Category: Pro-Life

There is no law against a man biting off his own nose, unless it be a law of nature; nor even any police regulation against his hanging himself up by the hair or whiskers to talk to his friends and family in greater discomfort. There are penalties for suicide but, though I have no suicidal habits myself, I fancy they must be rather hard to apply; since they could only be sharpened into the legal and logical paradox of hanging a man to cure him of wanting to be hanged.

The majestic legislative mind of man does not commonly concentrate specially on forbidding things that nobody would normally want to do. Most probably, there never would have been any laws at all, except against things that men do quite naturally and even passionately want to do. Men punished murder precisely because there are such a large number of persons whom it would seem quite natural, and almost necessary, to murder. Men forbade theft because it is so utterly obvious that any fool could see it, that some property is in the wrong hands, and that anybody might think it would be better applied in his own hands; any fool could see it, any fool could say it, and the law was made because any fool might do it. There was a third commandment, against stealing not only our neighbour’s ass, but our neighbour’s wife, on which it would now be indelicate to dwell, because all the fools have done it.

Now about this, the Modern Mind has passed through two stages, and I do not know which is worse; for the Modern Mind is rather a weak mind. In the nineteenth century, roughly speaking, all respectable people seemed to suppose that nobody could be tempted to murder or theft or adultery, if he was really respectable. They thought these temptations only came to a curious remote tribe of monsters, called the Criminal Class. We were solemnly told that every criminal must be a lunatic; when in fact there is hardly a healthy or sane man who gets through forty-eight hours without some temptation to commit some such crime.

Then suddenly the Modern Mind discovered this and (not being a very strong mind) instantly slumped into the opposite extreme. Like most moderately intelligent people, I read detective stories in preference to modern novels; but even in detective stories I find this queer rudimentary reason creeping up. Even in crime stories there is now some comprehension of crime; that is, of the fact that we are all criminals. And now the whole weakness is working the other way; many recent murder stories are actually justifications of murder. The moment a refined respectable gentleman realizes that he might want to kill somebody, he jumps to the conclusion that this person ought to be killed. The fact that Aunt Jane is obviously a nuisance, that Uncle William is becoming a terrible bore, that Cousin Hildebrand stands between us and the really sensible family solution, is beginning to look more and more like a real reason for doing them in. That is why, in my own country, some are proposing what is called Euthanasia; at present only a proposal for killing those who are a nuisance to themselves; but soon to be applied progressively to those who are a nuisance to other people. As it applies by hypothesis to an almost moribund or partially paralyzed person, the decision will presumably rest with the other people.

It all began, of course, with stealing our neighbour’s wife as well as his ass; because she was more of an ass than the ass. If we want to know how this allowance for exception ruins or replaces the rule, the best example is divorce. Those who first urged it, urged it quite honestly as an extreme exception. They did really mean to apply it only to somebody married to a homicidal maniac. It has come to mean that a leading literary man told me on a platform in New York that no man could remain married to a woman who said, “Right-O.” I thought he might have avoided being married to a woman who said, “Right-O.” It has come to the point when a man advertises his desire to be divorced from a woman, only because he has forgotten her name. How jolly it will be when the sanctity of human life has reached the same stage as the sanctity of marriage! When men do not even remember whom they have murdered, as this gentleman could not remember whom he had married. Is it not time we reasserted the principle, known to primitive men, that the things we desire to do are the things we may be restrained in doing; and it is because we are all criminals that we had better be discouraged from crime?

(From The American Review, Feb. 1937)

The amendments to the IVF Act has long been a forgone conclusion. Those of us who have been closely following the unfolding events that impact on life and the family have been well aware of this for some time.

Malta’s traditional respect for life and the family started unravelling with the divorce legislation.

The pattern of what followed has happened elsewhere. But the astonishing rapidity and depth of the changes in Malta have been simply breathtaking.

This has, no doubt, been due to the current leadership of the Labour Party. Because of its overwhelming majority at the polls, it has steamrolled its agenda without any qualms whatsoever.

Unfortunately, the Labour Party controls the allegiance of a sizeable section of the electorate who live on a diet of constant partisan propaganda coupled with a tribal attitude to political development. The party leadership is also totally amoral in exploiting special interest groups if this translates into votes, knowing that its hard-core supporters will not question the impact on the common good.

This plays into the hands of determined lobbies such as construction speculators, illegal boathouse owners, hunters and trappers, etc. This does not imply that the Nationalist Party were immune to such temptations, but not to such a degree.

Meanwhile, political power has intoxicated the likes of Chris Fearne who, with almost messianic zeal, shamelessly boasts about the impeccable social and democratic credentials he and his government uphold. He even had the effrontery to brag that widespread consultation led the government to make adjustments to the originally proposed amendments on IVF.

Malta is now saddled with a new form of totalitarianism, which has its roots in atheistic ideology

We must not be fooled by our country’s external trappings of democracy. The modus operandi of this government has been brazenly determined by the logic of power in every aspect of our country’s management. Yet, Fearne would have us swallow the nonsense that his government is inspired by the power of reason.

His article (June 20) is a perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak.

The excellent editorial of the Times of Malta (‘Moral anarchy has set in’, June 22) tears to ribbons such pretentious claims.

The Labour Party’s capitulation to the agenda of the powerful LGBTQ lobby has been staring us in the face for a long time.

It explains why the legislation of surrogacy will be the next on the list. No doubt we will once again be subjected to the well-honed charade of fake debate, dialogue and consultation.

One need only refer back to the disgraceful legislation on the morning-after pill with the blatantly dishonest claim that it was simply a contraceptive. The management of the parliamentary debate was scandalous, with pro-life spokesmen being interrupted and cut short. This in sharp contrast with the time allotted to Anthony Serracino Inglott who was allowed almost 50 minutes to claim that MAP is solely a contraceptive.

Sadly, even on such a grave issue as IVF, the heartfelt plea of Malta’s President for a leisured and serious analysis for what is at stake fell on deaf ears.

Serious, detailed and scholarly representations by civil society, the public demonstration defending life, not to mention the numerous interventions by academia, the medical profession, etc. and even numerous appeals in the media were totally ignored.

What we are now experiencing is a travesty of democracy. As Fr Robert Soler said so eloquently in his article (May 5), we are being faced with the option of the strong. He concluded his article by saying: “The 2012 law [Embryo Protection Law] would be shamelessly deformed, its noble original purposes totally debased.” 

Malta is now saddled with a new form of totalitarianism which has its roots in atheistic ideology. With cunning and deceit, our core values that underpin the sanctity of life and the family are being gutted out.

In her landmark book Global Sexual Revolution, German sociologist Gabriele Kuby exposes this insidious and sinister strategy, which is sweeping across Europe.

Under the guise of bestowing life and unlimited freedom, the very foundations of authentic democracy and freedom are being destroyed.

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

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180714/opinion/travesty-of-democracy-klaus-vella-bardon.684315

It’s done. The Bill has passed and as expected Parliament was united in its opposing stand on the IVF law amendments as proposed by the government. Once again, a matter of national concern was spun into a political football and the intelligence of people was severely and perversely challenged. To those supporting the government’s stand, there was no need for deliberation, as their conscience was laid to rest by the soothing rants scripted by ministers Chris Fearne and Helena Dalli.

Another section of society remains bewildered as it attempts to comprehend why a visiting lecturer at the University of Malta and a doctor of law, systemically ignored the scientific facts demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt that a human embryo is composed of the same 100 per cent DNA of born human beings.

In an extremely simplistic (and mostly unrealistic) explanation, a human embryo becomes an unborn human foetus when it successfully attaches itself to the uterus of the woman and incubation starts. It is at this stage that it gains momentum in development, leaving no further room for debate on what it is and what goes on from this first phase onwards.

In the part-time lecturer’s mind and mouth, the human embryo is still, however, no more than a bunch of cells, forgetting that his own body is composed of the same chemical elements of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium and phosphorus making him not much different from it, albeit being born and still alive. Let us face it. The discussion has been purposely degenerated to cell level. As in any pro-abortion debate, unborn human life must be treated as an object and as a composition of cells. This strategy distorts reality and places a human embryo and a human foetus at par with a plant seed, cancer cells or a tumour. It is only in this manner that any deliberate termination of unborn human life becomes consciously justifiable.

Yet no-one expects to see a medical professional deliberately mishandling embryos on their way to being implanted simply because they are deemed a bunch of cells. They are medically not treated as a cancer. No patient receives chemotherapy to remove any residual cells that might have been left in the body. On the contrary, an IVF client receives all medical care possible to prepare for the implant well in advance to give the best possible chance for that embryo to attach itself and develop into a human foetus, making the argument about whether these embryos are human beings or not totally irrelevant.

The matter must be related to choices. Many people talk about giving the women choices, talk about women’s reproductive rights and attempt at all costs not to involve men, forgetting one fundamental issue.

It is the medical professional who decides what is implanted in the woman and therefore any talk of a woman’s right to her own body ends with this fact

The reality of choices has also a hard landing. In the first instance, it takes a man and a woman to create an embryo. Therefore, as 50 per cent shareholders in the deal, men have every right to voice concerns, opinions and emotions on such a delicate matter. In the second instance, the couple undergoing IVF are not in control of the situation. They simply do not have a choice. They are at the mercy of the medical professional, who decides which embryos are most viable and which are not.

It is the medical professional who decides what is implanted in a woman and therefore any talk of a woman’s right to her own body ends with this fact. There is no right, but an invasion of the most intimate woman’s inner core, in both the emotional aspect as well as the physical realm.

These characteristics of IVF treatment have to be treated with respect. It is this human intervention which creates a highly debatable and controversial situation. The mere fact that IVF is an artificial process is already deemed borderline and ethical and science is steadily moving away from such issues. The Pope Paul the VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction works relentlessly in assisting infertile couples in a multitude of ways, which are far more beneficial and long-term than the present IVF procedure in use in Malta.

The institute works on the cause of infertility and addresses the issue and not the symptom. This in itself is far more ethical, humane and dignifying for the couple undergoing IVF and removes all doubt and ethical matters related to human embryo handling. So how come Fearne and Dalli did not consult with such an institute and consider the alternatives?

The stark reality is that this charade has nothing to do with children, nothing to do with improving the chances of success for IVF couples. These were just clichés used by the Prime Minister to cover himself, his team and appease the people’s sentiments.

These amendments were delivering an electoral promise made to the Malta Gay Rights Movement and there was absolutely no option but to pass the amendments as they were. Resolving heterosexual couple infertility problems would have not addressed the same-sex couples’ desire to bear children. There was no space for ethical consideration and there was no requirement of any regard for the children born from such procedures.

The wording was carefully scripted by Fearne and Dalli, in that they insisted this is about giving any prospective parents a better chance to bearing children.

Whether same-sex couples should have the same rights to bear children as heterosexual couples is a matter of personal opinion, but the matter of regard towards children should have had universal consensus. The whole messa in scena was rotten at the core, as it saw the interests of the adults once again, placed ahead of the interests of children, using the same children as marionettes in the hands of the puppet master.

May those MPs who voted in favour of these amendments find inner peace and feel that they can sleep at night knowing what they created.

As a side note, I just look forward to the day that the Catholic faith is removed from the Constitution and that the Church and State indeed separate. I just cannot stand watching hypocritical MPs attending Mass and then setting their faith aside to appease their electoral manifesto, especially when it comes to dealing with the most vulnerable in our society.

Steve Pace is a strategic thinker.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180713/opinion/ivf-the-last-act-steve-pace.684256

Did you miss our video? Click on the link below to check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML7P16_Kk4w&app=desktop

http://www.jrsmalta.org/content.aspx?id=419380#.WzyZUdIzaUn

On June 24, the Catholic Church celebrated the feast of the birth of St John the Baptist. This festivity offers us a good opportunity to reflect on the extraordinary experience of those who are expecting a child as well as of those who were blessed with the advent of a new child.

As the friends of Elizabeth and Zacchary rejoiced on learning that Elizabeth was pregnant, so I rejoice with expectant parents for accepting to cooperate with God the creator by conceiving a child. It is very positive that in a society “suffering from a period of dramatic sterility”, we still have married couples who are open to life.

The conception of a child is a great mystery. In contemplating this mystery man cannot but bow in deep reverence and awe. Science can explain the process of conception but it can never explain why at one particular moment in time a new life is conceived. Every conceived child is an act of God’s love.

 As Pope Francis writes: “Every child growing within the mother’s womb is part of the eternal loving plan of God the Father: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you’ (Jer 1:5). Each child has a place in God’s heart from all eternity; once he or she is conceived, the Creator’s eternal dream comes true… A pregnant woman can participate in God’s plan by dreaming of her child. For nine months every mother and father dreams about their child… Once a family loses the ability to dream, children do not grow, love does not grow, life shrivels up and dies” (Amoris Laetitia).

Every conceived child bears the message that God still has faith in humanity. Every child comes with the message that God is not yet discouraged of man (Tagore). Children are always a unique and irreplaceable gift even in tough circumstances.

There were times when I stood in wonder witnessing the happiness of parents who have just learned that they are to bear a child. A few weeks ago I was at Ta’ Pinu and I met a couple whose eyes radiated joy. They told me that they had been to the shrine to confess for berating God for not giving them a child. They had been trying to conceive for a long time but with no success. Sometime after their pilgrimage, the mother was pregnant. Now they were again at the feet of Our Lady to thank her.

We should hold you parents in great esteem. You have chosen that your love be open to a new life and indeed in some cases to more than one life. As we know nature at times can be generous and one act of love can yield more than one life. I am aware that when a couple first learns that instead of one child they will be having twins, they are at first taken aback. This was not in their plans but then the parents embrace all the lives conceived.

I personally know a number of parents who have undergone this procedure and have some of their embryos waiting in a freezer. These parents experience a great regret

No parent will ever think of keeping one child and abandoning the other. The parents know that these are flesh of their flesh and bone of their bones. Above all else they know that all human life is sacred and we cannot tamper with it. We know that parents grieve when nature rejects life in a miscarriage.

 It is difficult at times to help the mother come to terms with the fact that she has lost her child even if the pregnancy was still in its early stages. At present I am accompanying a couple who after waiting for a long time to conceive, the mother is now expecting. But unfortunately according to medical staff’s diagnosis the child has a very scarce chance of being born alive. I can attest to the martyrdom this couple, especially the mother, are going through knowing that their conceived child will probably not live.

The account of Elizabeth and Zacchary reminds me of those couples who are faced with the problem of infertility. I can understand their pain and grief. They not only are unable to have their wish come true but the gossip of others throws upon them a sense of shame, as happened in the case of Elizabeth (Matthew 1,25).

May I express my gratitude to the people of science for their work, in helping these couples, while respecting the principles of ethics and morals. In fact, I appeal to science to continue its research thus providing these couples with a ray of hope. Since today we have several points of view regarding what ethics is all about, I recommend, especially to Christian couples, that they seek scientific solutions in the light of the teachings of Christ.

These married couples usually seek medical advice when faced with the problem of infertility. Therefore I appeal to the doctors, especially Christian doctors, to give counsel and to propose solutions which respect human life and which do not put at risk this same life.

If it happens that in our pluralistic and albeit dogmatic context, Christian doctors and nurses find themselves in conflict with their personal principles they can always invoke the right of objection of conscience.

Some parents who have had recourse to science to conceive a child suffer the same dilemma of those parents who grief their unborn child I referred to above. Science helps these parents conceive more than one embryo in the laboratory, leading to the implantation of some of them and the freezing of the rest.

I personally know a number of parents who have undergone this procedure and have some of their embryos waiting in a freezer. These parents experience a great regret because they feel as if they have abandoned their children. A mother told me that she dreams of them but cannot see a way of releasing her children from this prison. These situations imply heavy psychological and moral dilemmas and we pray to God to help us.

I am grateful to all expectant parents because it is really uplifting to see young couples who are open to life despite today’s challenges. These couples are the heralds of the good news of human life and the beauty of family life. At the same time, I urge all to show solicitude and stay near those couples who are suffering because of issues related to life.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180703/opinion/heralds-of-human-life-bishop-mario-grech.683421

It appeared to start off well. In the heat of the debate on the controversial amendments to the Embyro Protection Act, President Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca stood up and told politicians to slow down and think it well. The issues being discussed were extremely serious, concerning life itself.

The government appeared to listen. It pretended to make changes. Altruistic surrogacy was pulled out of the Bill to be presented at a later stage and the anonymity previously proposed for gamete (sperm and egg) donation was partially lifted. Those were not the only problems, perhaps the most controversial. There still remained embryo freezing, which inherently puts the life of a number of frozen embryos in danger. That did not change.

Embryo freezing was voted for unanimously by all government MPs with the Opposition, significantly, all voting against.

The President comes from the Labour fold. A former social policy minister, she took her leftist, social thinking to the presidency. She was not alone in being against the Bill. Former foreign minister George Vella, another Labour stalwart, was vociferous against the amendments.

Labour’s old guard are clearly alienated from Labour’s new thinking. The pseudo-liberal agenda that has helped the party win so many previously Nationalist-leaning votes often does not go down well with the party hardcore. But impressive electoral successes have muzzled any internal dissent.

The parliamentary vote in favour was uncompromising but it was hardly based on values, considering the Bill devalues life. Labour sells and people like Ms Coleiro Preca and Dr Vella find themselves out in the cold from the party they helped to build.

Yet, Ms Coleiro Preca is also the President. She raised expectations when she sounded the alarm on the amendments. It gave pro-life activists hope. They found a sympathetic ear in the Office of the President but, in the end, the President signed the Bill.

The President made clear she signed the Bill solely out of loyalty to the Constitution meaning she did not agree with it. She said she sought ethical, moral and legal advice and, after long reflection, decided to sign the new law. She made clear the Constitution did not confer upon her legislative functions except that of assenting to Bills. Of course, this was not any Bill.

Saying she is not one to shirk her responsibilities, the President said the challenge society was facing was to protect the weak, “including vulnerable embryos”. The island’s moral fibre was at risk if society disrespected human life and any stage of development. She said all that and signed the Bill.

Truly, the President could not have stopped the Bill, or even change it. She did stand up, an unprecedented event, to speak up for the voiceless. That is all to her credit. But then she signed and the only thing that Health Minister Chris Fearne, who piloted the Bill, would say was that it was the President’s opinion, nothing more.

President Emeritus Ugo Mifsud Bonnici said he would not sign something that went against his conscience. Ms Coleiro Preca did not go that far. She says she had a duty to sign but conscience is a duty too. Public figures enjoy the public’s trust because the people know that, at the end of the day, they would abide by their conscience.

And the President signed the Bill.

This is a Times of Malta print editorial

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180629/editorial/and-then-she-signed.683064