffriżati. Ħafna drabi dawn il-ġenituri jkunu jixtiequ jagħtu ċans lil ulied iffriżati li jitwieldu, iżda minħabba li jinbidlu ċ-ċirkostanzi jista’ jkun li dan ma jibqax possibli. Il-karba tal-kantant f’isem l-embrijun hija kommoventi, tant li tmiss il-qalb u nista’ nifhem li min għandu embrijuni umani ffriżati jħoss għalihom. F’din is-sitwazzjoni hemm modi differenti kif wieħed jirreaġixxi – jew jagħmel kuraġġ u jitkellem, jgħid lil ħaddieħor biex ma jagħżilx din it-triq, jew, kif sfortunatament qed jiġri jattakka lill-kantant minflok.

L-aħjar li ma mmorrux għall-għażla tal-iffriżar tal-embrijuni umani kif fil-fatt tesiġi l-liġi f’pajjiżna bħalissa. Filwaqt li l-pjaga tal-infertilità ma tistax tiġi injorata, daqstant ieħor ma nistgħux nagħlqu għajnejna lejn ir-realtà ta’ x’jiġri mill-embrijun uman li jiġi magħżul, skartat, minsi jew jitlef ħajtu minħabba din il-proċedura.

George Cassar jgħid, “Il-kanzunetta “Iffriżajt” iddewweb l-embrijun li tħalla skartat u tagħtih vuċi biex jesprimi x-xewqa li jgħix. It-tama hi li din il-karba innoċenti, imma sinċiera, iddewweb ukoll dik il-qalb li bbieset għal ħajjet ħaddieħor u dak l-ilsien li qagħad pass lura u ma tkellimx favur id-dritt tal-ħajja sa mill-bidu nett”. Dan huwa messaġġ validu speċjalment illum il-ġurnata fejn hemm min jixtieq jiġġustifika kollox u jagħmel oġġett minn ħajja umana ġdida.

Prosit George, Aleandro u  Marco Debono. Prosit tal-messaġġ kuraġġuż favur il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja ta’ kull embrijun uman.

Biex tisma’ d-diska agħfas hawn.

Dr Miriam Sciberras BChD (Hons) MA Bioethics

Chairman Life Network Foundation Malta