Author: lifenetwork

Abortion battle at UN continues as assembly readies to negotiate new development agenda

NEW YORK — Activists and governments that promote abortion and sexual rights see a new global scheme on development as an opportunity to change national policies.

Discussions are ongoing at UN headquarters after member states reached a partial agreement in December on a new agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Negotiations begin next month on the substance and format, but an agreement on how the negotiations will occur still remains elusive.

Abortion groups have failed to gain ground on new norms in the draft development agenda. Like previous UN agreements, the 17 goals and 169 targets that UN member states adopted last year, called the Sustainable Development Goals, do not recognize a right to abortion.

Click here to read more…..

Thanks to http://www.lifesitenews.com

Midwives, Second-Class – Terminating Religious Freedom in the UK

The adage goes that when it comes to social issues, the United States is at best a decade or two behind Europe. With its cathedrals collecting cobwebs, its laws enshrining all sorts of alternative sexual practices, and its widespread disregard for the sanctity of life, this once-devout home of Christendom could very well be a picture of America’s future.

Click here to read more……

(Thanks to www.Breakpoint.org)

France Pushes Abortion Rights Beyond Its Borders – Malta mentioned

In an article by Julie Bhatia and Hajer Naili of WeNews, it was reported that a French delegation is pushing an abortion resolution which will have direct effect over Europe, under the premise of ‘France developing a profile as a European leader on abortion rights’.

Malta and Poland have been mentioned in the article as having the most restrictive laws in Europe together with Ireland and Andorra.

Please read more in this article: ‘France Pushes Abortion Rights Beyond Its Borders’ of WeNews.

Are Men’s And Women’s Brains The Same?

A recent magnetic resonance imaging research study has shown that it is possible to distinguish males and females with an accuracy of 93%, just using brain images. Duarte-Caravajalino and colleagues from UCLA used diffusion tensor imaging in a study reported in the journal Neuroimage. Diffusion tensor imaging is a new process by which connections between different parts of the brain (made by the white matter fibres, that are like tiny wires) can be imaged. They found that female brain connections were more symmetrical and had more connections from the left side of the brain to the right; male brains tended to be asymmetrical and had more connections between areas on one side of the brain. The researchers found no interactions with age between the ages of 7 to 22 (the ages of the persons studied) showing that these changes are not due to different cultural experiences.

Men are known to be better at visual orientation than women and this sex difference has been found in infants as young as three months. Men are better at rotating an object in their mind. Women have better verbal fluency and a better memory for objects. They remember better where things have been put. Men are better at navigating by cardinal direction (for example going northwards) whereas women tend to navigate using landmarks.

Personality differences between the sexes have been thought to be small but Del Giudice from the University of Turin, reporting in the journal PLOS One, found extremely large differences between men and women in a large US sample of over 10,000 persons. The authors state that personality differences between the sexes have been consistently underestimated in the past because of inadequate methodology.

One commonly quoted theory is that men and women start off with a single type of “intersex” brain and that individuals’ personalities are made up of a mosaic of “masculinizing” or “feminizing” influences. Larry Cahill, Professor of Neurobiology and Behaviour at the University of California, Irvine wrote in Cerebrum in April, that there is no evidence to support this. There is a limit to how much the brain can be changed by training, as for example a left-handed person who is forced to use their right hand will never be as good with their trained right hand. People’s brains are not just a “blank slate” that is mouldable, and we are just beginning to discover how large are the inherent differences in structure and function between the sexes.

New interesting research is also beginning to emerge on differences in moral judgments between the sexes. Fumagalli and colleagues from the University of Milan studied how men and women responded to several personal moral dilemmas. For example, they were told to imagine they were a doctor and they had five dying patients who could only be saved by transplanting five organs from a young man – but against his will, and that this would kill him. They had to give a quick yes/no answer. The researchers found that men were more likely to make “utilitarian” judgments than women and would be more likely to choose to transplant in this situation.

In a separate internet study, Bouhnik from Israel, writing in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology recently found girls were more likely to make a “humane” judgment and tended towards judgments that reflected adherence to peer-group conventions than boys.

These findings have implications for the new proposed legislation on gender in Malta. What is being proposed is that individuals who feel that they have the wrong gender can freely and easily choose to change their gender. “Gender identity” is defined in the Act as “each person’s internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex assigned at birth” This research is telling us that we have a hard-wired brain structure which underlies the sex-specific way we act. We can change the external way we act and look into that of the opposite sex, but it is likely that a lot of the actions and decisions of trans-sexual persons will be strongly influenced by the brain structure of their original sex. The definition of “gender identity” in the proposed Act appears to be superficial and seriously lacking. Something that is so deeply written in our brain should not be changeable by a simple application to the Director of the Public Registry. An unhurried period of consultation with experts, and assessments to ensure the right decision is being made and that the individual knows all the risks and implications should be mandatory.

Dr Patrick Pullicino

Beware the Trojan Horse

The prospective Bill on ‘gender identity’ is the next move in the shabby scheme to undermine the family. The assault on the unassailable concept that a family is made up of a man and a woman has a long gestation. The powerful transgender and homosexual organisations have been working assiduously to influence public policy into discarding this self-evident reality.

We have now reached the ridiculous situation that any assertion of the obvious, that a family is formed by a man and a woman, is now branded as being homophobic. The very idea of a family is being destroyed and redefined. Anybody choosing to have a relationship with anybody irrespective of one’s sex can claim to be a family. The Bill on gender identity is the battering ram that will smash down what’s left of the integrity of marriage and the family. Divorce legislation was the first blow that knocked out the crucial significance of marriage. The dire warnings that divorce legislation was the precursor of further legislation that would further undermine marriage and the family have been proved right.

The next stage was set when the legislation of civil union was deceitfully coupled with the introduction of gay adoption. Shockingly, this controversial and far reaching law has gone through almost unchallenged. This ‘gender bill’ is now the Trojan horse that will subvert any notion that previously upheld the true meaning of what is a family. In short, marriage between homosexuals will be legalised by default.

Yet, even more is at stake. Young people are now entitled to decide their gender irrespective of their biology. We are no longer created male and female. Sex-related genes of xx and xy are now irrelevant. According to the Bill, one can choose one’s sex. The strategy to break down the time-honoured value of sexuality is being realised.

Unbelievably, this virulent attack is promoted and supported by the United Nations and other international agencies as a result of the libertarian and contraceptive culture that is suffocating the West. This insidious campaign lies at the heart of the so-called sex education that also includes the active promotion of homosexuality in young people.

One need only examine the shameful website on sexual health adopted by our government in December 2013.

We should all know where this leads to. Now, the child is no longer the fruit of the intimate relationship between a man and a woman. The child is no longer entitled to have a mother and a father. The child is now an object to which anybody and everybody has a right. Abortion, sperm donorship and surrogate motherhood will be the next consequence of these developments.

A nation that destabilises marriage and the family is doomed. No worthy civilisation has a future if the meaning of male and female is immaterial, if marriage means nothing, if it is of no consequence whether marriage vows are upheld or not.

Society depends on the stable sexual unions of man and woman that provide the necessary innate security for children. For this reason alone, society should have an interest in protecting marriage.

The government claims that it will listen to public opinion. One wonders if there is a public opinion to listen to. We all seem to be sleep walking into any alien social framework fashioned by people who have only their narrow, selfish self-interests at heart.

Unfortunately, most people with families don’t have the time and money to become political activists. Most of the people who do have the time to be political activists don’t have families; the laws these people lobby for with great success represent special interest groups, but they do not represent the interests of that general interest group, the family.

As a result, most laws are very much anti-family and against the common good.

This prospective Gender Identity Bill will lead to the redefining of relationships and marriage. It will radically alter the nature and meaning of a fundamental institution so vital to society’s wellbeing.

Klaus Vella Bardon

Equality is the name of the game

The proposed Gender Identity, Expression and Sex Characteristics Act attempts to make a case for equality and human rights by redefining the real meaning of these terms. This Bill, if enacted, will try to alter the meaning of family life in Malta. It will attempt to silence the voice of the Church because it cannot accept nor tolerate its teachings. It will also try to poison our children’s minds in schools by pushing ‘sexual health programmes’, including gay sex, on some misguided ploy of discrimination or homophobia.

According to the gender ideology, a man and women are not born so, but become so. In the name of ‘free choice’, one will be having the choice of one’s sex and sexual orientation. This means to arbitrarily decide whether he or she wants to be man or woman, to try to destroy the concept of male and female. No psychological, medical or any assessment would be needed to make such a choice. No age limits either.

At the tender age of 14, which is biologically, hormonally and psychologically a challenging and stressful time for any adolescent, our youths will be encouraged to experiment and subsequently choose their sex. Gender mainstreaming asserts that the differentiation into two sexes is only a construct of society.

The public needs to be aware that this law will try to change the innermost core of our social structure in society. This law does away with the concept of the human person, with an unchangeable sexuality integrally connected to the person. It’s about dissolving the identity of man and woman step by step as well as sexual standards and social forms based on marriage, family, motherhood and fatherhood. It does away with the differences between male and female as well as the complementarity of both sexes so beneficial to child development.

This Cultural Revolution is called ‘gender mainstreaming’. Once enacted, this Bill will have many ramifications, of which I would like to mention but a few. Any direct opposition to an active homosexualisation of society will not be tolerated.

Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers. It would give sanction and approval to the creation of a motherless or fatherless family as a deliberately chosen ‘good’. Embryos would have to be created to accommodate demand, and the Embryo Protection law, which in Malta gives the maximum protection to the embryo in IVF procedures, would be sacrificed.

According to the gender ideology, a man and women are not born so, but become so

It will put increasing pressures on our schools to implement programmes embracing ‘diversity’ in the name of ‘equality’ but negating concepts of ‘sexual difference’, ‘male and female complementarity’ and natural law. Studies from brain scan research, sociology and psychology, which show the undeniable difference and the need for complementation of the male and female sexes, will be ignored. Bullying will be ‘used’ as a pretext for inserting the ‘gender ideology’ in school programmes.

What will happen to the rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s education, particularly on moral issues? Will parents be given the right to opt out if they do not wish that their children be thought these concepts as the norm? The concept of parents as primary educators, besides being a parental right, is also taught by the Church and was given emphasis by the late St Pope John Paul II.

What about the Church? The Church teaches that sexual activity between people of the same gender cannot be reconciled with its beliefs and doctrines. Although it has condemned all forms of hostility to any individual on the basis of her or his actual or perceived sexual orientation, the Church has been precise in its moral teachings.

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage is the lifelong, faithful, indissoluble bond open to life between one man and one woman. We are already seeing a growing intolerance experienced by Christians in many countries in Europe and the US.

I call on all serious MPs to read up on the malaise of gender ideology, before they embark on the discussion. The Church authorities must speak out. Religious freedom depends on this Bill being repealed; before we get to the stage when it would take an act of ‘courage’ to even say that the child’s father is a man and a woman, the mother.

BBC.co.uk reports: Calls for law to stop anti-abortion protests outside clinics

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) is calling for new laws to move anti-abortion protesters from the doorstep of its clinics.

BPAS, one of the UK’s main abortion providers, has told Newsbeat some patients are being confronted by graphic content.

These include large posters and leaflets with pictures showing dismembered foetuses.

But anti-abortion groups, like Abort67, say they are “educating” the public.

Department of Health figures for 2013 suggest there were 185,331 terminations in England and Wales.

“We’ve really asked protesters to think a lot harder about the kind of activity that they’re undertaking outside clinics,” says BPAS spokeswoman Clare Murphy.

“We completely respect people’s right to protest, but we simply feel that approaching women, causing them harassment and distress at what’s already quite a difficult time in their life, really isn’t right.”

BPAS is now campaigning for the Government to create “access zones” outside British abortion clinics to help women access them without be confronted by pro-life protesters.

Submission for the Gender Identity (GIGESC) Consultation by Life Network and Gift of Life Foundation Malta

A Bill entitled An Act for the recognition and registration of the gender of a person and to regulate the effects of such a change, as well as the recognition and protection of the sex characteristics of a person.

The proposed law may seem to apply to a minority group, however the way that the law is worded and the implications thereof will affect the whole population. Some of the most salient parts of the law and their application are listed (in bold) below:

(2) Without prejudice to any provision of this Act (a) a person’s rights, relationship and obligations arising out of parenthood or marriage shall in no way be affected; and

(b) the persons rights arising out of succession, including but not limited to any testamentary dispositions made in one’s favour, and any obligations and, or rights subjected to or acquired prior to the date of change of gender identity shall in no way be affected.

Transfers/liabilities:

What about transfers/liabilities acquired inter vivos prior to change of sex and name as per article 11(1)?

Penal charges:

What happens if there is a change in gender in the period between committing a crime and being charged for it? Would the charge be considered null and void, because the particulars do not correspond to the particulars listed on the charge?

Why should one be permitted to change one’s gender on the basis of one’s ‘experience of gender’, but not one’s birth date if one feels that one ‘should’ be a different age?

(1) It shall be the right of every person who is a Maltese citizen to request the Director to change the recorded gender and, or first name in order to reflect that person’s self-determined gender identity.

Security:

What happens if the gender chosen does not correspond to the person’s bodily appearance? Is this safe or even legal? The law will demand new practices in the identification of people.

Example: What happens at airport security if there is a mismatch? Will the police be allowed to investigate? What about international security?

Gender change registration in cases of gender dysphoria:

It is well known that gender dysphoria may be a symptom of schizophrenia and of other mild psychoses. There are several gender dysphoria syndromes that may result in a temporary altered gender identity and reassignment of gender in these persons, at least, is not only harmful to themselves but also to society. (Levine and Lothstein J Sex Marital Ther. 1981;7:85-113; for a summary of a more recent paper, see the end of this document). More generally, for the protection of the individual and of society, there should be more attention to the psychiatric and psychological assessment of those with gender dysphoria before any official change of gender is contemplated.

Expenses:

Will the individual have the right to have the cost of expensive gender reassignment surgery and hormonal therapy met by the government as a result of official recognition of gender change?

Gender change registration:

How many times is one allowed to register a change?

(2) The request shall be made by means of a letter which makes clear reference to the public deed published in accordance with article 5.

Legal loophole: The request is to be made by means of a letter which makes clear reference to a public deed. A true copy of the public deed must be attached to the covering letter as proof.

Also, there is room for abuse, since in Malta the Public Registry (Acts of births+ deaths) and the Public Registry (Assets and Liabilities/ transfer of immovable property) are not in any way linked or intertwined.

5 (2) The Notary shall explain to the applicant the legal implications of the change of the assigned gender and shall require the applicant to declare understanding of such implications.

Notarial duties: Since when are Notaries trained to explain that the legal implications will also have psychological, medical and social implications to mention but a few?

6 (3) The Director shall cause an index of the Gender Register to be made and kept in the Public Registry Office in Malta and in Gozo; and no-one shall be entitled to search that index.

This is not acceptable or in the public’s best interest. Birth certificates are available to any and all – they are public documents, and that is why the Registry is public.

Note: Articles 8 and 15 both refer to Protection of minors

(1) The persons exercising parental authority over the Minors. minor or the tutor of the minor may file an application in the registry of the Civil Court (Voluntary Jurisdiction Section) requesting the Court to change the recorded gender and first name of the minor in order to reflect the minor’s gender identity.

(2) Where an application under sub-article (1) is made on behalf of a minor, the Court shall:

(a) Ensure that the best interests of the child as expressed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child be the paramount consideration; and

(b) in so far as is practicable, give due weight to the views of the minor having regard to the minor’s age and maturity.

Protection of minors

The Act recognizes a “minor” as a person who has not as yet attained the age of eighteen years. Adolescence is one of the most difficult phases of the life cycle of human beings during which a child/adolescent goes through different stages in how he or she understands his or her body (including for some, a feeling, which will often have begun much earlier, that their physical characteristics do not reflect their “real” gender).

Helping children and young people to mature should be a matter of helping them understand and appreciate their body and physical sex, rather than seeing their body as something “wrong” which needs to be “corrected” or “rectified” through surgery.

The Bill refers to the “right to bodily integrity”(31 (d)) but does not uphold the right to bodily integrity in practice where a child’s physical sex is unambiguous, but the child is experiencing difficulty in coming to terms with it.

A holistic approach is required to address the diverse needs of the child during such a traumatic and vulnerable time.

While it is always a questionable response to gender dysphoria to agree with the person that his or her physical sex needs “correction” or “masking” by dress, those under 18 in particular should be protected from well-meaning attempts of parents or doctors to “correct” what does not in fact need correction (the body and the way it is presented to society), rather than addressing the young person’s emotions in themselves.

Gender reassignment of children who are physically healthy (as opposed to “intersex” children who are born with ambiguous physical sex) is difficult to defend in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child including article 8 which refers to the child’s right to preserve his or her identity, article 19 referring to protection from physical injury and article 37 referring to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Penal Liabilities

Surgical intervention and any gender reassignment treatment, particularly if this treatment is irreversible, should at the very least be postponed until the minor reaches the age of majority. The law should stipulate penal liability for professionals who conduct any irreversible therapy on the child before age eighteen.

(1) Accessibility to the full act of birth shall be limited solely and exclusively to the person who has attained the age of eighteen years and to whom that act of birth relates or by a court

order.

This is highly discriminatory with respect to the rest of the population since full acts of birth of the rest of the population can be attained.

(1) A person who in the course of the discharge of official duties was involved with a matter relating to this Act may not unlawfully disclose such matter in accordance the Professional Secrecy Act and the Data Protection Act.

(2) Whosoever shall knowingly expose any person who has availed of the provisions of Act, or shall insult or revile a person, shall, upon conviction, be liable to a fine (multa) of not less than one thousand euro (€1000) and not exceeding five thousand euro (€5000).

Does this apply to marriage bans? Wouldn’t this be “discriminatory to the innocent party”? What if institutions are called on to explain why a particular person is considered male or female by them and therefore not suitable for a position reserved to one or other sex (such as the priesthood in the case of the Catholic Church)?

(1) Every norm, regulation or procedure shall respect the right to gender identity. No norm or regulation or procedure may limit, restrict, or annul the exercise of the right to gender identity, and all norms must always be interpreted and enforced in a manner that favours access to this right.

This does not respect children’s need for a mother and a father or existing social institutions that try to meet that need. This can be abusive and result in coercion of those who do not accept the normalisation of (for example) same sex/transgender marriage or use of surrogates and donors by those in same sex/transgender unions who wish to have a child.

In many countries, where similar laws were enacted, this has resulted in court cases against parties who in principle cannot support such lifestyles. Parents who were morally opposed to gender mainstreaming have been incarcerated and penalised for trying to protect their children.

There are examples citing such discrimination and attacks on the right to religious tolerance on many websites. The following is one such site:

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY (IN CANADA AND the US) http://www.christianpositivespace.com/discrimination-cases.html

Reproduction requires a male and a female in nature, and, in the best interests of the offspring born of this union. The Embryo Protection law applies to heterosexual couples, and is not only oriented to achieving a pregnancy but towards embryo protection. It should also be noted that this law took a lot of discussion and finally agreement from both sides of the House to come to fruition. It cannot just be altered to accommodate anyone who now wants to change it.

14 (2) The public service has the duty to ensure that unlawful sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics’ discrimination and harassment are eliminated, whilst its services must promote equality of opportunity to all, irrespective of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics.

How will this be interpreted as regards application to public education and education in schools?

Will comprehensive sex education become mandatory?

Will parents be allowed to opt out for their children, or will they be silenced, coerced, or even imprisoned, as we have seen happening in other countries?

Two recent examples are included:

Germany : Mandato d’arresto a genitori “non allineati” Sta suscitando polemiche la vicenda dei coniugi Martens, ai quali è stato notificato un arresto perché non hanno acconsentito alla presenza della figlia a scuola durante le “lezioni di gender”

Italy:Parents united against gender, “emergency social and anthropological An initiative promoted by Italian parents to stem the ‘gender’ teaching in schools. Rome, November 24, 2014 ( Zenit.org ) Federico Cenci

Church Schools and the Right to Religious Freedom:

Can the state declare that the Right to Religious Freedom will be upheld?

Gender ideology goes against basic tenets of the faith. It fails to acknowledge God as the Supreme Creator. It does not accept Natural law i.e. that part of the moral law that can be accessed by human reason alone. It does not accept marriage as made up of the exclusive union of one man and one woman. It negates the complementary nature of male and female (which today is even scientifically backed by brain scan technologies). Motherhood and fatherhood, so essential for the optimal holistic development of the child is also denied.

Catholic Church schools and institutions, and practising Catholic individuals, cannot accept Gender mainstreaming.

(1) It shall be not be lawful for medical practitioners or other professionals to conduct any sex assignment treatment and, or surgical intervention on the sex characteristics of a minor which treatment and, or intervention can be deferred until the person to be treated can provide informed consent.
(2) In exceptional circumstances treatment may be effected once there is an agreement between the Interdisciplinary Team and the persons exercising parental authority or tutor of the minor who is still unable to provide consent: Provided that medical intervention which is driven by social factors without the consent of the individual concerned will be in violation of this Act.

Protection of minors It is not clear whether 15.2 would protect children from medical intervention which is in fact “social” rather than medical but is not admitted to be social (that is, the child is physically healthy but the child’s self-perception is seen as causing psychological problems which gender assignment is proposed to “treat”).

17(6) The members of the working group shall review the current medical treatment protocols in line with current medical best practices and human rights standards and shall, within one year from the date of their appointment, issue a report with recommendations for revision of the current medical treatment protocols.

Which protocols would need to be changed to be in line with this proposed law? Is this referring to the The Embryo Protection Law?

Objects and Reasons

The objects of this Bill are to provide for the recognition and registration of the gender of a person and to regulate the effects of such a change, and due recognition and protection of the sex characteristics of a person.

This proposed law is imbued in human rights language and presents itself as protecting minority rights.However in its legal application it violates not only the rights of, in particular, children with gender dysphoria (as explained above) but also the rights of those without gender dysphoria. According to Gabriele Kuby, embracing gender mainstreaming means a whole different world view which can encompass when translated into policy:

“An”equality” between men and women built on a false premise.

More “equality” leads allegedly to greater justice. It is never questioned whether we are in fact enforcing equality or “sameness” between that which is not the same but is different and/or complementary.

Subversion of the identity of man and woman by destroying “gender-stereotypes”, beginning in schools.

Deregulation of normative standards of sexuality: Any kind of sexual practice or self-perception – be it lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender (LGBT) – has to be accepted by society as equivalent to heterosexuality. And this would have to be taught to children at school.

Early sexualisation of children through obligatory comprehensive sexual education.

The gender ideology attempts to create a new man, whose freedom would include the choice of his sex and sexual orientation. This means to arbitrarily decide whether he or she wants to be man or woman, heterosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (GLBT). This view of freedom and sexuality, according to the will of the UN, EU and most European governments is to be imprinted onto the minds of children from the nursery onwards.” (Ref Kuby G, Gender Mainstreaming — The Secret Revolution)

Camille Paglia, a lesbian and self-described “notorious Amazon feminist” comments negatively on the gender ideology. She “sees a connection between society’s attempts to paper over the biological distinction between men and women pushing a version of feminism that says gender is nothing more than a social construct”.

State parties are duty bound to protect minors. It has been amply proven that minors from single parent families suffer from the absence of a missing parent. Mother and father figures are essential to the holistic child development.

This law will have the effect of destroying society’s recognition of the need for these role models. Children are likely, in the future, to be bombarded with presentations of all sorts of different sexual relationships from an early age, and eventually encouraged to choose. Any attempts by parents to teach their children about the traditional heterosexual marriage, based on biology and on children’s real needs, will suffer the full brunt of the law. This goes against the fundamental human right to family life, which right is supposed to be exercised and enjoyed without undue interference from the state.

According to Article8, Chapter 319 Laws of Malta

(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Ref: Article8, Chapter 319 Laws of Malta .This is a constitutional source of law and is supreme to all other laws of the land, which prevails if in conflict with another law.

This Bill if enacted will be imposed on an absolute majority of heterosexual people to accommodate a minority of gay, lesbian, homosexual or transgender people, whose own genuine interests are not obviously served by the Bill.

Babies are biologically born either male or female. Their sex is anatomically visible at birth. In very rare cases, intersex babies are born. In these cases scans and karyotyping would determine which sex organs are present or most developed, and remedial surgery could be performed at an appropriate age if it is truly in the person’s interests. This law applies not to the biologically intersex person alone but to those whose biological sex is absolutely clear but who have difficulty accepting that sex and need psychological support.

A paper entitled “The Psychopathology of “Sex Reassignment Surgery”: Assessing its Medical, Psychological and Ethical Appropriateness” (NCBQ Spring 2009) whose main authors are psychologists and family therapists, reached the following conclusions about such surgery, based on a wide review of the available scientific literature:

Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS) violates basic medical and ethical principles because a) it mutilates a healthy, non-diseased body and therefore violates the medical principle “first do no harm”.

Demands for SRS result from a misperception of the self and SRS therefore offers a surgical solution to psychological problems (which may include failure to accept the goodness of one’s masculinity or femininity, lack of secure attachment relationships in childhood with same-sex peers or a parent etc.).

SRS does not accomplish what it claims to accomplish because it cannot, in fact, “change” a person’s sex and cannot benefit the person in the way sought.

Finally, SRS is a “permanent”, effectively unchangeable and often unsatisfying surgical attempt to change what may be only a temporary (i.e psychothepeutically changeable) psychological/psychiatric condition.

As can be seen, the enactment of this law will change the concept of society as we know it. Although the law ostensibly applies to a minority group, the way that the law is worded and the implications thereof will affect the whole population. As well as failing to protect the right of children with gender dysphoria to bodily integrity and to genuine psychological support, the Bill will limit the rights of the majority without gender dysphoria, including parents wishing to teach their children about the body, sex and marriage. As is amply demonstrated from court cases abroad, this results in a minority dictatorship which is in fact in no-one’s interests.

Dr Miriam Sciberras Mr Paul Vincenti

BChD(Hons) MABioethics President

Chairman, Life Network Gift of Life Foundation – Malta

Prime Minister Muscat On Abortion

During a visit by the Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s at the Life Network’s stand, members of the Life Network gave exposure to the value of life and took note of his comments.

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_video title=”Muscat On Abortion” src=”“//www.youtube.com/embed/zxGCpXsdkWM“” width=”“560“” height=”“315“” frameborder=”“0“” link=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxGCpXsdkWM”][vc_column_text]Life Network is currently present at the Fresher’s Week on University Campus. During the brief encounter with Hon Muscat, the Prime Minister gave his comments with regard to the issue of abortion.

His comments gave a great indication into what he believed the Maltese people agree upon in this regard. He stated that his belief is that ‘there is a consensus’ of the Maltese people against abortion. Using the word consensus implies that there is more than a general feel against abortion but a unifying agreement against its introduction. He also noted that that he has ‘no doubt’ that the consensus will remain as is.

Hon Muscat was shown a leaflet portraying the effects of abortion on the unborn child. To the images on the leaflet Hon Muscat said nothing and likewise he did not give any indications on his personal opinion on this matter.

Life Network is an NGO devoted to educating people about the value of human life (See our mission statement). The NGO has formed a new youth wing on the University Campus (see press release) where they will be present between the 1st and 8th October 2014.

For news about the Youth Wing On Campus go to: https://www.facebook.com/events/1526524097594487/[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Pro-Life Student Wing On Campus

The Pro-life foundation Life Network youth wing would like to cordially invite all the University staff students to visit their stand during Fresher’s week.[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Life Network is a voluntary pro-life foundation just recently set up with a mission statement to promote and maintain a pro-life culture in Malta.

If we are to remain a country “free to choose life”, we cannot afford any complacency regarding protection of human life at any stage. The fundamental principle that all rights flow from the human person must remain at the heart of our society.

Peace cannot be taken for granted, lest we have war. The same is true with life. If we are not vigilant in protecting the intrinsic value of human life in all its stages, the anti-life mentality will creep in…… slowly but surely.

Malta remains the only country in the EU that fully respects human life from conception; however the unremitting pressure to comply with women’s so called ‘reproductive rights’ including abortion remains.

The pressures on Malta will keep increasing. How will we respond? It is not going to be easy, but…. if we do not prevail in our pro-life stance we face the lethal implications of abortion for the unborn child victims like most countries.

Please help us in our mission. Join us, help us, and donate towards our work.

Miriam Sciberras

BChD(Hons) MA Bioethics

Chairman Life Network

www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co

26.09.2014 [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_cta_button2 h2=”Help Us Help Life” style=”rounded” txt_align=”left” title=”Make Your Donations” btn_style=”rounded” color=”juicy_pink” size=”md” position=”right” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Fstaging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co%2Findex.php%2Fabout-us%2Fhelp-us-help-life%2F|title:Donate|” h4=”Why Support Life Network?”]

We need your support in order to be able to spread the news on the value of life. Your donation will help us to educate people of all ages, organise pro-life seminars and buy books & materials to facilitate educate. Like every life is infinitely priceless, so is every donation. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Life Network

[/vc_cta_button2][/vc_column][/vc_row]