Constitutional abortion

This is a strictly personal view, but I could not wait to express my opinion until the bill comes before Parliament. I have been too long tempted by that billboard in National Road, Blata l-Bajda, with Peppi Azzopardi stating his position about the subject. Abortion laws are on the agenda. Abortion is not.

There seems to be a small minority in Malta which supports the idea of abortion, although there is the highest majority ever attained in these islands that all forms of contraception, whether ecclesiastically approved or not, are to be tried according to personal circumstances. To state differently is pure hypocrisy.

This does not mean that Maltese women never resort to abortion. Unfortunately, some who were not careful enough find an abominable solution with some ease. It is a known fact that women travel to the UK and to Italy where they have therapeutic abortions. Again, to state differently is pure hypocrisy. At present there does not seem to be any local business in abortions, as it becomes a business.

Rather than changes in laws, the most significant impact on abortion was the change of mentality in Maltese society. A child born out of wedlock is no longer a stigma on the mother. Parents no longer send their daughter away if she is unmarried and pregnant, nor do they stop accepting her if she is separated and has a child by another man. Children given away for adoption are isolated cases.

This tendency makes us a more humane and understanding society. Let me not be misunderstood. This is no advertisement for bringing into this world single-parent children, who may miss something in life, apart from the great responsibility placed on the single mother. But who am I to judge an individual's personal choices?

Once a young lady, now happily married, told me that she purposely went abroad on holiday to have casual sex to get pregnant. She had been engaged for a number of years, when all of a sudden there was a change of heart on the part of the future husband. The biological clock had already turned clockwise many years, and she was afraid that unless she had a child straight away, she would never becone a mother.

Si non casti, cauti

That is why I approve that old saying of St Paul that if one cannot be chaste, one should be careful.

Abortion is not the solution. When life starts, although this is becoming a biological, ethical and legal problem, it should not be interrupted artificially. Even the unborn child has a right to its independent existence. Graphically speaking, its heart does not start beating when it is delivered and utters the first cry.

Given the problem of abortion, which has existed for centuries, laws had to be enacted. In many countries, some of which are considered progressive and evolved, abortion has been "legalised". Yet this does not mean that we should follow suit. We have our abortion laws which are embodied in the Criminal Code, making it a serious offence to carry out an abortion on a pregnant woman, even if for "therapeutic" purposes. Whoever is proved guilty has to face the consequences. I do not see why such laws should be changed or abrogated.

But...

But entrenching provisions of the Criminal Code into the Constituition is a farce, a holy farce, a legal farce, a hypocritical farce. As it is a farce, let us start from the middle. It is a legal farce, because the Constitution is the law which regulates the structures of the State. It is a holy farce, because it will not make people more careful and observant of the dictates of natural law and God's commandments. It is a hypocritical farce, because the provisions would be entrenched into the Constitution, and the abortion solutions would be found just a 40-minute flight away, perfectly legal and with full impunity.

At the same time, consider this situation. When a provision is entrenched, this means that it requires a two-thirds majority of the House of Representatives, present and voting, and any change will imply the same procedure. What if a future Parliament wants to change the provisions of the Criminal Code not to abrogate, but to increase punishments, or include new hypotheses of the crime, or to make additional amendments, providing for a harsher situation than at present? If it is entrenched, then any such change would require a two-thirds majority.

Are we sure that laws solve problems? Are we sure that laws make people more human? Are we sure that constitutional provisions are the ultimate guarantee? I prefer the billboard.