Category: Pro-Life

Nixtieq minn qalbi ngħid prosit lit-tim kollu li ppreżenta d-diska Iffriżajt.

Dan għaliex irnexxielu jerġa’ jqajjem id-diskussjoni dwar l-embrijun uman. Hemm min ħadha qatta’ bla ħabel kontra dan it-tim żaghżugħ u attakkhom bħala insensittivi, jew inkella li dawn qegħdin jattakkaw lill min ma jistax ikollu tfal. Hemm min ikkritika l-vidjow li juri fetu u mhux l-istampa tal-embrijun li huwa ferm aktar żgħir. Jibqa’ l-fatt li żgħir kemm hu żgħir huwa wieħed minna.

George Cassar, Aleandro u Marco Debono qegħdin jagħtu vuċi lill-embrijun vulnerabbli. Ħadd ma jista’ jinnega li l-embrijun huwa wieħed minna, kreatura umana ġdida, bid-DNA u l-karatteristiċi distinti li jagħmlu bniedem uman ġdid.Sa mill-konċepiment għandu d-dritt tal-ħajja protett speċjalment f’Malta. Il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja umana għandha tkun punt li jgħaqqadna lkoll bħala poplu.

Il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja umana ma tistax tkun punt li nilagħbu biha emozzjonalment, jiġifieri li niddefendu l-ħajja meta jaqbel jew ma jaqbilx lilna. L-iffriżar tal-embrijun uman imur kontra d-dritt tal-ħajja ta’ dak l-embrijun involut. Ma jħallihx ikompli ħajtu u ma jagħtihx ċans jitwieled. L-iffriżar tal-embrijuni jagħmel inġustizzja bejn l-aħwa – min jintgħażel biex ikompli ħajtu … u min biex jiġi ffriżat bil-konsegwenzi kollha assoċjati mal-iffriżar.

L-iffriżar tal-embrijuni ħafna drabi jsir ukoll punt li joħloq ħafna tensjoni fil-ġenituri li jkollhom ulied imwielda u oħrajn iffriżati. Ħafna drabi dawn il-ġenituri jkunu jixtiequ jagħtu ċans lil ulied iffriżati li jitwieldu, iżda minħabba li jinbidlu ċ-ċirkostanzi jista’ jkun li dan ma jibqax possibli. Il-karba tal-kantant f’isem l-embrijun hija kommoventi, tant li tmiss il-qalb u nista’ nifhem li min għandu embrijuni umani ffriżati jħoss għalihom. F’din is-sitwazzjoni hemm modi differenti kif wieħed jirreaġixxi – jew jagħmel kuraġġ u jitkellem, jgħid lil ħaddieħor biex ma jagħżilx din it-triq, jew, kif sfortunatament qed jiġri jattakka lill-kantant minflok.

L-aħjar li ma mmorrux għall-għażla tal-iffriżar tal-embrijuni umani kif fil-fatt tesiġi l-liġi f’pajjiżna bħalissa. Filwaqt li l-pjaga tal-infertilità ma tistax tiġi injorata, daqstant ieħor ma nistgħux nagħlqu għajnejna lejn ir-realtà ta’ x’jiġri mill-embrijun uman li jiġi magħżul, skartat, minsi jew jitlef ħajtu minħabba din il-proċedura.

George Cassar jgħid, “Il-kanzunetta “Iffriżajt” iddewweb l-embrijun li tħalla skartat u tagħtih vuċi biex jesprimi x-xewqa li jgħix. It-tama hi li din il-karba innoċenti, imma sinċiera, iddewweb ukoll dik il-qalb li bbieset għal ħajjet ħaddieħor u dak l-ilsien li qagħad pass lura u ma tkellimx favur id-dritt tal-ħajja sa mill-bidu nett”. Dan huwa messaġġ validu speċjalment illum il-ġurnata fejn hemm min jixtieq jiġġustifika kollox u jagħmel oġġett minn ħajja umana ġdida.

Prosit George, Aleandro u  Marco Debono. Prosit tal-messaġġ kuraġġuż favur il-protezzjoni tal-ħajja ta’ kull embrijun uman.

Biex tisma’ d-diska agħfas hawn.

Dr Miriam Sciberras BChD (Hons) MA Bioethics

Chairman Life Network Foundation Malta

SHABBY POLITICS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for considering this opportunity to help us!

The campaign to abolish marriage on this tiny island of Malta is now close to succeeding. It is amazing how quickly it has happened and how a small, yet determined, group of extremists has found its way to smash a centuries-old institution in just a matter of a few years.

The latest blow – civil marriage for gay couples – is indeed cunning.

Politicians love to pretend they are giving when they are, in fact, taking away. It also suits them to portray the defenders of traditional marriage as intolerant bigots. This new plan of theirs achieves both these things at once.

The government had already dented the meaning and significance of marriage when it gave almost equal privileges to two people who choose to set up house together on far less stringent conditions than those demanded of married couples.

The current phenomenon of the increasing prevalence of cohabitation is a reflection of a culture that has lost its faith in permanence, in loyalty, no matter what challenges life brings. Today, more than ever before, the ultimate physical bond through sexual union has lost its full meaning. It does not imply total commitment any more. It has been trivialised and devalued.

Even without moralising, statistics bear this out.

Relationships in marriage, despite the availability of divorce, tend to last longer than those in cohabitation.

Yet, our Western culture presents us a distorted concept of freedom which is reflected now in every dimension of social life. Gone are the days where one took pride in giving loyal service to one’s calling for a lifetime.

Today, we live in a culture of disposables.

Even in human relationships, when faced with difficulties we consider it a great achievement that we can walk out of a relationship. The concept of making a vow, a covenant has been shattered.

I sometimes wonder what St Paul would think about our culture if he were shipwrecked on our shores today.

This life-long commitment of a man and a woman in marriage and open to life gave stability to society 

Marriage has been gutted of its significance by a ruling class that has nothing but contempt for an institution that has been the bedrock of our people through the ages.

The final blow is now being dealt as the privileges of marriage are about to be bestowed on homosexual couples. Very conveniently, anyone who objects is branded as ‘homophobic’ when, in fact, the argument is about something else altogether.

In the past, marriage between a man and woman was granted privileges because it is crucial to a healthy society.

Married couples were given respectability, security, legal protection and tax breaks in return for making a binding public commitment to do something brave, difficult and immensely valuable for society.

This life-long commitment of a man and a woman in marriage and open to life gave stability to society and to their country and guaranteed its future.

In a way, marriage also provided independent sanctuaries where decisions could be made in a safe and secure environment without government interference.

This was best put by, of all people, D.H. Lawrence, author of Lady Chatterley’s Lover, who said: “It is marriage which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State; given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State.”

And he warned: “Break it and you will have to go back to the overwhelming dominance of the State, which existed before the Christian era.”

We live in an age of ever-increasing State interference in our lives. The law pokes its nose into our homes in ways undreamed of 40-50 years ago, and is taking a growing interest in what we say and think as well as what we do.

Global big business regards us as fodder, scorning our private needs and turning every day into a working day, something which even Stalin did not succeed in doing.

These forces see the married family as a stumbling block.

The State wants to take over the roles of husband and father, making more and more people dependant upon it.

Both business and the State want mothers out at work, encouraging them to leave children with carers, and if they don’t want them, the very soon available option of having an abortion (is it in the pipeline?)

With such giant allies, the Ultra Feminists are in sight of achieving what they think they have always wanted, a life without any ties or commitments – a country without marriage and without family life, fathers or husbands.

I wonder if they will like it when they get it.

Herbert Messina-Ferrante is a dental surgeon, educator and sports administrator.

Regrettably I cannot but disagree with Dr Simon Busuttil’s position.

I agree with Simon that the Party has to face social realities.   The social reality is that the vast majority of Maltese still value marriage (this was the argument also made by people who wanted divorce) as a union between a husband and a wife that includes the intrinsic value of procreation, which I hope we all agree is a social good, if we want the human race to survive.  

To give marriage equality we don’t call oranges bananas.  This is absurd.  In Dr. Simon Busuttil’s own words the Civil Union Act already conferred all rights so what social realities are we ignoring?

The only social reality that the Nationalist Party is ignoring, is the reality of its own voters, who in the main are against the position being taken by the PN by a vast majority.  Please stop and listen.  There are many of us, beyond the numbers you seem to have decided to term insignificant. 

Society at large does not want discrimination against the LGBTIQ community but that does not equate to divesting marriage of its essentials to please the few who want to impose their dominance on public opinion and policy.

Unfortunately, the PN change of policy was not the result of an open debate, but a leadership imposition when Simon Busuttil decided out of his own accord to push the Party in that direction when Joseph Muscat pronounced himself in favour of Gay Marriage (when previously he too had pronounced himself against) simply to create a diversion on the Panama Papers issue.

The Party never discussed the issue, but out of loyalty MPs abstained from pronouncing ourselves publicly even though many in the Parliamentary Group disagreed. 

On the Electoral Programme:

1. A Party that lost the election is not bound to execute its Electoral Programme as that Programme was rejected by the voters, it is the Party in Government that carries such an obligation.
2. The law that has been presented goes beyond what we were told to be our position, i.e. that we were simply recognizing the fact the Civil Union brought about defacto marriage.   The law presented by the Labour Government goes beyond as it removes any identity from marriage as we know it as though a marriage between a husband and a wife, a mother and a father is something that cannot be mutated in society so much so that a 36-page law has been passed to erase such concepts from all our laws.  Civil union and marriage can never be the same because although they both “love” which needs no legal intervention, the natural order, biology has dictated that a heterosexual couple procreates and is thus distinct. 

Negating distinction is not equality, negating diversity is intolerance, a tolerant society is one that exults diversity and not legislate homogeneity and negating todays marriages who they essentially are, husbands and wives, father and mothers.

3. The law presented by the Labour Government is a charade to mask the real intentions of this Government i.e. to remove the gender identity from marriage (the concept of husband and wife, father and mother who now became the person who has a child) and make the definitions accommodating to the real intentions of this Government that include changes to the Embryo Protection Act to allow for Surrogacy, and sperm and egg donation, which will open us to serious LIFE ethical issues.
4. The electoral program of the Nationalist Party was approved by a General Council without a debate, through a General Council limited with pre planned speeches.  No invitation was made to the Councilors for interventions, Councilors who are supposed to be the highest organ of the Party and who have a right to express their views and opinions in a Statutory General Council.  Rather a vote was taken by simple show of hands without debate.  Does not say much about the democratic structures of the Party.  If the Leadership knew that such proposals would not find consensus, then they should have been dropped not forced.
5. I assure the PN that it has lost a significant number of votes of people already, families that I am meeting every day, through calls, messages and around coffees who are telling me please be our voice.  Many of these have abstained in this election and many others are saying this may have been the last time they voted PN.  For these people fighting Corruption was not enough, they expect to hear from us alternative proposals and talk about all the values that distinguish as from Labour, the Values that have built and sustained our Party, yet that seem outdated for the few in power.

Painfully I have seen the leadership impose its views on the many, as we were told this was the only way we get the gay vote back.   The gay vote was never the reason for the 2013 electoral defeat, the European Elections in 2009 had already given that same result with the same margin, and then the Gay debate had not even started.  Let us stop fooling ourselves and sell our values for cheap.

Even make exaggerated assertions that by not voting for the bill we are condemning the PN to eternity in Opposition.  If Simon Busuttil wants the Party to be united and that the conservative and the liberal factions to coexist, one faction cannot oppress the other and it is for this reason the Party MPs should be given a free vote.  Why an outgoing Leader keeps insisting on wanting to impose his opinion to the exclusion of all other baffles me.

I contend that the Nationalist MPs are not bound by the Party’s Whip on this Bill but are obliged to vote freely as this is a matter of Conscience.

The Whip cannot deny the freedom to an MP who wants to object to a Bill as a matter of Conscience.

I want to assure the Nationalist Party that it is very mistaken to ignore its core vote who if objectively asked will tell you don’t touch marriage– I urge the exiting leadership to stop imposing their will on a Party that is seeking to understand what went wrong and why the PN lost by an even bigger majority.  If the PN want to win the next election it needs to reconnect with its voters and not keep kicking us in the teeth, unless it wants to lose our votes for good and remain in Opposition for much longer.  

This election was not won or lost because of our position and abstention on Civil Union – stop these ridiculous apologetics, I compromised and abstained even though I was against gay adoption and I have no regrets for what I did because I believe that adoption is the right of the child and is not the commodity of couples being heterosexual or gay. 

It was wrong than, it remains wrong now. 

The election was won by Labour because of the success it managed to sell on the economic front, which as a PN we left unchallenged, focusing only on Corruption.

We lost because our strategy was too single focused and people heard very little of our proposals NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GAY MARRIAGE VOTE so much so that despite the apologetics of the leadership of the Party and the promises, the Party did not get the gay vote. 

The electoral results are fact.   The next election will be won or lost again on the economic front, and the PN had better prepare itself to convince people that it can make a difference and make people’s lives better and it has the ability to Govern rather than keep the focus on issues that separate it from its core.

A free vote should be given to Nationalist MPs who need to give hope to a lot of voters like me that the Nationalist Party protects our values while being sensitive to social realities.  

The LGBTIQ community already has its rights, facing social realities is not about not remaining who we are –

DO NOT TAKE WHAT IS OURS, it is now the turn of the LGBTIQ community to accept who we are.

Life Network’s chairperson Dr. Miriam Sciberras gives an appeal to the public about the Marriage Equality Bill during yesterday’s silent demonstration outside the Maltese Parliament. 5th July 2017.

[youtube]i_VAo8iaabA[/youtube]

Dear Members of Parliament, kindly consider these facts and discuss before voting.

1. The Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 is not just about changing the name of Civil Unions Act. If it was just the name legislator does not need to introduce a new act of 37 pages.

2. Change in name – no longer the originally proposed “Marriage Equality Act‟ but the “Marriage Act and other Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017‟. Unlike most foreign Marriage Equality laws– the notion of equality was specifically removed from the title. In fact a thorough study of this bill shows clearly that it is not about bringing gay marriage at par with heterosexual marriage, but introducing the former whilst eliminating inherent concepts of the latter.

3. Conscientious Objection: the bill does not give enough protection to conscientious objection it limits itself to merely religious protection. Further Articles need to be added, such as the following proposals:

The bill should guarantee the protection of conscientious objection to all individuals , including, guaranteeing anyone in Malta to remain free to choose who may use their facilities and halls for marriage ceremonies and celebrations, to whom they rent their housing accommodations, or to whom they provide their services consistent with their principles.

4. “conceived and born to the parties” – will now be connotated to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Yet it is a biological fact that gay couples cannot conceive or give birth to children. This Bill presupposes illegal mechanisms such as surrogacy and gamete donation. Presuppositions of surrogacy and gamete donation entail the undermining of the Embryo Protection Act.

5. Paramount Interest of the child: with regards to the mechanism of repudiation, child protection is done away with, leaving repudiation open to any circumstance upon the presentation of a genetic tests, whilst before it was limited to four circumstances. With regards to gay couples the child would even more be exposed to repudiation since s/he will never result to be the genetic child of both of them! Without acknowledgment there is no obligation of the spouse to provide maintenance to the child!

6. Vocabulary: Note that motherhood, fatherhood, maternity and paternity will no longer form part of our vocabulary this does not reflect equality or respect towards others who profoundly cherish the meaning of these words. Does this mean abolition of ‘Mothers’ Day’ and ‘Father’s Day’?

The bill imposes on those couples who wish to use the terms “wife‟ and “husband‟ to use “spouses” in public documents and to use ‘Parent’ instead of mother and father.  This bill should be about equality and not abolition of heterosexual couples. Thus it would be recommended that they be given a choice whether to choose for e.g. wife and husband or spouses not eliminating the choice.

One of the amendments to the Interpretation Act will be: Words importing the feminine gender shall include males. The word mother shall include father and vice versa. While this amendment says –‘includes’ in reality these words have been eliminated from the other amended laws.

Conclusion

This act is not about true equality but elimination of such terms like mother, father, husband and wife and the complementarity of men and women – which have deep anthropological connotations. If this is just about marriage equality, this law should only offer an option and not eliminate the existing marriage as it is. This act is about bringing a culture change and not merely changing the name of a law. Motherhood and fatherhood have loaded meanings which have been proven to play an essential role in the pedagogical formation and the development of children.

We urge the Members of Parliament to consider these facts before taking a vote on this Bill.

Sincerely

M. Sciberras

05.07.2017

Dr Miriam Sciberras BChD (Hons), MA Bioethics

obo Life Network Foundation Malta

www.staging-lifenetwork.stagingcloud.co

In a 2015 pastoral letter on the same-sex marriage debate, themed ‘Don’t mess with marriage’, the Catholic Bishops of Australia observed that “At this time in history, there is much discussion about the meaning of marriage”.

In Malta, although certain laws were introduced that directly or indirectly changed the meaning of marriage, unfortunately, there was little debate both in Parliament and in the social arena. The government has now declared it will introduce ‘same-sex marriage’. I am convinced that if a debate takes place, the stand of the Catholic Church might be of great help to all those of goodwill who would like to make the right choice for the common good.

Justice requires us to treat people fairly and, therefore, not to make arbitrary, groundless distinctions.

Thus, we must treat like cases alike and different cases differently. It, therefore, follows that if the union between a man and a woman is different from other unions then justice demands that we treat that union accordingly.

Marriage is an institution designed to support people of the opposite sex to be faithful to each other and to the children of their union. This truth is not only based on faith but also on sociological, psychological and anthropological evaluations and considerations.

Such truth is inscribed in man’s nature; it is ‘natural law’.

The Australian bishops argue that what is unjust – “gravely unjust” – is: “to legitimise the false assertion that there is nothing distinctive about a man and a woman, a father or a mother; to ignore the particular values that real marriage serves; to ignore the importance for children of having, as far as possible, a mum and a dad, committed to them and to each other for the long haul; to destabilise marriage further at a time when it is already under considerable pressure; and to change retrospectively the basis upon which all existing married couples got married.”

If civil law ceases to define marriage for what it really is, it will be a serious injustice and will undermine that common good for which civil law exists.

Same-sex relationships are of a different kind to heterosexual relationships: to treat them as the same does a grave injustice to both kinds of relationships and ignores the particular values on which marriage is based.

Sometimes, people claim that children do just fine with two mothers or two fathers and that there is “no difference” between households with same-sex parents and heterosexual parents. However, sociological research, as well as the long experience of the Church and society, attests to the importance of children having both a mother and father. Thus, the Australian bishops conclude that ‘messing with marriage is also ‘messing with kids’.

When we come to legislation regarding ‘same-sex marriage’, it is very important to keep in mind that the word ‘marriage’ is not simply a label that can be attached and transferred to different types of relationships as the fashion of the day dictates.

It has an intrinsic or natural meaning despite other considerations or legislations introduced by the State.

Besides, marriage reflects God’s plan for humanity, our personal growth and that of our children and society.

To say that other relationships cannot be considered as a marriage is not to demean those other relationships or the individuals concerned but merely to recognise that marriage is the covenant of a man and a woman to live as husband and wife, exclusively and for life and be open to the procreation of children.

Considering the present debate, all the Maltese and Gozitans that truly support the institution of marriage are called to make their views known to their parliamentary representatives. These should then be left to make an informed and ‘free’ decision.

While democracy should in no way be considered as the rule of the majority at all costs, such an important decision on an institution that is crucial for society as a whole should have a natural and real democratic course, ensuring proper debate and reflection.

Fr Renato Borg spent 19 years as secretary to the late Gozo Bishop Nikol Cauchi.