Category: Pro-Life

Stand up for our embryonic fellow. Now is the time. More are hearing the anguished cry of our fellow embryonic human beings and discerning it to be the cry against inhumanity. Fore-planned embryo-freezing isthe cardinal criterion for inhumanity. Renounce it.

This was laid out in my article (May 18): the embryo is denied inherent humanity, declared to be “a blob of cells” of nicht-menschen status; the withdrawal of human status could be effected at any stage of life; the non-human being, is vulnerable to becoming a medical cobbler’s plaything; with eugenics, the human race becomes the plaything.

To those who deny the humanity of the embryo, I say the onus of proof of their hypothesis lies with them. They are to show incontrovertible proof of the (non-existent) “becoming human” point. All the scientific papers amount to nought when pitted against the reflection and logic of truly great minds and souls down the ages.   

Those who hide behind the diaphanous veil of “I don’t know” must heed the precautionary principle: when in doubt as to whether human or not, treat as human. “Do no harm” should have been branded on the medical student, as also “When in doubt, desist”.

I appeal to the goodness and nobleness of those in whose hands this matter of such monumental importance lies. Your legacy is in your hands.

Are you to be remembered for embryo-freezing, the heinous attack on a fellow human being? A human being is what the embryo is, whether you acknowledge it or not.  

It takes true greatness and leadership to admit to one’s error and change course.

Failure to do so is followed, sooner or later, by the downfall. Helicopter flying has an analogy. (I am a former military helicopter pilot too).

One can find oneself in an (air) updraught and enjoy the lift. Should this updraught be a powerful thermal the pilot must exit. Otherwise the helicopter, having been pushed high up into vortices and turbulent airflow, drops down in a dangerous downdraft.

Satan is like that. Dance with the Devil and he will drop you (and damn you). They say a feature of Hell is Satan’s mockery. 

Abortion is not round the corner; it is there before us, staring us in the face in all its evil ugliness. Abortion is what Hippocrates specified as ethically forbidden. Hippocrates had us take an oath.

The medical butchers (fellow members of the surmised Rogue College of Medical Cobblers and Butchers) are salivating in anticipation of opening up ‘abortoirs’ for their practice of scraping/sucking tiny human beings out of the womb and out of this world.

What an exquisite expression of care and ‘charitas’ of the sacred art of medicine. It is not so at all, not even for the mother involved. The honest and good woman involved will admit to “something dying in her”; her physical, psychological and spiritual milieu having been adulterated.

Screwtape (C S Lewis, The Screwtape Letters) must have held a banquet to celebrate the ‘victory’ in the Irish Republic. Children were celebrating the killing of children. Contemplate that. Coming to think of it, the breaking of cover must have alarmed the tacticians. Scenes like these could well alert deniers of the truth to the evil nature of the overarching strategy of the evil empire.

It is under test that one shows one’s true worth. Now is the time to prove your true worth. Save Malta’s soul

What a foul, putrid odour of necrosis emanates from the body of the Maltese nation. This nation, once Catholic, courageous and confident, repelled the evil empire in the form of Ottoman Islamism, Italian/German/French fascism and our nation rejected French tricoleur Jacobinism.

Among those who heroically did their duty in World War II were two doctors, who are the post-war predecessors of the prime minister and the minister of health. They would, without doubt, have been utterly appalled that the evil they resisted is coming to pass.

On June 5, 1958 (Corpus Christi, I believe) I received my First Holy Communion in Wales, and my maternal grandfather was buried in Malta. Relativism had not yet then taken root in the Catholic world. My grandfather, a surgeon, but first and foremost a doctor, would have been appalled at today’s situation. Relativism has taken root. Situation ethics is the common currency. Morals are “adulterated”. Faith is fading fast.

Faith and morals are conjugally related. So that an erosion in morals leads to an erosion in faith, and a lack of faith brings on an implosion of morals. You cannot give of what you do not have. You can only give of the type and quality that you do have.

If yours is a pick ’n’ choose morality and faith then that is what you pass on. You lack credibility and that is what the other will perceive in you.

The scandalous rebellion against, and rejection of, Catholic moral doctrine sets the pattern, derision and division, confusion and chaos, contradiction and civil war.

Nevertheless, there are today, by the grace of God, genuine, faithful and heroic clergy and laity who do pass on the true faith.

The situation report is a tale of lack of leadership. The situation is grave, but not hopeless. Be of stout heart and know that the stones will proclaim God’s truth and that good will triumph in the end. Satan is a liar and a loser. Will you end up with the winners or losers? Your destiny is in your hands. It is your choice.

Reject the lie. Embryo-freezing is not pro-life. For in pro-creating human beings you insult and assault the life of some of them. Every procurer of IVF babies must face the fact that she is the reason why some of her embryonic sons/daughters will be frozen, insulted and assaulted.

Now Malta, stand up for the embryonic human being. Some will ask: what can I do? The answer is… pray, promote, preach and petition.

Pray earnestly, and with faith, for our nation. Pray especially for all those involved in promoting/propagating/ pressing through Parliament and voting for the legalising/decriminalisation of embryo-freezing and its signing into law: that they desist.

To these I appeal. Stop and turn. Abdicate worldly office. Abandon worldly chattels and acclaim.

Be courageous. The courageous may suffer but one physical death and then gains glory. The coward suffers a continual stream of psychological and spiritual deaths day by day by day and are driven down into despair.

I would rather die standing than live on my knees.

Now Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, now is your chance for greatness. Renounce embryo-freezing as a procedural practice. Repeal the Act.

Now is the test that our St George Preca alerted us to. It is under test that one shows one’s true worth. Now is the time to prove your true worth.

Save Malta’s soul.

Peter Micallef-Eynaud is a medical doctor and a moral theologian.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180629/opinion/standing-for-embryonic-fellows-peter-micallef-eynaud.683063

Pro-life lawyer Tonio Azzopardi has filed Constitutional proceedings asking the court to declare that the 2018 Embryo Protection Act violates embryos’ right to life.

In a Constitutional application filed against the Attorney General, Azzopardi argues that life is protected from conception in the Maltese legal system, punishing those who endanger life with prison. “The freezing of embryos, as it exposes unborn human life to clear danger, constitutes an evident breach of Article 33 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” reads the application.

If the courts uphold the request and declare the proposed law illegal, it could force Parliament to rethink the issue. Parliament will be voting on the new law today.

The proposed law allows the cryo-preservation of germ line cells in authorised cell banks, a fact which Azzopardi says is a money-spinner for the fertility industry. It also amounts to “a breach…of protection from inhuman and degrading treatment…in that there would be stockpiling in authorised banks of embryos with the loss of all dignity for the person.” The fertilisation of five eggs, with three ending up frozen, left the frozen embryos denuded of their dignity, aside from placing them in danger, he says.

The defendant Attorney General, as representative of the State, “has a positive obligation to defend life,” Azzopardi added.

“Procreation should take place in the context of a relationship between a man and a woman only. The concept of single parents intentionally giving birth to children who are not going to have a father or a mother is not only not in the interests of the children but also constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment.”

The practise of freezing embryos could result in children being born as orphans, because their parents would have died while they were in suspended animation, remarked the lawyer, whose staunchly conservative views on embryo protection are well-known.

Two years ago this month, Azzopardi had publicly taken it upon himself to defend the interests and rights of unborn children against “every violation of their right to life,” taking legal action against the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality for its position on the debate on whether to legalise use of the morning-after pill.

In that case, Tonio Azzopardi had filed a judicial protest against the commission, calling on the entity to desist from giving support based on “scientifically and legally incorrect considerations.”

The application filed yesterday asks the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction to declare that articles proposed in the draft Bill violate the human embryo’s rights, if it is frozen or used in IVF, and to declare the relative articles in the Bill null and void.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-06-19/local-news/Lawyer-calls-on-constitutional-court-to-declare-Embryo-Protection-Act-violates-right-to-life-6736192004

In his article ‘Pro-choice Irish’ (May 30) Martin Scicluna said: “In an overwhelming and defining vote – which may hold lessons for Malta – Ireland has dropped its near-absolute ban on abortion following a referendum last Friday” implying, very clearly, that Malta should now follow Ireland and pass laws permitting abortion in Malta.

In fact he also said: “Only one corner of the European Union now forces women with unwanted pregnancies to travel abroad to obtain one.”

He finished his article “Melita contra mundum” which means: Malta against the world.

In another article, ‘Pro-choice on abortion’ (October 18, 2017), Scicluna  said something very different: “My approach is, therefore, entirely pragmatic. Is there a burning need for abortion in Malta on practical or humanitarian grounds? The figures don’t appear to suggest there is”.

He continued: “While I can see that, as a matter of principle, the humanitarian and compassionate arguments to bring Malta into line with the laws of other advanced Western democracies is compelling, my own advice to policymakers – if I were asked for it – would be that this is overridingly a matter for Maltese women to decide.”

Let me go back to Scicluna’s Melita contra mundum, implying that Malta is now isolated. I see it differently. I see it as: Melita cum America – Malta is with America.

Very recently the US Supreme Court rejected a Planned Parenthood challenge to Arkansas pro-life law that could close two abortion clinics. Planned Parenthood is a very big provider of abortion services all over the world.

Recently, the World Health Assembly held its annual meeting in Geneva. A that event, the US delegation spoke up clearly and strongly in defence of unborn children and in opposition to abortion.

Commenting on a report on women’s, children’s, and adolescents’ health, the US called for improved healthcare, especially during the first 1,000 days of life, but rejected the report’s favourable statements toward abortion.

“The term ‘sexual and reproductive health’ does not include the promotion of abortion, nor do we recognise an international right to abortion,” the US statement read.

The statement further emphasised: “We have stated clearly, and on many occasions, consistent with the International Conference on Population and Development’s Programme of Action, that we do not recognise abortion as a method of family planning, nor do we support abortion in our reproductive health assistance.”

Earlier at the WHO Assembly the US criticised recent efforts by WHO to promote abortion through its Human Reproduction Programme. “We remind our fellow delegates,” the statement said, “that the International Conference on Population and Development forged international consensus that abortion should in no case be promoted as a method of family planning.”

It makes it appear that the Malta position on abortion, now,  is closer to the Irish position

Melita contra mundum could have meant also that Malta, now, after the Irish referendum, is the only country in the world that, proudly, still protects early human life from conception especially if we go by what Minister Helena Dalli said at the UN General Assembly in Geneva in 2013.  

The Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review on Malta said:  “The [Maltese] delegation [led by Dalli] reiterated the [Malta] government’s belief in the need to protect the right to life, including that of the unborn child.

“It expressed the view that, as human life begins at conception, the termination of pregnancy through procedures of induced abortion at any stage of gestation, was an infringement of this right.”  

The thing is that Dalli, and the government, in 2016 introduced the morning-after pill irrespective of the fact that many in the medical and pharmaceutical professions, locally and abroad, still consider it abortifacient.

This approach contradicts her “no abortion” statement in Geneva in 2013. It also makes it appear that the Malta position on abortion, now,  is closer to the Irish position. But, paradoxically, the call is not by the people of Malta, as in Ireland with the referendum and Hungarian billionaire George Soros pumping millions of euros to the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland. It is a deliberate move  by certain members of the government.

In fact the government is again giving the same impression at the moment with its proposed amendments to the Embryo Protection Act of 2012. While it says that the amendments are pro-life, it proceeds as if embryo freezing, proposed in the amendments, and the consequent thawing which invariably kills embryos in the process, is of no big concern to the government.

We still have to see what Health Minister Chris Fearne meant when he said  (June 4) that: “Couples with frozen embryos would be granted an additional IVF cycle, free of charge, to encourage them to give birth to embryos and to give all embryos the chance to be brought to term.”

Dalli recently made a very big mistake  when at a UN conference she said, brazenly, that the Maltese government had misled (fooled?) the Maltese people into believing many things when the Labour Party used the word “equality” in its 2013 electoral manifesto. 

Which takes us back to the original question. Will the latest Irish referendum result affect Malta?

With these latest two instances by the government, yes abortion may, in the end, be introduced also in Malta. But not because the people want it. They have just declared themselves unequivocally against abortion by 97 per cent  in the MaltaToday survey held a few weeks ago.

The possibility in Malta becomes real if only one person, not 70 per cent of the population, decides to introduce abortion in Malta by claiming, wrongly, that he has a political mandate to do so, when in fact he has nothing of the sort,  as happened already with the amendments to the Embryo Protection Act lately.

In fact , former Labour minister George Vella, told The Malta Independent (May 28): “For those who are putting forwards the argument that they have a political mandate to fulfil, may I point out that the 2017 electoral manifesto of the Labour Party speaks only in the widest of terms on this matter, promising only to ‘widen’ and ‘extend’  this [IVF] service without including any details whatsoever.”

Scicluna may have good reason to be jubilant on the possible introduction of abortion in Malta in the present circumstances but only if “one person, out of 400,000 persons in Malta”, the prime minister, as I predicted in my article ‘Yes to entrenchment’ in this newspaper (June 18, 2005) will just decide to introduce it under one guise or another.

Hopefully by the time this may be arbitrarily tried our members  of Parliament would have matured to a significant extent that having reached a conscientious position on the matter they would also have the moral and political courage to stand up to be counted, literally,  in parliament. 

Tony Mifsud, coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Movement.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180619/opinion/pro-life-americans-tony-mifsud.682162

The Life Network Foundation expressed their disappointment with the amendments that were approved during the debate on the Embryo Protection Act.

It said in a statement that discussions including meetings held with Health Minister Chris Fearne with organisations that expressed their concerns were ignored completely. This is not in the spirit as suggested by the President of Malta Marie Louise Coleiro Preca.

The amendments did not take into consideration the rights of the children that were born from the IVF procedures indicated in the Act, the foundation said.

The freezing of embryos is no longer going to be done in exceptional circumstances and this is not in the interest of the embryo. They further noted that the embryo is not being given the chance to live and even more so putting its life at risk.

The amendments now include the possibility of having five embryos with three being frozen in the initial treatment, which is much worse than the previous proposal which dictated a maximum of three embryos in the first cycle.

The foundation also highlighted the fact that the embryo can remain frozen for a maximum of 20 years until the woman reaches the age of 48. After this time the authority can then place the embryo for adoption.

The donation of an egg or sperm is also against the principles of the foundation as it is not going to be associated with any parental responsibility. Furthermore, children born from these donations are going to be intentionally denied their biological parent or parents. The consequences of this are suffering and confusion for the children when they understand that they were born in this situation because of someone else’s choice.

The concept of single parents, resulting from gamete donation, creates children that have to purposely live without their father or mother. This is not in the interest of the child and it definitely is not socially just that children can be born with their father or mother already being dead, thus making them orphans at birth.

The foundation said that these problems are not solved by the fact that children will be given access to their father or mother’s identity at 18 years of age or in exceptional cases of illness.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-06-14/local-news/Consultation-about-IVF-was-not-carried-out-in-the-spirit-as-suggested-by-the-President-Life-Network-Foundation-6736191731

I am writing once again with reference to the amendments being proposed to the IVF law that is being discussed in Parliament. Mark Sant (May 2) defends embryo freezing, proposed in these amendments, by saying that the process brings about the making of more babies not less; so, this, in his view, should be enough to make pro-life campaigners happy.

But I challenge this assumption and wish to bring on further clarification. What Sant seems to think is that increasing the numbers of babies is all that activists are interested in. This is a complete misinterpretation of pro-life campaigners’ arguments and an actual confirmation of that which such activists oppose.

Is human life a product in some kind of factory line? A commodity which is in high demand for which we need to provide a supply? This is exactly the philosophy that those against embryo-freezing and sperm-donation for that matter are up against. How can this be ethical?

Which brings me to another deceptive argument being used to justify such a position.

Pro-life activists are mainly being attacked for bringing ethics and morality into it, and for imposing unjustly their Catholic beliefs on others. It is argued that since there are no absolute truths, and everything depends on one’s point of view, making such truths absolute is an encroachment on someone else’s right to freedom.

But let us once again call a spade a spade; in reality, in this world of relativism, we do all agree on some absolutes, no?  No law allows us to go about shooting or robbing each other, although there exist places where anarchy reigns. In contrast to what relativists believe, there are some few absolute truths; these same absolute truths, which they seem so repulsed by, might be in fact what are keeping them safe and alive in the world of today.

Also, with regards to belief and morality, although it is a fact that, a significant number of these activists are Catholic, I really hope that morality and ethics do occupy a place in our society and are not only left to religion.

I hope the public is informed enough to be able to distinguish the difference between religion and ethics and not confuse the two. To further clarify this distinction, it is opportune to say that it is thanks to this distinction that we can rely on the fact that doctors and all other professionals, for that matter, do not need to be Catholic to act ethically. This is because they are bound by a code of ethics that transcends any belief they might hold.

For love has no gender or status and should be open for all to share and to give away to the many unwanted children who already exist

So I hope that for those who want to dismiss ethics in this whole debate, now it becomes more blatantly clear how ethics has everything to do with it. And ‘do no harm’ I believe is the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors are bound by i.e. to protect human life.

So, this is not debatable and is surely an absolute. Or is it once again a question that we are only talking of eight cells? Here we go again – a subject for those interested, I have discussed at length in a previous article in this newspaper.

Finally I think one of the most painful arguments being used against pro-life campaigners is attacking them for their insensitivity to people who cannot have children, both heterosexual and homosexual couples, or single people.

In this semblance of a war between those ‘altruistic’ and ‘compassionate’, who are pushing for the law on one side, on a mission fighting selflessly to bring justice to this painful situation and the rest: the ‘baddies’, the insensitive ones, who lack compassion, since they can enjoy the luxury of reasoning in this way, because probably they have children of their own and have never experienced this pain.

Once again, what an incorrect and inaccurate representation of reality. From Mary Ann Lauri’s brave, honest and heartfelt interview on the programme Newsline on RTK (April 30), we have a testimony that sheds light on the fact that pro-life campaigners do also in fact include couples who have suffered this situation.  Also, let us not be naïve in assuming that whoever is on this mission has truly only the interests and suffering of infertile persons at heart.

We would be out of touch with reality not to recognise the money making business that will start rolling once the legal framework for the system is set up.

So another hope I have is that we can start seeing more clearly the sometimes puerile misrepresentation of agendas in this campaign.

Finally, as a person campaigning against embryo-freezing, I would like to urge the public and the government to encourage laws and policies that have both the pain of people facing fertility issues, the interests of children and the future generation at heart.

I can never assume to truly possess the ability to understand fully the pain of those people who want to parent and who biologically cannot; I can only humbly imagine it but what I do know is that true parental love which is unconditional and wants only the best for all its offspring, presented with the threat of Solomon’s sword, would not ask for what it wants at whatever price.

 I urge the government instead of legalising such seriously morally dubious scientific practices, to focus instead, if IVF fails, on policies that make it easier for all those ready to adopt. For love has no gender or status and should be open for all to share and to give away to the many unwanted children who already exist and who are thoroughly in need of it.

Louisa Mifsud Houlton works in the education sector.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180614/opinion/ethics-transcend-belief-louisa-mifsud-houlton.681715

Għeżież ħbieb,

Wara li għada il-vot tat-Tieni Qari fil-Parliament nistiednek tingħaqad magħna fil-ġlieda għall-ħajja billi tikkopja t-text hawn taħt, fejn hu relevanti iddaħħal id-dettalji tiegħek, u tibagħta lir-Rappreżentanti kollha tad-distrett tiegħek fil-Parlament hekk kif ser jibdew jidiskutu din il-liġi fl-istadju tal-Kumitat.  Ghandek mehmuża ma’ din l-email il-lista tal-Parlamentari, bl-email rispettiv tagħhom.  Jekk jogħġbok ibghat din l-email lill-ħbieb u lill-familja kollha tiegħek.

Grazzi talli qed tagħti sehmek biex Malta bħala nazzjon tibqa tirrispetta id-dritt għall-ħajja ta’ kulħadd, kif ukoll id-dritt li t-tfal ikunu jafu lill-ġenituri naturali tagħhom.

Cut and paste l-parti fl-italics (bejn iz-zewġ linji) u poġġi f’email ġdida li ser tindirizza individwalment lill-kull MP

_________________________________________________________________

Għażiż Onorevoli [Ikteb l-isem tal-Membru Parlamentari],

 Jiena kostitwent tiegħek u noqod [ikteb il-lokalita li inti tgħix fija].

 Nemmen li embrijun huwa bniedem u jixraqlgħu li jkollu d-dritt g­ħall-ħ­ajja tieg­ħu jew tagħha, kif ukoll id-dritt li jkun jaf il-genituri naturali tieg­ħu jew tagħ­ha. Għ­al din ir-raġuni, ma naqbilx mal-emendi proposti g­ħall-Abbozz ta’ Ligi dwar il-Protezzjoni tal-Embrijuni (Abbozz Nru. 37) u l-proposti dwar l-iffrizar tal-embrijuni, id-donazzjoni tal-gameti u surrogacy.Dawn l-emendi proposti ma jipprotegux il-­ħajja, jiddiskriminaw bejn it-tfal, jagħ­mlu oġġett minnhom u jisfruttaw in-nisa.

Nitolbok, bħ­ala r-rapprezentant tieg­ħi fil-Parlament, tivvota kontra l-Abbozz Nru 37. 

Sinċerament,   

[isem] [numru ta’ identita]

_________________________________________________________________

 

English Version

Dear friends, 

Following the vote of the Second Reading in Parliament, please join us in the fight for life by copying the below text, inserting your details where relevant, and sending it to all the parliamentary representatives of your district of all parties, as this week they will start to discuss the amendments at Committee Stage before the Third and Final vote. 

Attached please find a list of parliamentarians and their respective emails. Please share this email with all of your friends and family. 

Thank you for helping us fight to keep Malta a nation which respects everyone’s right to life and right to know their natural parents.

Cut and paste the part in italics (between the two lines) and place in a new and distinct email for every individual MP

 ___________________________________________________________

Dear Honorary [insert name of parliamentarian],

I am one of your constituents and I currently live in [inset town which you live in].

I believe that an embryo is a human being and deserves to have its right to life and, right to know its natural parents, protected. For this reason, I disagree with the proposed amendments to the Embryo Protection (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 37) and the proposed introduction of embryo freezing, gamete donation and surrogacy. These proposed amendments do not protect life, they objectify and discriminate among children and they exploit women. 

I urge you, as my representative in Parliament, to vote against Bill No 37.

Sincerely, 

[name][identity card number]

_________________________________________________________________

 

District 1 – Il-Belt Valletta, Floriana, Il-Ħamrun, Il-Marsa, Tal-Pietà, Gwardamanġa, Tal-Pietà u Santa Venera

1. Jose Herrera – jose.herrera@gov.mt

2. Mario De Marco – mdemarco@demarcoassociates.com

3. Claudio Grech – claudio.grech@gmail.com

4. Aaron Farrugia – aaron.farrugia@gov.mt

5. Deo Debattista – deo.debattista@gov.mt

District 2 – Il-Birgu, L-Isla, Bormla, Ħaż-Żabbar, St Peter’s, Ħaż-Żabbar, Il-Fgura (parti min), Il-Kalkara u Ix-Xgħajra

1. Joseph Muscat – joseph.muscat@gov.mt

2. Stephen Spiteri – info@stephenspiteri.com

3. Helena Dalli – helena.dalli@gov.mt

4. Joe Mizzi – joe.mizzi@gov.mt

5. Chris Agius – chris.agius@gov.mt

6. Glenn Bedingfield – glenn.bedingfield@gov.mt , bedingfieldg@gmail.com

District 3 – Iż-Żejtun, Ħal Għaxaq, Marsaskala u Marsaxlokk

1. Chris Fearne – christopher.fearne@gov.mt

2. Carmelo Abela – carmelo.abela@gov.mt

3. Mario Galea – mario.galea@parlament.mt

4. Silvio Grixti – grixtisilvio@gmail.com

5. Helena Dalli – helena.dalli@gov.mt

6. Etienne Grech – drgrech@maltanet.net

District 4 – Il-Fgura (parti min), Il-Gudja, Paola, Santa Luċija u Ħal Tarxien

1. Chris Fearne – christopher.fearne@gov.mt

2. Konrad Mizzi – konrad.mizzi@gov.mt

3. Silvio Parnis – silvio.parnis@gov.mt

4. Byron Camilleri- byron@byroncamilleri.com

5. Jason Azzopardi – jason.azzopardi@parlament.mt

6. Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici – carmelomifsudbonnici@parlament.mt

District 5 – Birżebbuġa, Ħal Kirkop, L-Imqabba, Ħal Farruġ, Ħal Luqa, Il-Qrendi, Ħal Safi, Iż-Żurrieq u Bubaqra ż-Żurrieq

1. Joseph Muscat – joseph.muscat@gov.mt

2. Anthony (Tony) Bezzina – toni@tonibezzina.com

3. Owen Bonnici – owen.bonnici@gov.mt

4. Julia Farrugia Portelli – julia.farrugia@gov.mt

5. Hermann Schiavone – schiavone.hermann@gmail.com

6. Stefan Zrinzo – stefan@zrinzo.com

District 6 – Ħal Qormi, Is-Siġġiewi u Ħal Luqa

1. Silvio Schembri – silvio.schembri@gov.mt

2. Ryan Callus – ryan.callus@parlament.mt

3. Robert Abela – robert@abelaadvocates.com

4. Roderick Galdes – roderick.galdes@gov.mt

5. Clyde Puli – clyde.puli@parlament.mt

6. Rosianne Cutajar ( – rosianne.cutajar@gov.mt , rosianne409@hotmail.com

District 7 – Ħaż-Żebbuġ (Malta), Ħad-Dingli, L-Imġarr, L-Imtarfa, Ir-Rabat (Malta) u Il-Baħrija (Ir-Rabat, Malta), Tal-Virtù (Ir-Rabat, Malta)

1. Ian Borg – ian.borg@gov.mt

2. Edward Scicluna – edward.scicluna@gov.mt

3. Silvio Schembri – silvio.schembri@gov.mt

4. Beppe Fenech Adami – beppefa@go.net.mt

5. Adrian Delia – adrian.delia@pn.org.mt

6. Godfrey Farrugia – farrugiagodfrey@gmail.com

District 8 – Ħal Balzan, Birkirkara, Fleur-de-Lys (Birkirkara), Is-Swatar (Birkirkara), l-Iklin u Ħal Lija

1. Beppe Fenech Adami (PN) – beppefa@go.net.mt

2. Edward Scicluna (PL) – edward.scicluna@gov.mt

3. Therese Comodini Cachia (PN) – therese@comodinicachia.com

4. David Agius (PN) – david.agius@parlament.mt

5. Chris Cardona (PL) – christian.cardona@gov.mt

6. Edward Zammit Lewis (PL) – edward.zammit-lewis@parlament.mt, edwardzammitlewis2106@gmail.com

District 9 – Ħal Għargħur, L-Imsida, Is-Swatar (L-Imsida), San Ġwann, Kappara (San Ġwann), Is-Swieqi, Madliena, Is-Swieqi u Ta’ Xbiex

1. Kristy Debono (PN) – info@kristydebono.com

2. Robert Arrigo (PN) – robert@robertarrigo.com

3. Marthese Portelli (PN) – martheseportelli.pn@gmail.com

4. Michael Falzon (PL) – michael.a.falzon@gov.mt

5. Clifton Grima (PL) – clifton.grima@gov.mt

6. Emanuel Mallia (PL) – emmanuelmallia@yahoo.com

District 10 – Il-Gżira, In-Naxxar (parti min), Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq (In-Naxxar), Pembroke, San Ġiljan, Paceville (San Ġiljan) u Tas-Sliema

1. Robert Arrigo (PN) – robert@robertarrigo.com

2. Marlene Farrugia (PD) – marlenedent@gmail.com

3. Evarist Bartolo (PL) – evarist.bartolo@gov.mt

4. Michael Falzon (PL) – michael.a.falzon@gov.mt

5. Karl Gouder (PN) – gouderkarl@gmail.com

6. Emanuel Mallia (PL) – emmanuelmallia@yahoo.com

7. Karol Aquilina (PN) – info@karolaquilina.com

District 11 – L-Imdina, Ħ’Attard, Il-Mosta, Burmarrad u San Pawl il-Baħar

1. Simon Busuttil (PN) – simon.busuttil@parlament.mt

2. David Agius (PN) – david.agius@parlament.mt

3. Edwin Vassallo (PN) – edwin@vassalloedwin.com

4. Anthony Agius Decelis (PL) – anthony.agius-decelis@gov.mt

5. Alex Muscat (PL) – alexander.muscat@gov.mt

6. Ivan Bartolo (PN) – ivanbartolo15@gmail.com

7. Maria Deguara (PN) – mfdeguara@gmail.com

District 12 – Il-Mellieħa, In-Naxxar (parti min), San Pawl il-Baħar

1. Simon Busuttil (PN) – simon.busuttil@parlament.mt

2. Michael Farrugia (PL) – michael.farrugia@gov.mt

3. Evarist Bartolo (PL) – evarist.bartolo@gov.mt

4. Robert Cutajar (PN) – robert.cutajar@parlament.mt

5. Claudette Buttigieg (PN) – claudette.buttigieg@parlament.mt

6. Clayton Bartolo (PL) – clayton@claytonbartolo.com

District 13 – Għawdex

1. Anton Refalo (PL) – anton.refalo@gov.mt

2. Chris Said (PN) – chris.said@parlament.mt

3. Marthese Portelli (PN) – martheseportelli.pn@gmail.com

4. Justyne Caruana (PL) – justyne.caruana@gov.mt

5. Clint Camilleri (PL) – clint.camilleri@gov.mt

6. Frederick Azzopardi (PN) – frederick.azzopardi@pn.org.mt

7. David Stellini (PN) – dave.stellini@gmail.com , david.a.stellini@parlament.mt

I spent the best part of Sunday evening with a group of colleagues poring over the new amendments for the Embryo Protection Act. After about three hours, my colleagues and I came to the conclusion that it is simply a good exercise in whitewash. A well planned thought-out document of amendments which give the impression that things have changed while in effect nothing has changed at all. Well, if I say nothing, I would be lying as one thing has changed; those children brought into the world by sperm or ovum donation will have the right to know who their real parents actually are.

It does not change the fact however that children should not be brought into the world as a commercial exercise to satisfy the whims of donors nor those of prospective wanting-to-be single or double parents, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

Children have the right to be brought into the world, and loved and raised by their genetic parents. We should not be conveniently creating orphans and then fixing the situation afterwards. This is a process of human commercialisation and exploitation at its best. Children need to be loved and to be cared for by their real parents as a necessity, and only where there is a contingency ought they to be reared by others. This government clearly and conveniently fails to distinguish the difference between regular necessary situations and contingent ones!

Otherwise, all other ethical aspects of the proposed legislation remain exactly the same. Freezing one embryo instead of two does not change the fact that 10 to 35 per cent of embryos die in the freezing or thawing process, nor that any unused embryos might eventually remain there and remain unclaimed. Just because one possibly kills one human being rather than two does not make the situation any better or rosier. Killing innocent human beings for any reason remains a horrendous ethical watershed whatever the number – one, two, three, or a thousand human beings! Once this law passes in its present form and the principle of freezing embryos is accepted, there is nothing to keep the government from having a change of mind and heart and propose further amendments to raise the number of frozen embryos as it has done with similar controversial legislation in the past.

Likewise, because surrogacy is being removed from this law and is to be proposed in a different law that will be brought before Parliament at a later stage, does not change anything either. The government is just jesting with us, just playing for time, so that once this law is out of the way, it can move to the next step and carry out what it originally intended to achieve at a different time, but the end effect would be the same. Having made it possible for lesbian couples to have children by sperm donation, and since the state has made it legal for same sex individuals to marry, it cannot stop gay couples from having children through the induced slavery of surrogacy without discriminating against them! Here, in a way, it is the victim of its own making!

The government knows that it has finally managed to unite the whole Opposition against it through this law, so it wants to sweeten the package by breaking it up into little more digestible packets hoping to drive a wedge between its members. It is simply playing about with legislation and the situation knowing very well that rather than get to the first storey in one big step it can achieve the same result by going up the same storey in several small steps instead. I advise the Opposition and also members of the public to be very careful here. Not all is what it is made out to be. This is one of those instances where, as Minister Helena Dalli put so well in the past, the state just conjures up some hogwash about equality on complex issues and expects people to swallow it hook, line and sinker. They take us all for a gullible lot, Joseph Muscat’s government does! One might get away with this ploy initially but in reality, once bitten, twice shy. People are wising up and getting sick of this approach.

The government has bought off its whole Labour backbench by crossing their palms with silver. They are all in receipt of handsome payouts for some chairmanship, sitting on a board, or other perks. They are all silent. They will be silent on this and other ethical issues yet to come because it suits them financially to do so. Not that they are actually elected for that reason though. One is surprised how money turns wolves into sheep so quickly. I hope that we are reaching a turning point where we show this patronising lot that we are not all for buying or turning. I look forward to the day when the quest for human dignity and justice drown out the voices of this ethically mediocre government and it is not too far in the future.

Dr Asciak is Senior Lecturer II in Applied Science at MCAST.

Ref: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2018-06-10/newspaper-opinions/A-well-packaged-marketing-exercise-6736191382

There is always a lesson to be learnt in anything in life. The outcome of Ireland’s referendum was no surprise. As I said to someone, a win for the No vote would have probably made me believe in miracles.

The celebrations are an expression of relief by all those who favoured the repeal of the eighth amendment of the constitution. It was an easy choice and the people in their majority voted for it. They know that the burden of choice is now on those who will commit abortion. They will not have to work on their own ideology to attempt to provide any feasible solution to difficult situations. They no longer need to justify the killing of unborn human life.

The State gains, as it now no longer needs to fund support for victims of rape and incest. The State will save itself from shame and save itself the trouble of having to find adequate and ethical solutions to unplanned pregnancies. It has no longer need to justify its own weaknesses.

People do not have to be responsible and do not even need to consider anything before indulging in extra marital affairs. Most people gained from the repeal. It is only a minority which loses and a majority never cares about a silent minority.

Some governments attempt to impede what is not beneficial for the general society, but ultimately the choice is in the hands of democracy. People decide what shape their society takes and people decide who to elect in parliament. What should we learn from this as one of the last remaining countries banning deliberate termination of human life?

We learn that unless perseverance and education work hand in hand with provision of support to difficult cases, the ultimate result will be that abortion will also makes its way into our country.

Politicians have a very strong grip on the people and no matter what religious faith anyone may have, most people will follow political leaders and not their faith or their own minds.

People can be manipulated to exchange their strongest values and principles for anything which might give them the illusion of providing an easier way out. Most people will not commit themselves to defining what is beneficial to society and will ultimately avoid taking responsibility for their own actions.

The postmodern ideology removes the burden of responsibility. This is why it is gaining momentum and winning. This is what the liberal lobby group is attempting to entrench in our brains. It is attempting to manipulate us into believing that postmodernism is the way to go.

Yet it is simply eroding our decision-making rights by taking them away from our hands as one society and putting them in the hands of those few people enriching themselves from the lucrative business of killing unborn human beings.

Every single decision we take must be well formulated, and researched. We simply cannot afford to take decisions that will be regretted in future

They want us to give up our responsibilities towards our future children and leave the choice whether they are born or not in the hands of planned parenthood. They want us to give each individual the power to decide who lives and who dies. The power to decide when to terminate our own life in euthanasia, and the power to decide against all natural odds whether to have children or not.

They are effectively attempting to override natural selection, which happens to be the best way of forming healthy new future generations without compromising its own set of ethical laws, morality and discrimination. The same natural selection that has helped every living species to survive millions of years.

The selection that has allowed evolution to work freely and build a stronger and better species over time. The same natural selection some people call God.

One might argue that this is indeed what we should be aspiring towards. Should we just let everything be decided by nature and not develop our scientific research and not allow ourselves to overrule the “mistakes” nature does? We argue that nature is not perfect and it also discriminates and undermines our rights to determine our future.

Every single decision we take must be well formulated, and researched. We simply cannot afford to take decisions that will be regretted in future. We must attempt to stay one step behind and not one step ahead of natural progress and allow ourselves time to see the effects of a decision we will take by seeing what other countries are going through and how their society has been affected.

Every ideology has its faults. The postmodern ideology is no exception and although it seems to be perfect, it is creating a new form of discrimination. It is not institutionalised as it was, perhaps in Africa and in many other countries. This is much finer and tweaked to resemble freedom of choice. The power to decide how the future Arian race will look like is no longer in the hands of a couple of individuals, but in the hands of the people creating the future generations. Where does this all leave the pro-life movement? Should we just give up?

Absolutely not. If anything this referendum gives us a great opportunity to analyse and reflect on what needs to be done in order to save our future generations from the misery postmodernism will bestow upon them. It is time that those who are really concerned about the future, take one step back, regroup and discuss a rational logical strategy to help people understand the real implications of terminating human unborn life.

The various pro-life organisations must join forces and in their own diversity deliver the message and reach out to all sectors of society.

Having said this, I must say that I feel that all efforts will be wasted if the local government decides to opt in for abortion. The IVF amendments revealed to us, yet again, how volatile people’s conscience is. There is no church that will help, no god will save the unborn.

There is only the politician in parliament who is the only deterministic factor, which will decide what happens in present and most importantly in the future.

Those celebrating are no victims of abortion. They are simply victims of manipulative, decadent politicians who have just two items on their agenda: money and feeding off the power people give them to help sustain their megalomaniac narcissist egos.

Steve Pace is a strategic thinker.

Ref: https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180608/opinion/keeping-up-appearances-steve-pace.681129

My attention was drawn to a report in this newspaper (May 27) on the President’s stand on the maltreatment of children. I was struck by her deep concern for children and the risks some of them face when they are subjected to corporal punishment and totally agree that society, through legislation, has a responsibility to safeguard children’s well-being.

Her attitude was also reflected in her concern for the life of the unborn when she made an appeal for the government to give time for a more serene and in-depth debate over the prospective legislation on IVF.

Her principled intervention on the grave risks to embryonic life, as proposed by this new legislation, is true to her character.

The proposed IVF legislation paves the way for embryo freezing and gamete donation, placing nascent life in very grave danger. It betrays a callous attitude to life and reduces it to becoming a commodity.

Just think of frozen embryos – what a state to be in! 

Will they, or won’t they, ever see the light of day? Will they be thrown away? Will they be given to anyone wishing a child, regardless of suitability? Will they be implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother and on birth given to any person or couple, ignoring the true interests of the child?

Is this the respect we have for life?

The mind boggles. No great wonder that it is not only the President who is concerned.

We were all embryos once, including her Excellency. In my youth, we were allowed to flower by our parents, nurtured even when there was a war on and great sacrifices had to be made to ensure our survival and development.

Why is it that 65 or so years later we are so callous about the gift of life and treat it as being expendable? What happened?

After the war people were glad to be alive and new life was welcomed and rejoiced over. Babies were met with joy and blessings. The 1960s came along and things started to change – for the worse.

A misconception of freedom without responsibility has led to a decadent culture of sexual licence. It resulted in widespread contraception, crazy music, films trivialising sex and fashion that with every passing year bared women’s bodies to the extent that today young women’s scanty clothing is de rigueur.

Drink is also another part of today’s culture. Even the youngest of teenagers indulge in alcohol, not to mention the ruinous drug culture.

In such a distressing scenario, the will is weakened and we are now faced with the consequences of widespread promiscuity. 

On the whole, even the Church has proved largely ineffective in addressing this wave of permissiveness as the misuse of sex has gathered pace. It did not give enough importance to this crucial subject and has not succeeded in teaching young people the importance of responsible sexual behaviour. 

What a sad world full of misinformation – supposedly free to make choices they do not understand

Despite the establishment of CANA, not enough resources were employed.

Even now, there seems to be a reluctance by the Church to preach and teach, maybe holding back because of its fear of not being politically correct or being considered offensive. 

I feel sorry for the teenagers who have had no sound advice given to them either by their parents, who seem too busy leading their own lives, or from the Church, who should be their spiritual mother. I dread to think what the content of future State-imposed sex education will include.

In the newspapers one reads that in the future, sex education will be compulsory and young people will learn all about being gay, male or female, contraceptives and all manner of anti-baby information.

Isn’t it time that young people were given the right kind of teaching, where they are encouraged to keep themselves pure till later on, when they can afford to get married, and not have sex at 14?

What a sad world full of misinformation – supposedly free to make choices they do not understand.

Look at the sorry result of today’s children, at those who get pregnant too young and do not know where to turn. 

Life Network, for which I work as a counsellor and a fundraising member of the team, is trying its very best to reach out to the youth of today, to give them a better chance of happiness.

The President faces a very grave moral dilemma and should use all her influence to bring the government to its senses.

Meanwhile, the Commissioner for Children should reconsider her position and not abdicate her responsibility to the whims of the powerful. She should stand up for the unborn, who she is meant to look after.

This matter is very important for the future of Malta and must be debated at length and with the experts who have studied the issue from every angle. 

The Malta we love is in its death throes, let us give it the kiss of life.

Mary Hilda Camilleri is a retired music teacher who worked in pro-life organisations in London and now with Life Network Foundation.

Ref:  https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180607/opinion/pro-life-appeal-to-the-president-mary-hilda-camilleri.681064