The best interests of the child
A quarter of a century ago, Malta ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In view of this fact, it is worth reflecting on some of the stipulations of this Convention, especially given that certain quarters are calling for the elimination of the legal protection which Maltese law affords the human person before birth. The rights set forth in the Convention aim to serve the inherent dignity of the human being. It is precisely the respect for this dignity which inspires the Convention to clearly state in its Preamble that the child needs appropriate legal protection before, as well as after birth.
To date, Maltese law performs admirably in this regard. Amongst other things, the Embryo Protection Act prohibits the freezing of embryos, experimentation with embryos, surrogacy, cloning, as well as the creation of a human embryo for any purpose other than that of implanting it in a prospective mother. It is also worth noting that harsh penalties are in place for anyone who violates these provisions. Therefore, anyone who knows that the embryonic stage is one of the early stages of the formation of the baby inside the mother’s womb, would also know that the Embryo Protection Act goes a long way towards fulfilling the principal aim of the Convention, which is that of protecting human dignity in the weakest of its possessors.
The Embryo Protection Act and the Convention go hand in hand in many other respects. In another part of its Preamble, the Convention states that the child is best brought up in a family environment. Article 7 of the Convention buttresses this with its obligation on states to ensure that the child has a right to know his parents and be cared for by them. The Embryo Protection Act affirms this in its definition of a prospective parent under Article 2 as “either of two persons of the opposite sex who are united in marriage, or who have attained the age of majority and are in a stable relationship with each other.”
In all legislation affecting children, it has always been held that the guiding principle should always be that of the best interests of the child. This principle ensures that children are always at the centre of any decision that may affect them. Therefore, one is compelled to ask whether the calls coming from some quarters also aim to safeguard the best interests of the child. To answer this, one must take stock of the immense pain which a couple suffer when they discover that one or both of them are infertile.
There is no question of balance between circumventing infertility and safeguarding the rights of the child. Although the wish to conceive and bring up children in a family environment is an extraordinarily noble wish, one must always be aware that it is the child who has the right to be cared for by parents, and not the prospective parents who have the right to a child.
Limiting the definition of prospective parents to one male and one female united in marriage or in a stable relationship is an act of respect for the dignity and well-being of the human person, since it is widely affirmed by experts and legislation alike that the family environment is the best environment for raising children. To alter the definition of prospective parents to allow same-sex couples would open the door to anonymous gamete donation and surrogacy.
The donation by women of eggs and by men of sperm would have a twofold effect. First of all, it reduces men and women to mere producers, akin to cows producing milk. Secondly, it would render the child, once born, unable to know the identity of one of his or her biological parents. This would have grave consequences for the child, who would essentially be deprived of a considerable part of his or her identity.
Surrogacy is the act of placing the fertilised egg, against payment, into another woman who would eventually give birth to the child and then hand it over to the so-called parents. This objectifies women and strips them of their dignity, as evidenced by many feminists who firmly oppose this practice. Surrogacy turns women into mere carriers and children into orphans.
It is precisely all of this which should be more than persuasive enough to dissuade our legislators from changing any part of the Embryo Protection Act. This law is a guarantor of human dignity and as such, should be left to carry out its task of safeguarding the dignity of the human embryo from conception.
Ramon Bonett Sladden
Stop the forced imposition of gender ideology in EU schools
Join this petition! Presidency of the European Parliament and European Commission: Stop the forced imposition of gender ideology in EU schools : http://citizengo.org/en/26581-refus-lideologie-du-genre-dans-les-ecoles-lue?tc=gm&tcid=15462350
On defective babies, defective choices by Marie Benoit
On October 1995, the Daily Mail ran a pair of articles on the same day jointly entitled “Should Melanie destroy her twins?” Columnist Polly Toynbee, said yes. No, said Dominic Lawson, then editor of The Spectator, whose wife had given birth to a Down’s syndrome child. Melanie and her husband, columnist Brian Astbury had conceived Siamese twins. The Astburys said no to abortion. “Our babies will be born out of love and into love. Everything else rests with fate and the surgeon’s skills.’“ The twins were born prematurely and joined from the breastbone to the navel. There was heartbreak of course for both children could not live as Siamese twins.
They were, operated and seemed to be doing well However, in the end the twins died.
Anyone who has seen the film The Elephant Man will never forget the moving portrayal of John Merrick, played so sensitively by John Hurt. It is the true story of a man in Victorian England who became known as the Elephant Man because of his terrible deformities.
Merrick was discovered in a circus freak show by Dr Frederick Treves, a surgeon at London Hospital. Dr Treves also a lecturer in anatomy, initially took a professional interest in Merrick’s grotesquely enlarged skull, abnormal curvature of the spine, and the elephant-like fibrous growth which covered 90 percent of his body. Treves’ professional interest soon developed into a warm and compassionate friendship with this very special individual.
Merrick had been abandoned by his mother ‘who had the face of an angel’
‘I must have been a great disappointment for her. If only I could find her so she could see me with such lovely friends as I now have. Perhaps she could love me as l am. I’ve tried so hard to be good.’ says Merrick at one point. Merrick had yet to convince others that his life was worth living. As if in response to their characterization of him as a worthless freak of nature Merrick cries out: ‘I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being!’ Merrick cannot be cured of his ailments but
Dr. Treves tells him: ‘We can care for you!’ Resigned to his fate, Merrick reassures the physician and friend: ‘l am happy every hour of the day. My life is full because I know that I am loved.’
The Elephant Man gently but resoundingly rebukes society which has come to accept the so-called eugenic abortions of deformed foetuses, and in some cases even the death of new-borns found to be handicapped.
His is the story of we so poorly misjudge the quality of human life – how we judge people by their package. His is the story of how we make such indefensible moral choices. For it’s not how we decide in individual cases whether life is ‘worth living’, but it is the very fact that we presume to make such a decision about people which strips us of our own humanity.
The argument that women must have the right to choose an abortion because they might be faced with a deformed foetus is morally bankrupt because it wrongly assumes that the handicapped are not worthy of living.
Although genetic testing has its positive side and leads to the diagnosis of diseases that cause pain disability and death, technology is rapidly becoming available to produce designer babies. There will always be parents who out of ego or some perverse view of children as a perfect product, want to pick and choose genes according to a master plan. Should society encourage that or even allow it?
The problem, of course, is the prenatal test. Abortion naturally follows as what is seen as to be a benign, humanitarian test. It is the test that women are now taking for granted.
They have the test in order to determine whether to paint the nursery pink or blue, or in the alternative, whether to kill the child, who, but for the test, would have slept in nursery. Can that make any sense at all? The natural concern of parents that a much-wanted child should be healthy has been translated into killing children who are not healthy.
When death is the foregone conclusion for those foetuses who don’t measure up, how can we possibly say that we have benefited from the test – apart from allaying anxiety of expectant parents with healthy foetuses?
Moreover the test, like everything else, are subject to human error. How many babies have been aborted following an erroneously interpreted result?
In years past, families did not discover the child’s disability until she or he was born. Nor was there disappointment accompanied by medical possibility of ending that life before birth. But now the option made available to the family are soul –wrenching.
It’s all well and good that those of us who have never been in their shoes can see a silver lining to the dark cloud of disability, but for the family the dark cloud remains.
In light of the obvious burden to the parents, we must ask ourselves we are being when we argue for abortion on the basis of the child’s suffering, if he or she is allowed to live.
Honesty would compel the parents to admit that it is their hardship that they wish to avoid. And while no one would blame them for wanting to avoid that hardship, we are entitled to ask whether the killing of an unborn child can be justified fairly on that basis.
If there are parents of handicapped children who possibly say to themselves, ‘I wish that my child had never been born, they are not alone. There are parents of dangerous criminals, drug addicts and merely insolent or disrespectful children who would join me in that chorus.
But rarely will you ever hear the disabled themselves telling us that they wish they had never been born. Family hardship simply cannot outweigh the sanctity of human life itself. What is needed is a
society that offers the family of a disabled child the financial support and round-the-clock assistance with care. Can any parental hardship justify the killing of an innocent human being?
No matter our religious beliefs, the idea of saving the weakest is fundamental to the moral order of society.
And now the anonymous Pro-Choice Malta is calling lawmakers to give women the right to choose to have an abortion even when the child is healthy. Of course abortion has been going on in our country for ages. I recall interviewing Fr. Charles Vella, then of the Cana Movement, for The Sunday Times of Malta in the early seventies about abortion in Malta. Women who want an abortion have been going abroad for ages. But if we legislate, we will open the gates of hell and make abortion easier.
It is heartening to know the the President of Malta told a delegation of Pro-Life advocates that her government would never legalise abortion and as president she would never sign such legislation.
Virtually every piece of abortion legislation throughout the Western world permits termination of a pregnancy where the life of the mother is threatened. The principle is based on the choice of the evil between two possible victims, both of whom are innocent. In such a case, the life of the mother with her already existing relationships, and possibly other children to take care of – prevails over the nascent life of the unborn. So clear is the principle that virtually no pro-life advocate would dispute it. On this point, pro-choice and pro-life advocates are in agreement.
Yet pro-choice advocates attempt to capitalise on this one obvious exception in order to justify abortion for any cause. But cases when a choice has to be made between the life of the mother or the life of the baby are a rare exception perhaps no more than one-tenth of one percent of all abortions. Even when a mother’s life is threatened, the baby can typically be delivered sufficiently early to avoid fatal consequences to either the child or the mother.
Abortion attacks the very weakest, whether they are disabled or not. Those whom Matthew’s Gospel called ‘The least of these.’ Our business is not to eliminate them for whatever reason. We have to make sure that abortion is not legalised in Malta. Abortion is murder.
Il-Konfuzjoni ta’ l-Identita tal-Generu fit-tlett minuti
Press Release – Pro-Life Malta
“Without entering into any controversies of a civil, political or religious nature, any person who is embedded with right reason, the reason which is written in the hearts of man, and who believes in the intrinsic and basic value of life, knows that life starts at natural conception and ends with natural death. This is the belief of LifeNetwork Foundation – endorsing value to every life, which has been established last year in order to promote and protect life. We invite you to celebrate Life, not the culture of death which is currently being proposed, and to visit and express your Life views on our website www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co and www.facebook.com/lifenetworkeu page ……………….”
Values and rights
It has become increasingly obvious that society is going to face very serious problems due to the manner in which values and rights are being reinterpreted to suit all and sundry as political parties jettison principles in a mad scramble for votes.
The recent referendum on gay ‘marriage’ in Ireland and the decision of the US Supreme Court are an indication of how laws legalising new rights are decided either through a majority vote or by the judiciary or, as in the recent cases of France and England, by parliamentary majorities.
Malta now remains the only European country that bans abortion, yet advocates for its legalisation are becoming more open, brazen and vocal.
A perfect example of the corruption of the real meaning of human rights is illustrated by the history of Amnesty International. This organisation was founded in the early 1960s by a Catholic convert, Peter Benenson. It disseminated the names of prisoners of conscience and the addresses of their captors. In this manner, over the years, it mobilised professional people, students, housewives and people from all walks of life to become not only benefactors but direct participants by writing letters in an effort to free victims of brutal regimes.
Sadly, this NGO, which had won such widespread support and been so effective in targeting human rights abuses, has decided to adopt what it considers a new right, the right to abortion. Until not so long ago, the right to life was universally recognised. Yet abortion has been legalised in most countries, even in European countries that had a long Christian tradition.
This should not be so surprising. One has only to look at not-so-distant history to see how the pagan, racist philosophy of Nazism that grew so rapidly to corrupt the democratic process in Germany, justified the killing of the unfit and handicapped, the brutal extermination of its opponents and finally widespread genocide that led to the infamous Holocaust.
Apparently, we have not learnt any lessons from history and seem convinced that democracy will inevitably guarantee basic values. Yet democracy, which rests on the will of the majority, is showing again and again that human dignity and human rights are no longer guaranteed, and that the rights of the most vulnerable are at risk.
Democracy has been reduced to giving a carte blanche to those in power, the stronger, those who have the skills, the money and the right influential connections to win the majority over to their own views. As long as the majority of people are assured that their self-interest is secured and that they are free to pursue their desires of self-gratification, a government is assured of votes and power. And power has a very intoxicating allure.
We have seen how majority decisions have led to the legislation of divorce, same-sex marriage, euthanasia and abortion in many countries. It has also allowed the right to scorn with impunity what many people regard as holy. All this, of course, is permitted in the name of freedom of expression. But unfettered freedom, without responsibility and an accepted framework of clear ethical principles, is spawning a new regime of injustice and igniting a powder keg of callousness and hatred.
Amnesty International is already openly campaigning for liberalising abortion in Ireland after the recent referendum result on same-sex marriage. Malta now remains the only European country that bans abortion, yet advocates for abortion legislation are becoming more open, brazen and vocal. This all follows similar patterns and strategies that were adopted elsewhere.
Supposedly, the right to life is a universally recognised human right, and our understanding of unborn life is no longer what it was in the Middle Ages. We all have children, or children of friends and relatives whose first photos were taken in utero. There is no longer any doubt that abortion is killing.
But the electorate, like the mob, may just as well crucify an innocent man like Jesus and free a hardened criminal like Barabbas. That was a perfect example of how a very democratic decision could still be frightfully wrong.
We must make ourselves aware that it is crucial to have reference points that are not determined by politics and majority votes. It is undeniable that the State is there to safeguard the rights of each individual and the welfare of all without distinction. Yet it is painfully clear that even the majority of people are not aware what human rights are or what human dignity implies.
As Plato once reflected, truth is not a product of politics. Will our politicians have the integrity and humility to attempt to return to our Christian tradition and tap the wellsprings of its rational wisdom? Serious reflection on the values that underpin authentic human flourishing is an exercise we neglect at our peril. Sooner or later, our society will suffer the consequences.
Klaus Vella Bardon
Press Release
Life Network Foundation is very concerned with the recent declaration by one of the members of the youth executive section of the Nationalist Party, MZPN, whereas he expressed himself in favour of ABORTION. It transpires that this is not in line with the principles and values that the said Party has always believed in, based on Christian values which value the dignity of the person from its inception until natural death. It is of note that a similar declaration has recently been made by a high level exponent of the Labour Party.
Life Network Foundation believes that this declaration is another step in the attack on Christian values that Malta has always believed in, considering the recent legislation on gay adoptions and the Gender Identity Act that has seen unanimous approval in Parliament, and which implications of the Gender Identity Act have not been sufficiently explained to the Maltese people.
It appears that now an attack is being mounted on the silent life in the womb, which life must continue to be protected.
Perils of early sexualisation
It has been reported that “the chairman of a parliamentary committee is to suggest the decriminalisation of sexual activity between minors aged 13 to 15. Labour MP Etienne Grech, who chairs Parliament’s Standing Committee on Health, said he would raise the possibility during the next meeting of MPs…” (timesof malta.com, June 8).
We are discussing children between the ages of 13 and 15. Early sexualisation of children will have long-term consequences health-wise for the children involved, but it will also affect the outcome of their life choices. These same children will face a trail of abuse from sexual predators without protection and from an earlier age .
Consider the following extracts from Psychology Today. It is a well-known fact that access to sexually explicit material on the internet at an early age can contribute to early sexualisation of children. A 2012 study published in Psychological Science found that the more teens were exposed to sexual content in films, the earlier they started having sex and the likelier they were to have casual, unprotected sex.
The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier he or she is to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse and have unprotected sex and use drugs or alcohol before sex.
In a study by researcher Jennings Bryant, more than 66 per cent of boys and 40 per cent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviour they saw in the media, which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.
It seems that the media projection of sex as some sort of a ‘cool’ thing to be doing is reaping its fruits. In this golden age of internet access, children have direct access to pornography in our homes.
They have internet on their phones as well as cameras for selfies and sexting. All this from a very young age.
Who is to blame if they get lost navigating through this vast plain of progressive media? Are they being instructed on how to be media wise and safe when surfing the internet?
Are they being warned of predators that are on the lookout for innocent children? Will they be able to make a distinction between virtual relationships and real relationships?
Some children are spending more time on virtual relationships than on real ones, including relationships with their very own families.
Online long-term friendships and romance tend to fizzle out unless accompanied by physical meetings and face-to-face encounters. In the tender adolescent phase, there is a lack of emotional maturity and impulse control, coupled with poor judgment, especially if youths are unaware of the turbulent effects of their own hormones. The last thing they need is someone encouraging them to engage in promiscuity instead of learning self-control.
This is what happens when we, as a society, fail our children. We fail to present the holistic picture of sexuality within the context of a lifelong, secure relationship. We fail them when we present sex as a flagrant hobby to engage in without any consequences.
We fail them when instead of presenting models based on healthy, respectful relationships affirming self-worth and love, we confuse them with cheap alternatives that will ultimately hurt them. We tell them about sex but not about making love within marriage and, worst of all, we give them contraception to be safe. It is like telling a child that a live electricity wire can electrocute you if you touch it but that he or she can still play with the live wire with an insulating glove.
I suggest that we can do more for our kids than Grech’s suggestion.
We should be seeking to help preserve our children’s youth in a multitude of ways. The solution is not giving them earlier or more access to something that they are not mature enough for but helping them to grow, mature and develop in a holistic manner such that they can make better life choices later on in their lives.
Dr Miriam Sciberras
The Thin Edge of the Wedge
We are facing a flood of refugees on a biblical scale due to unprecedented levels of brutality and religious and racial intolerance. The corruption of the food chain by multinationals hardly elicits response. On the contrary, the EU, behind closed doors, abets the interest of Big Money which play no small part in bringing about the mess we are in.
Yet, issues related to abortion and so-called ‘gay rights’ are picked up by the EU and reacted to with a singular fanaticism that beggars belief.
The EU now puts pressure on Paraguay to legalize abortion over the case of a pregnancy in a 10 year old girl resulting from incestuous rape.
Sadly, Alfred Sant did not vote against this unsolicited interference of the EU.
He claimed that he did not vote in favour out of respect for the anti-abortion sympathies of the vast majority of the people who voted him into the EU parliament.
Thank God at least, and as yet, if principles do not count, public opinion might have a positive influence.
Rape is a heinous crime, especially when carried out on such a young person and by a relative to boot.
This, however, does not diminish by one iota the right of the innocent foetus to life.
If the pregnancy places the mother at risk and a decision has to be made that might result in the death of the baby; that is a totally different issue.
God forbid that the right to life is determined by a vox pop of uninformed people who react to such issues emotionally.
Life deserves much stronger safeguards than the being at the mercy of the whims of the crowd that can be manipulated by the persuasive skills of crafty and unscrupulous politicians.
On the other hand, we must thank David Casa for his unequivocal stand against abortion whatever the situation.
However, there is no room for complacency. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that life issues are at risk only with politicians of the Labour Party.
Indications that laws on IVF are up for review indicate that pro-life issues are at risk.
Our political class is just parroting what has happened elsewhere in Europe and are just using salami tactics, an incremental modus operandi, to wipe out values that were once the heritage of our country.
It is of the utmost urgency that public opinion is made aware of what is at stake.
Read more about this article on The Malta Independent…
‘Abortion would have saved the life of this innocent child’ – Alfred Sant