An interview with Fr. Ian Boyd

On August 27, Campaign Life Coalition interviewed Fr. Ian Boyd by telephone. Fr. Boyd, editor of The Chesterton Review, was a founder of Campaign Life in 1978. We talked to him about the pro-life movement over the past 35 years.

 

Campaign Life Coalition: 35 years ago, together with a group of other pro-life activists, you founded Campaign Life. Why did you come together to create this new prolife group?

Fr. Ian Boyd: There was a crisis, and that was the abortion law that had been passed by the Trudeau government (in 1969). We felt that ordinary people should take some strong measures to see what could be done to defend life, since their representatives weren’t doing a very good job in speaking up for the unborn. That is what motivated people, and it was an immensely popular, and truly grassroots, movement. We believed that most Canadians were on the side of life, but that unfortunately many of them were picking up very bad ideas from a corrupt culture. According to Chesterton, cultures need to be evangelized because ordinary people generally pick up their ways of thinking and behaving from the culture they are immersed in. Fifty years ago, when the culture was basically healthy, even the atheists were pro-life. Fifty years later, rather good people were wounded by a toxic culture and started mouthing ideas that their parents and grandparents would never have accepted. It wasn’t that people have become worse in those fifty years, the culture had become worse and it was having that bad effect on us.  It was a counter-cultural effort that the Campaign Life people were making, and I think that’s basically why we met.

 

CLC: You developed the first draft of the CLC Questionnaire. These questionnaires have been such an important tool in informing the public on where candidates stand on the life and family issues. In the past, politicians were more willing to answer them. Nowadays, they refuse to even address these issues in conversation. What are good ways to engage in dialogue with politicians, and how can we get feedback from them.

Fr. Boyd: It certainly is a serious difficulty. Politicians are terrified of permanently alienating any part of their electorate, and as long as the pro-life issue is simply one among others, then they will be reluctant to say anything. You must remind them that for a certain part of the electorate, it’s an issue that is so basic, that it will actually disqualify the candidate from consideration, regardless of his other good qualities. We need to tell the politicians that if they can’t see the need to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, then they simply do not deserve support no matter what other views they have. Pro-life voters must also be taught that like human sacrifice, matricide, etc., abortion is a disqualifying issue. Furthermore, the unwillingness to take a good stand on the protection of human life, whether it’s regarding abortion or euthanasia, and the refusal to answer is in itself an answer, and a very bad one. Even if we have trouble getting everyone to agree, we want a law in place to remind people, to teach people, and to help bring people to their senses about the wrongness of abortion. Of course we would like to end all abortions right now, but we are realists and we know that in a bad situation, this sometimes is a slow process, but we will not tolerate a politician or give our vote to a politician who refuses to protect life.

 

CLC: You once said that nowadays it’s more difficult to approach people from the head, now you have to do it from the heart. Can you elaborate on this statement?

Fr. Boyd: Human beings are not rational animals only, we are emotional animals, and we have to touch people’s hearts as well as their heads if we are to motivate them. That is why, for example, the recent scandal in Philadelphia had such a terrific effect: when the police stumbled on Kermit Gosnell’s office, suddenly people found out in graphic detail what was happening to these little children. They found out what “pro-choice” means. That was an appeal to the human heart. In our pro-life effort, it is important for us to remind people of the reality of abortion. It’s unspeakable, but we have to render a picture of it to people. The pro-life movement is prophetic in a way, and prophecy doesn’t mean, strictly speaking, predicting the future. It’s speaking the truth to people who have become deaf and blind to realities. You have to wake them up, and I think that’s the great mission of the pro-life movement. We are doing what our elected leaders have neglected to do.

 

CLC: Over the years, there have been many ups and many downs. How would you describe these years and can you share some thoughts about some of your experiences in the pro-life trenches? What would you say were some success and failures you were involved in?

Fr. Boyd: I find that the prolife movement has always been divided into two groups. One group, the principled people opposed to all abortions, that never would they agree to take the life of a single innocent human being no matter what stage of life they are at. I’m all together with them. The second group, I refuse to despise, they are also absolutists, but they say we can work towards that goal and in the meantime, we should do everything we can to cut down the number of abortions, even before we get rid of abortion absolutely. You feel unprincipled if you start talking about cutting down the numbers as if it makes it sound as you are willing to accept any, but we do want to cut down numbers, and we do want to do everything. We take into account the current situation and the way in which some people are slow learners, and we gradually teach them and we do what we can.

The other thing is the ecumenical dimension of the pro-life movement. People who do not agree about some doctrinal questions find themselves fighting together in the trenches of the culture war, and that’s bringing them closer together.

The pro-life movement should also get back in print, read again, and draw people’s attention to notable writers. Authors such as Chesterton and C.S. Lewis are writers who make a huge difference, and we should be instruments of God by putting good literature into the hands of people, especially young people. Chesterton’s prophetic writing about the pro-life issue is a constant, great help to us. From the beginning of Chesterton’s career, he predicted that we were going to face a culture war far more terrible than anything that had occurred in the past. He said: “before the liberal idea is dead or triumphant we shall see wars and persecutions the like of which the world has never seen.” He predicted that the next great heresy would be an attack on morality, and especially on sexual morality.

In Canada, one of the heroes of the pro-life movement is George Grant, and was a great spokesman. Malcolm Muggeridge was another great figure. Fr. (Alphonse) de Valk is a national treasure. He knew the complete history of the abortion question in Canada, wrote a book about it, and kept a complete file of what politicians did.

Those great minds and writings should be remembered.

 

CLC: What words of advice would you offer to someone who wants to get involved in the pro-life movement?

Fr. Boyd: My first advice would be that we are always more effective in a community than as single individuals, to get in touch with Campaign Life, with a pro-life group, that it multiplies your effectiveness a hundredfold when you bring your talents to the group. Don’t remain an isolated individual. The other advice would be letter-writing. I don’t mean a form letter, I mean, especially if it’s a hand-written letter to your local politician, and not on some general question, but on some specific issue which has come up, and remind the politician that you don’t usually write letters, but there are a thousand people like you who feel strongly about this very issue. Politicians take a letter like that seriously, one that doesn’t come from the organization but comes from the individual.

For example, there was something on CBC television that I objected to. I wrote a personal letter, not to the producer of the program, but to the chairman of the corporation, Mr. Johnson. I put a post-script in the letter and said, I know that you will take this letter seriously because my brother in law Vince Dantzer, who worked with you years ago in Regina told me that you were an honourable man and that he thought highly of you. I told him we had Campaign Life, a pro-life lobby, and we raised money to send people to Ottawa to lobby the politicians. CBC Television paid practically no attention to the lobby, and only mentioned it, but they made a great deal of a little feminist group who was also there. Johnson personally wrote me back and said that he would set up a group to look into this matter and have them report back to him. I think that had an effect.

A move like that, how can I put it, chilled the enemy, when they get pushed back from people they are afraid of, or from people who are in charge of them. Make use of every personal connection you have, if someone knows a politician, if someone has worked for a party, anything, you know we are a connected people, so never despair. Quoting Chesterton, if you remember the battle of the white horse where he compares Christians to hares being chased by hunters, the hare says “though they hunt us like hares on the hillside, the hare has still more heart to run than they have heart to ride,” so you know we’ll keep on fighting and be cheerful too. We are people of hope, we are Easter people.

  

About Fr. Ian Boyd

A priest of the Congregation of Saint Basil, Father Ian Boyd is an internationally recognized Chesterton scholar and author. He was Professor of English at St. Thomas More College, University of Saskatchewan for many years. He was a founding member of Campaign Life Coalition (formerly Campaign Life) in 1978, and as pastoral advisor to Campaign Life, drafted the first CLC questionnaire. Father Boyd is the Founder and Editor of The Chesterton Review and the President of the G.K. Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture based at Seton Hall University. For more information about the work of the G. K. Chesterton Institute for Faith & Culture and its journal The Chesterton Review and to subscribe, please visit: www.shu.edu/go/chesterton.

For the full transcript of the interview go to www.TheInterim.com.

– See more at: http://www.theinterim.com/issues/pro-life/interview-with-fr-ian-boyd-observations-on-the-pro-life-movement/#sthash.ZHCAIJXq.dpuf

6th Annual March for Life – Rome, 8th May 2016

Drs. Miriam and Mark Sciberras, on behalf of Life Network Malta, will once again be attending the March for Life being held in Rome on the 8th of May 2016.

 

Marcia per la vita

 
Dear Miriam Sciberras,

In less than two weeks-time the March for Life will be held in Rome.

The March unites representatives of pro-life movements, from all corners of the globe, in the capital of Christendom. The 2016 March will take place on Sunday, May 8th, starting at 9 am, departing from piazza Bocca della Verità, arriving at noon to St Peter for the Regina Coeli.

It is only through the firm commitment of public testimony, through standing up publicly to defend Life, that we will be able to fight today’s culture that, as stated by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, strives for hegemony, where a crime becomes a right. The battle for Life has taken center-stage in the court of public opinion; consequently, the support of each and every individual to this March for Life becomes critical to the survival of a society founded on Life, rather than Death.

As done with past Marches, also that of this year will be preceded by the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in the Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva on Saturday May 9th, starting at 8 pm.

We really hope you will be able to attend the March.

Looking forward to meeting you in Rome, we send you our best wishes.


March for Life – Italian Committee –  

 
Website: www.marciaperlavita.it – E-mail: info@marciaperlavita.it

Comitato Marcia Nazionale per la Vita – Piazza Santa Balbina 8 – 00153 Rome

Politics without principles by Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon

Santi di Tito’s portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli, who is considered as the founder of modern political science. He described immoral behaviour as normal and effective in politics and is famous for his book The Prince
Santi di Tito’s portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli, who is considered as the founder of modern political science. He described immoral behaviour as normal and effective in politics and is famous for his book The Prince.

 

In 1908, G.K. Chesterton wrote the following reflection in his masterpiece Orthodoxy: “When the businessman rebukes the idealism of his office boy, it is commonly in some such speech as this: “Ah! Yes, when one is young, one has these ideals in the abstract and these castles in the air; but in middle age they all break up like clouds, and one comes down to a belief in practical politics, to  using the machinery one has and getting on with the world as it is.

“Thus, at least, venerable and philanthropic old men now in their honoured graves, used to talk to me when I was a boy. But since then I have grown up and have discovered that these philanthropic old men were telling lies. What has really happened is exactly the opposite of what they said would happen. They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians.

“Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old child-like faith in practical politics.”

No doubt, many of us can relate with such a powerful observation, especially in the light of repeated exposure of sleaze and corruption that at long last seems to shock our undemanding electorate. The sad reality is that too often such exposures seem to be only exploited for partisan gain and are not the result of a firm commitment to clean out the encrustations of dishonesty that clog the corridors of power.

In politics, the only thing that seems to count is electoral success, and at all costs

Many of us are aware of government decisions that are anything but even-handed. Justice seems to be a slogan dragged out from time to time to score points against the opposing party. Yet those who had property or businesses expropriated or have been denied rightful permits, employment or promotions, are acutely aware of how unjust those in power can be.

To add insult to injury, seeking redress in the courts of law is too often, and at best an exercise in futi­lity, and at worst a drain on time and money that leaves the injured party worse off. The absence of moral uprightness in business and the political arena reflects poorly on the level of our country’s catechesis.

In politics, the only thing that seems to count is electoral success, and at all costs. This seems to give our politicians carte blanche to use any means to achieve power. Sadly, the politics of Machiavelli seem to be well entrenched. I am sure that there are politicians in both our major parties who deep down disagree with the shabby manoeuvring and bad political decisions made by their own leaders, especially decisions that are made without any political mandate whatsoever.

Nowhere is this more conspicuous than in the single-minded imposition of the LGBT agenda in recent years by the government in power that unreservedly champions their agenda. The logic behind it is obvious. The LGBTs are well organised and well financed. Unfortunately, they are only concerned with their own narrow interests irrespective of how this impacts the common good.

Even the Leader of the Opposition has succumbed to the blackmail politics of the powerful LGBT lobby. He seems unbelievably unaware or indifferent to the long-term negative impact this will have on family life which has been steadily unravelling as too many Maltese jettison the Christian values that once underpinned our society.

As the remarkable Rabbi Jona­than Sacks said six years ago, the freedoms we take for granted are based on our Judaeo-Christian heritage that was rooted in moral absolutes that included the non-negotiable dignity of the human person, the sanctity of human life, and the imperative of conscience and the consent of the governed. Today, every one of them is at risk.

Thankfully, there are signs that an alliance of new political forces are reacting to this sad state of affairs. Hopefully they will live up to authentic democratic values and not give in to blackmail from any quarter.

Politics with principles might then become a reality.

Dr. Klaus Vella Bardon is Vice-Chairperson of Life Network Foundation Malta

Ref: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160410/religion/Politics-without-principles.608402Continue reading

Launch of the One of Us Federation

Saturday 12th March 2016 marked an important historical step for the defence of human life in Europe. An international new force for life and human dignity has been established under the name of “One of Us European Federation for Life and HumanDignity”, abbreviated as the “One of Us Federation”. This Federation is a non-profit apolitical and non-denominational organisation. The launching in Paris at the Salle Gaveau, included 1200 participants from the 28 European countries and 31 national organizations. There were participants from France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Italy, Bulgaria, Rumania, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Portugal. At this launching, Malta was represented by Life Network Foundation Chairman Dr Miriam Sciberras, and International Life Network Secretary, Dr Mark Sciberras.

The President, Jaime Mayor Oreja ( former Interior Minister of Spain), opened the Forum by stressing that Europe’s citizens are keen to reclaim the human values of their founders: the respect of each and every human being from conception to natural death.

The Aims of the Federation are:

a. The unconditional recognition of the inherent, inalienable human dignity as source of human and civil rights and freedoms. Human dignity should be inviolable and protected by public authorities.

b. The development of a culture of life in Europe, through promoting and supporting activities that involve the defence of human life, especially at its most vulnerable stages of development ( conception and gestation, childhood, maternity, sickness, old age and end of life).

The topics discussed during the one day forum included the American Planned Parenthood Scandal and its consequences for Europe, the Threat or Reality of Euthanasia in Europe, Surrogate Motherhood, Eugenics and sale of Gametes.

The panel of distinguished speakers included Jean-Marie Le Mene ( President of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation), Katalin Novak ( Minister of Family Hungary), Alberto Ruiz Gallardon ( former Minister of Justice Spain), Jean-Frederic Poisson ( French MP), Miroslav Mikolasik ( MEP and Chairman of EPP Working Group on Bioethics and Human Dignity, Slovakia), Carlo Casini ( former MEP Italy), Gian-Luigi Gigli ( President of Movimento per la Vita Italy), Phillipe de Villiers ( former French Minister), Jan Figel ( former European Commissioner Slovakia) and Konrad Szymanski ( Secretary of State for European Affairs, Poland).

The panel of fiery enthusiastic pro-life speakers spoke of the challenges facing Europe today, and how, by joining forces and with a clear target we must fight for the defence of any and all human life.

The day concluded with the One of Us Award Ceremony. The first award was given to Pattaramon Chanbua, a mother of a baby born with Down syndrome who generated an international emotional outcry when her story was revealed in summer 2014. Baby Gammy was conceived together with his twin sister through an agreement of so called “surrogate motherhood. “However, as diagnosis revealed that Gammy had Down syndrome, the mother was threatened to abort as the Australian couple who contracted only wanted to keep the healthy sibling.

 

Dr Mark Sciberras
International Secretary
Life Network Malta

Malta…Stand Up for Life!

<Update-29-09-2015>

His Grace Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna visited our Freshers’ Week stand and showed his support by signing the petition to uphold the Embryo Protection Act.

Thank you Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna.

You can sign it here: http://citizengo.org/en/29847-maltastand-life

Please ask our MPs to Protect LIFE in the Maltese Constitution

Malta…Stand Up for Life!

As you must be aware, this summer – and now, especially, in the last weeks – we have seen a radical push to legalize anti-life measures that could lead to introduction of abortion in Malta. [1 & 4]

LIFE IS NOW UNDER THREAT IN MALTA!

We, the people of Malta – who cherish our children, born and unborn, must act! We must tell our politicians, our government, in no uncertain terms: Malta is proud to be pro-life! It is a mark of honour and decency to protect the most vulnerable in civil society.

With this in mind, Life Network Malta is now gearing up to rally the Maltese people in protection of Life – to show our politicians that the majority of voters reject the Government’s recent, wrong-headed approach to this most important issue.

In addition to future street demonstrations and pickets, Life Network Malta is right now collecting signatures for an urgent pro-life petition.

This petition adamantly DEMANDS that Parliament does TWO URGENT things:

FIRST, reject any attempt to decrease protection of the human embryo in the Embryo Protection Act, which would inevitably lead to  of human life, and

SECOND, introduce pro-life protections into the Maltese Constitution. Please see our petition (the right half of this page) for a suggested pro-life amendment for our Constitution.

If you read and approve of our petition, which is addressed to our Government leaders as well as to the members of the opposition, and to all Maltese MPs, please sign now, providing your name, email address, and ID Card Number (to validate your signature) in the space provided. Don’t worry about the Zip/Postal Code! And, after signing, if you can share this petition with your like-minded friends and family, that would help to increase the total number of signatures. Thank you!

Below, please continue reading for a more lengthy discussion of the issues, including recent, documented evidence on the same.

Here is a summary of and comment on three recent events in the push to legalize abortion in Malta. For more information, please see the links at the bottom of the page.

1) At the end of July, a group called “Pro-choice Malta” came out for abortion to be legalized in Malta. [1]

2) Just a couple of weeks ago, on 6th September, the Government announced plans to introduce embryo freezing – a technique currently prohibited under the Embryo Protection Act. [2]

This is completely contrary to both parties’ electoral manifestos on life issues! [3] It is a political travesty, and it must not be allowed. This is not what we voted for!!!

Indeed, in its election manifesto, the incumbent party in government had only this to say about IVF and the Embryo Protection Act: “We will ensure that the competent authority regulating IVF receives all the necessary resources so that the recently passed law can be applied fully and be available free of charge to all couples who need this treatment.” (n.43) [3]

NB: Nothing was said and no clue was given about amending the law to allow practices such as donation of gametes, surrogacy or embryo freezing!!!

3) On 7th September, Alfred Sant, a Maltese MEP, said that abortion should be legalized to “save the life of the mother”. [4]

This last event needs a special comment because this argument is frequently used by pro-abortion forces who try to introduce abortion into different jurisdictions by muddying the waters on this issue.

In the case of an expectant mother, doctors and nurses in Malta work to save the life of two patients when there is a critical situation.

The truth is: no life-saving procedures are ever denied to expectant mothers in Malta. Unfortunately, sometimes, an unborn child may die as an indirect result of the treatment to the mother, if the mother so chooses, but this is diametrically-opposed to intentionally taking the life of the unborn child.

In fact, it is worth noting that Malta’s maternal mortality is one of the lowest in the world, far below even the US and Britain. [5] Women are simply not dying in maternity hospitals in Malta for lack of abortion, so there is absolutely no need to introduce any such measures.

Why is it important to reject embryo freezing and gamete donation?

Embryo freezing is a grave attack on the humanity of the unborn child because it facilitates the easy disposal of and destruction of innocent human life. [6] This is one reason why it is prohibited in our current legislation.

The Embryo Protection Act serves to protect the human embryo from destruction, manipulation and freezing, and, to ensure that every child will, as far as possible, know their biological mother and father. Gamete donation and surrogacy is not permitted under the Act. [7]

Why should Parliament introduce pro-life measures into the Maltese Constitution?

Our laws are a reflection of who we are as a society. As polls consistently show, 80%+ of the Maltese people to be pro-life. [8] Therefore, we now need to ensure that our laws reflect our culture and reverence for the most vulnerable human life – the unborn child, from conception.

Our politicians have a duty to safeguard and reflect this pro-life culture by seeking to enshrine Constitutional protections for the unborn child.

The fact is, that the political parties electoral manifestos never said that they would, in any way, loosen the restrictions found in the Embryo Protection Act, nor give way to the legalization of abortion. This means that the Government does not have the people’s mandate to enact such “reforms”. We are living in a democracy…not in an elected tyranny.

In 2013, Labour Minister for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs, and Civil Liberties, Helena Dalli, wrote in an official report, on the Government’s position in relation to Life: “…human life begins at conception, [therefore] the termination of pregnancy through procedures of induced abortion at any stage of gestation was an infringement of this right.” [9]

Affirmation of this statement by the honorable minister must be upheld at all times. Any amendments to the Embryo Protection Act that endanger human life, and the rights of that human being, make a mockery of the same law, aptly named to show that protection of the human embryo is paramount.

Life issues are human rights issues, not party politics! An absolute majority of Maltese people agree on this point!

For those of us who care about Human Life in Malta, now is the time to be courageous and act! We cannot sit idly by and allow events to overtake us. We cannot, must not, succumb to international anti-life pressures.

We must prevail in our defense of life from conception to natural death.

This is Malta’s hour – we are a people who treasure our children. We must now act to preserve one of our finest traditions – that of being pro-life.

Who knows, Malta may be the start that could lead to overturning the anti-life mentality in the rest of Europe!!

Please sign this important petition and take a stand FOR Life!

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

[1] http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150727/local/updated-pro-choice-organisation-calls-for-abortion-debate.578236

[1] http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2015-09-12/local-news/Alfred-Sant-has-an-open-mind-on-abortion-in-cases-of-rape-6736141940

[2] http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/56928/prolifers_on_the_warpath_over_embryo_freezing_plans#.VgA03t9Viko

[3] Partit Nazzjonalista (n. 35): “Min ma jistax ikollu tfal: Wara li ghaddejna l-ligi li tirregola l-fertilizzazzjoni assistita (IVF) (IVF) se nitroducu din il-procedura bhala parti mis-servizz tas-sahha pubblika biex inti tkun tista’ taghmel din il-procedura b’xejn u minghajr ma jkollok ghalfejn tmur barra minn Malta.”

Nationalist Party (N35)Infertile couples: Now that the law regulating assisted reproduction (IVF) has passed, we will introduce this service on the national health service .This service will be free and available locally such that no one will need to go abroad for this treatment.
Partit Laburista (n. 43): “IVF: Naccertaw li jinghataw ir-rizorsi kollha necessarji lill-awtorita’ kompetenti sabiex l-IVF, li bhala ligi dwar kif ghandha tkun regolata ghadha kif iddahhlet ricentament, tithaddem bla xkiel u tinghata b’xejn lill-koppji kollha li jkollhom bzonn dan il-process.”
Labour party:(n43): IVF: We will ensure that the competent authority regulating IVF receives all the necessary resources so that the recently passed law can be applied fully and be available free of charge to all couples who need this treatment.
[9] Par. 25 of the report on the 19th meeting of the working group on the Universal Periodic Review on Malta of the UN General Assembly, held on November 1, 2013 in Geneva. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150804/letters/Malta-s-no-to-abortion.579241

Creating children on demand

According to recent reports, there is apparently a “resolute” intention to introduce embryo freezing in Malta. However, this intention is based on error and sheer contempt for human life.

The Annual Work Report of the Embryo Protection Authority for 2014 was presented to the House of Representatives on 15th July 2015. According to this report, there were 170 treatment cycles carried out during 2014, resulting in 49 pregnancies. This resulted in a success rate of 28.82%. From a look at statistics kept by the National Health Service of the United Kingdom, the success rate in Malta is higher than that of the UK, which incidentally, permits embryo freezing. This goes to show that embryo freezing is not necessary to increase the success rate of IVF. Again, from explanations readily available on the website of Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the risks involved with embryo freezing are that not all embryos survive freezing and eventual thawing, and that occasionally, no embryos at all survive. Moreover, they also state that due to the freezing and thawing process, the chances of having a baby using a thawed embryo are lower than if a fresh embryo were to be used. These pronouncements of the British regulator directly contradict such manifestly incorrect statements that a law without embryo freezing cannot be successful.

According to certain reports, the new law being drafted increases the maximum number of eggs which can be fertilised to five, but the maximum number of fertilised eggs which can be implanted in a prospective mother was decreased to two. This guarantees that embryos will be frozen. If a couple does not wish that the embryos created by them are adopted, then a court application can be filed for a judge to decide on the matter. At this stage, one can only observe that after having made a mess of things, the law would dump all the resulting moral dilemmas onto the judiciary, turning each judge in front of whom such an application comes, into a potential gaoler or executioner.

It is also understood that the proposed new law will include the possibility of lesbian couples to make use of IVF. Since women cannot produce sperm, the only source of sperm would be sperm banking. However, this would take procreation even further away from the loving environment of a mother and a father united in marriage, and reduce women’s eggs and men’s sperm to mere commodities to be traded freely. This would truly reduce human procreation to a cold and impersonal business transaction.

Embryo freezing as well as donation of eggs and sperm would eviscerate the meaning of human procreation. The government’s declared intention to open up the possibility of IVF treatment to gay couples and single mothers is wrong on many levels. First of all, IVF treatment is meant to alleviate infertility. The proposed amendments insult infertile couples by equating their anguish at being unable to conceive to the mere wish of gay couples to “have children”. Gay couples are not suffering from infertility. Their inability to conceive is totally expected and totally natural, since nature never intended for human procreation to result from two men or two women. Secondly, the notion of single mothers is that they need additional support when bringing up children alone, due to the need to take up employment. This would fly in the face of initiatives taken to date to help single mothers find employment and bring up their children. One would be hard pressed to find any single woman who, of her own volition, would opt to procreate without even wanting to meet the other side of the biological equation.

It is wrong to approach this matter as some sort of service to create children on demand and sell to the highest bidder. Children are human beings and as such, and also in accordance with Malta’s international obligations, need the presence of a mother and a father. The proposed amendments would create orphaned children, intentionally brought into the world without a father or without a mother. The proposed amendments insult the dignity of the human being and the rights of children. The child’s right to know one’s mother and one’s father and to be raised by them would be grossly violated, if such amendments come to pass. Children are not commodities to be created on demand and sold, and were the Embryo Protection Act to be amended according to recent proposals, the embryo would not only not be protected, but harmed in all possible ways.

 

Ramon Bonett Sladden is a member of Life Network

The best interests of the child

A quarter of a century ago, Malta ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In view of this fact, it is worth reflecting on some of the stipulations of this Convention, especially given that certain quarters are calling for the elimination of the legal protection which Maltese law affords the human person before birth. The rights set forth in the Convention aim to serve the inherent dignity of the human being. It is precisely the respect for this dignity which inspires the Convention to clearly state in its Preamble that the child needs appropriate legal protection before, as well as after birth.

To date, Maltese law performs admirably in this regard. Amongst other things, the Embryo Protection Act prohibits the freezing of embryos, experimentation with embryos, surrogacy, cloning, as well as the creation of a human embryo for any purpose other than that of implanting it in a prospective mother. It is also worth noting that harsh penalties are in place for anyone who violates these provisions. Therefore, anyone who knows that the embryonic stage is one of the early stages of the formation of the baby inside the mother’s womb, would also know that the Embryo Protection Act goes a long way towards fulfilling the principal aim of the Convention, which is that of protecting human dignity in the weakest of its possessors.

The Embryo Protection Act and the Convention go hand in hand in many other respects. In another part of its Preamble, the Convention states that the child is best brought up in a family environment. Article 7 of the Convention buttresses this with its obligation on states to ensure that the child has a right to know his parents and be cared for by them. The Embryo Protection Act affirms this in its definition of a prospective parent under Article 2 as “either of two persons of the opposite sex who are united in marriage, or who have attained the age of majority and are in a stable relationship with each other.”

In all legislation affecting children, it has always been held that the guiding principle should always be that of the best interests of the child. This principle ensures that children are always at the centre of any decision that may affect them. Therefore, one is compelled to ask whether the calls coming from some quarters also aim to safeguard the best interests of the child. To answer this, one must take stock of the immense pain which a couple suffer when they discover that one or both of them are infertile.

There is no question of balance between circumventing infertility and safeguarding the rights of the child. Although the wish to conceive and bring up children in a family environment is an extraordinarily noble wish, one must always be aware that it is the child who has the right to be cared for by parents, and not the prospective parents who have the right to a child.

Limiting the definition of prospective parents to one male and one female united in marriage or in a stable relationship is an act of respect for the dignity and well-being of the human person, since it is widely affirmed by experts and legislation alike that the family environment is the best environment for raising children. To alter the definition of prospective parents to allow same-sex couples would open the door to anonymous gamete donation and surrogacy.

The donation by women of eggs and by men of sperm would have a twofold effect. First of all, it reduces men and women to mere producers, akin to cows producing milk. Secondly, it would render the child, once born, unable to know the identity of one of his or her biological parents. This would have grave consequences for the child, who would essentially be deprived of a considerable part of his or her identity.

Surrogacy is the act of placing the fertilised egg, against payment, into another woman who would eventually give birth to the child and then hand it over to the so-called parents. This objectifies women and strips them of their dignity, as evidenced by many feminists who firmly oppose this practice. Surrogacy turns women into mere carriers and children into orphans.

It is precisely all of this which should be more than persuasive enough to dissuade our legislators from changing any part of the Embryo Protection Act. This law is a guarantor of human dignity and as such, should be left to carry out its task of safeguarding the dignity of the human embryo from conception.

Ramon Bonett Sladden