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

 

Signs of Political Decadence

SHABBY POLITICS

I am sure that I voice the feelings of many when I say that this election was a distressing experience with both parties trying to outbid each other to win votes. The shameful record of blatant corruption by the outgoing administration was a sad reality. Yet, the Opposition had only been out of power for less than five years and their track record, when in government, was not enviable either. It was just a question of degree.

The level of political decadence is reflected in the hideous concrete buildings that sprout like mushrooms defacing even small hamlets like Manikata. The goings-on in the area of Sliema, which has been converted into a concrete jungle and the ghastly tower of Babel in front of the Addolorata cemetery are other obvious examples.

Nothing is sacred. Old buildings are gutted and torn down irrespective of their history and beauty, gardens are ripped up and the little remaining farmland and open spaces are earmarked for so-called new development.

After the election of 2013, Simon Busuttil had an uphill struggle convincing us that there would be zero tolerance for corruption and that good governance would be the cornerstone of his future government. Sadly, as the unexpected snap election campaign unfolded, he started to scrape the barrel to appeal to one and all. Now we are saddled with the mess.

If the physical environment is being bashed, this pales in comparison to the onslaught on our traditional values and the institution of the family. As predicted, divorce legislation paved the way for further legislation that hollows out any concept of what is right and sound. Joseph Muscat is a shrewd, unscrupulous politician and he knows that the promotion of so-called ‘gay rights’ is the perfect wedge to cause division in the PN.

Here again, Simon Busuttil opted for the undemocratic option of placing ‘gay marriage’ in the PN’s electoral manifesto. This was profoundly dishonest. The shameful claim that the manifesto was unanimously approved ignores the basic fact that such a core value should be decided by national referenda and not by a party cabal.

The proposed bill on ‘gay marriage’ is anything but an innocuous and positive development. It has very far-reaching negative consequences.

Amongst other things, it aims to redesign the concept of family, eliminating reference to fatherhood and motherhood and introducing the promotion of ‘fertility’ for gay couples. This crass aberration of Natural Law involves the scrapping of the Embryo Protection Act and the introduction by stealth of gamete donation and surrogacy thus reducing children to a commodity.

Politically, it costs the government nothing and is an excellent ruse to deviate public opinion from its corruption and the breath-taking last minute abuse of public funds on the eve of the election as it dished out jobs, promotions, favours, not to mention the building permits and regularisation of neglected long standing employment issues.

The PN now has a fresh opportunity to take stock and learn from its flawed and undemocratic decisions. Integrity and honesty demand that the unjust stand on ‘gay marriage’ be withdrawn. People of principle make U-turns when they realise they are in the wrong.

Promises of fine- tuning the prospective corrosive legislation is farcical and unacceptable. Any offer to MPs to be allowed to vote according to their conscience is insulting, to say the least. It is like conceding that we are allowed to breathe.

For the record, before the last General Election, Life Network phoned and emailed all prospective candidates about their stand on core values. Shamefully, with the exception of a handful candidates, the majority were not prepared to declare themselves. This is a miserable reflection on the character of people who expect our vote.

Hoping for our MPs to stand up and be counted may be wishful thinking, as financial and career interests seem to trump any other consideration. Yet, I still feel there are politicians of integrity who will not kowtow to the imposed party line and will stand up to try and put a stop to this rot.

Meanwhile, as never before, the grass roots of both parties have to wake up and tell our so-called representatives that our vote does not give them a blank cheque to pass laws that defy our values and are an unjust imposition by a well-organised, amoral clique.

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

 

Call for Volunteers!!!

Life Network Foundation Malta is a Maltese Pro-Life registered foundation which means that we seek to motivate and equip pro-life people all over the country to support the pro-life cause, get involved in our campaigns, and hold lawmakers and others to account. However, we cannot do this on our own and so we are looking for volunteers to help us in our work.

Would you like to volunteer? If so, there is a new volunteer opportunity waiting for you! And if you’re not keen on volunteering yourself, consider nominating someone who would be great at it.

To become a Life Network volunteer please click here to download the Volunteer application form, fill it in and email it back to sara.portelli@lifenetwork.eu

Thank you for considering this opportunity to help us!

 

Promise of marriage equality

In the run-up to the elections, amid the confusion of pledges by both political parties to make Malta the new heaven for all, we were also promised “marriage equality”.

The political tension was high. No one asked what this meant and we were assured that since we already had civil unions, all this would entail would be just a change of name.

Today, as we attempt to go back to ‘normality’, the promised Bill is being rushed speedily through Parliament.

A mock debate is presently underway. Any serious discussion or point of dissent is readily quenched and declared null and void as the decision has already been taken. All the speeches prepared will fall on deaf ears as will any attempt to present a serious analysis.

There are, at least, six clear points of contention in this Bill.

The Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 is not just about changing the name of the Civil Unions Act. If it was just a name change, it would not be 37 pages long.

The title is a misnomer, no longer the originally proposed Marriage Equality Act but the Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017.

Unlike most foreign marriage equality laws – the notion of equality was specifically removed from the title. In fact, a thorough study of this Bill shows clearly that it is not about bringing gay marriage at par with heterosexual marriage, but introducing the former while eliminating inherent concepts of the latter.

In the section relating to conscientious objection, the Bill does not give enough protection but limits itself to merely religious protection.

This is very dangerous if we want to remain free to live our values as individuals both in the private as well as in the public sphere.

We are all equal in human dignity but we are not the same 

The Bill should guarantee the protection of conscientious objection to all individuals. One should be free to choose to live out his beliefs and values without conflict.

Allowing a vote of conscientious objection in such matters, starting with Parliament as an institution, could be the trendsetter.

It is a biological fact that gay couples cannot conceive or give birth to children naturally. Yet, we find the phrase “conceived and born to the parties” connoted to both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

This Bill presupposes illegal mechanisms such as surrogacy and gamete donation although we were verbally assured by the Minister of Civil Liberties that this assumed no such facts.

Let us hope so, because the presuppositions of surrogacy and gamete donation entail the undermining of the Embryo Protection Act.

The paramount interest of the child is no longer guaranteed. As regards to the mechanism of repudiation, child protection is done away with, leaving repudiation open to any circumstance upon the presentation of a genetic test, while before it was limited to four circumstances.

Now, the child would be further exposed to repudiation since s/he could never be genetically the result of both partners in a gay relationship.

Without acknowledgment there is no obligation of the spouse to provide maintenance to the child.

In the switch to gender neutral vocabulary, all references to man and woman are deleted.

One of the amendments to the Interpretation Act will be: words importing the feminine gender shall include males.

The word mother shall include father and vice versa. While this amendment says ‘includes’ in reality these words have been eliminated from the other amended laws.

This is an assault to heterosexual couples. The words mother, father, husband, wife, motherhood, fatherhood, maternity and paternity will no longer form part of our vocabulary.

This does not reflect equality, inclusion, or respect towards others who profoundly cherish the meaning of these words.

It seems clear that this Bill is anything but just a change in name.

This act is not about equality but elimination. If the word marriage was all that was promised, why seek to remove other words that are imbued with meaning?

Marriage includes distinct terms like paternal, maternal, fraternal, filial and spousal love.

We are all equal in human dignity but we are not the same. We celebrate diversity and the complementarity of men and women – which also have deep anthropological connotations.

Motherhood and fatherhood have loaded meanings which have been proven to play an essential role in the pedagogical formation and the development of children. No imposed law can eliminate these facts.

Dr. Miriam Sciberras is chairwoman, Life Network Foundation Malta.