Fresh attempt to entrench abortion ban launched

Ms Cassar, if that was the case, I agree that it was not a fair process.

Mr Wain. You said, ", not the right to impose and stifle his adversaries' right to make their point, and if successful democratically speaking, to have their way"
I hold you to comment fairly now on this point I will make.
The Committee for equal rights of men and women" did not take any opinions from pro-life, pro-family groups and only facts, information and views from the pro-abortion side. Was that fair and inclusive in your opinion? How fair is that kind of democracy?

I disagree with Mr. Grixti that my type of argument led to slavery. Pretty much the opposite is the case... sticking to a "truth" as being absolute, no matter what, has clearly been the underlying cause of slavery, the inquisition, sexism, racism, the list goes on. What about "absolute" assertions such as that women are made to raise a family and should concentrate exclusively on that, that a race or religion is superior to the another, etc? The justification for this? Because it is the truth!!.

What constitutes the truth changes as the world changes. There is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong.

I disagree with turning babies into objects, and I believe that this is in no way connected to my pattern of thought on this issue. I however agree with Mr. Grixti that if a person has a conviction that something is right (or wrong), he should get involved and should make his voice heard. A person who is against abortion has the right and the duty to bring across his point of view as strongly as he can. But no, not the right to impose and stifle his adversaries' right to make their point, and if successful democratically speaking, to have their way.

I personally find the concept of having absolute truths, no matter what and notwithstanding the will of the majority, as being extremely dangerous. We should not deny the right of future generations to translate the values prevalent in their society into legislation through a democratic process, a right which after all we enjoy.

Mr. Wain is far off the moral mark here. This new way of thinking is what we term as relativism. It is a very slippery slope to be on Mr. Wain. There is nothing absolute in the relative argument, everything is just relative. Thankfully, that type of thought pattern is rare and it ought to be. It is dangerous and incompatible with a just and free society and it was the very same logic that lead to shame of slavery. Turning subjects (babies) into objects, is utterly revolting. Slaves had that treatment for many years until all of a sudden, the world woke up, (not entirely) and realized what they were doing to a class of person. What Wain is suggesting, is that he believes that the rights of the mother are greater than those of the baby in her womb, He has an opinion, but he is certainly very very wrong.
The weaker have to be more protected and not less. And anyone with an ounce of decency and goodness in their heart should be prepared to defend the weaker, whether they are at the fist of last stages of development. Mr. Wain’s arguments have been used in Brussels to allow for euthanasia up a child up to six months after birth and now they want to extend this to euthanasia of older people with dementia without their consent.
Now who am I to say that that is wrong? Why should I get involved in that at all. After all, I should not impose my values on others right Mr. Wain? Just let people go ahead and not speak up? Sure, easy to say but when we see what all this liberal talk leads to, we should all be very careful.

Ms Cassar, yes I did comment, even though your personal attack is not worthy. A desire to be great? No such desire. Cheap sarcasm aside, nothing much of substance by way of argument remains in your comment, just the venting of frustration.

My personal convictions on abortion are not incongruent with my view on entrenchment, nor are they convenient. What is convenient is your insistence on mixing up the two issues. My personal convictions are MY convictions and I have no right to impose on anyone, never mind future generations living in a world I have no knowledge of and cannot relate to.

Your cancer analogy does not fit, sorry. That cigarettes, etc cause cancer are scientific conclusions which are widely accepted TODAY. For the time being in Malta, the same goes for abortion, but one surely cannot predict the future. History has shown that many things widely accepted as absolute truths in the past are today regarded as cruel, unethical, contrary to fundamental human rights, etc. It may be the case with abortion in the future, maybe not. Who knows? Another point, even if there is a consensus that smoking, exposure to the sun, etc are harmful, should I pass a law making smoking or going out in the sun at midday in the middle of summer illegal? While I am at it, might as well entrench it in the Constitution!

Yes, I am one of those who does not agree with abortion, however am not presumptuous enough say that i am right and every person who does not agree with me is wrong.

As for my English, your inability to understand my English could stem from your obvious inability to write it.

Re. Kyle Pullicino's comment, all we disagree upon is what should be considered as prevalent in a democratic society, a simple majority or a qualified one. What he is suggesting is a scenario where the will of a minority is imposed on the majority. Now that is democracy, no?

It is clear even from the diversity of the comments on this page that the Constitutional amendment proposal does not enjoy the consensus GoL is desperately trying to convince us all exists. If parliament goes ahead and amends the Constitution regardless, it will be abusing its power.

An amendment to our Constitution serves an invitation to everyone in the world to see that in Malta we provide support and help to the women who need it.

An issue such as abortion should depend on the prevalent opinion of the society as whole. Therefore amending this into our Constitution assures this because rather than having a simple government making a decision on its own it would need almost everyone (prevalent) to change back the value, Mr. Wain.

"In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred... ," Mr Bush said.

I wish we had bush instead of Gonzi. Gonzi is just words and no action on abortion. Why are they using abortion as a political tool and then leaving Malta so open to attacks like this?

Wain first claims my remarks are not worthy of his high and mighty comments and then comments all the same. Probably motivated by a deep desire to be great (Freud). He then says he is against abortion but not in favour of making certain that abortion, is kept far from Malta. How totally incongruent yet plainly convenient?

This is like saying that I do not like cancer, I hate cancer, cancer is not something I would choose personally, but I won't eat well, stay away from cigarettes and I will continue to expose myself to the harmful sun rays without taking precautions because I don’t believe that prevention is better than cure. The simple logical rule of a loving caring society most likely revolves around the logical rational that if you disagree with something, you simply disagree and as you know it is harmful, you would agree with any measure to keep people from being misled into thinking that the sun really does not harm you and that it I all just rhetoric. I guess that Wain oops (Daniel), is most certainly not the sort to say that he does not believe that prevention is better than cure. Hang on a minute is he? People just can't understand that odd pattern of reason also as he talks in a fog of rights and choices and is unable to talk in simple basic English. Are you one of those few in the clan here in Malta who prance about on the new theology proclaiming that you are against abortion personally but would not interfere with the choices of others? If so, then you need reminding that the baby in the womb is being ignored when it is indeed the subject of this debate. This is, even if you try to make it, at all about lady liberty. It just does not sit well with us mere mortals. But good luck all the same.

Mary Cassar's personal attack does not deserve a response but I shall comment anyway.

She does not seem to have taken a fancy to my surname (she discourteously keeps referring to me as Wain when my name is David). This I suspect contributed in no small measure the vicious tone of her comment. As for her attack on my background, while treating it with the contempt it deserves, I will just say that I was never forced to believe anything, but instead urged to form my own opinions and speak my own mind unreservedly and without fear, as I shall do again.

I am not surprised that Ms Cassar cannot grasp a logical argument, the same way as she cannot grasp the concept of freedom of speech, preferring to disparagingly call it a lesson. I do not purport to give lessons to anyone, I express an opinion as is my right, as it is Ms Cassar's right to disagree (but not to insult).

To set the record straight, and to correct Ms Cassar's baseless assumption, I personally, as a rule, am not in favour of abortion. I am however unreservedly against the entrenchment of anti-abortion laws in our constitution. Where are your counter-arguments to mine Ms Cassar? Or do you hide your failure to give any serious thought to the matter by conveniently painting all persons (and there are many) who are in principle against entrenchment with a pro-abortion brush, and by launching fanatical personal attacks?

We do have an inquisition after all in this country!!!

Wain, you talk about imposing values. You fail to see, or find it inconvenient not to see, that it is the CoE that are trying to impose their values sick lower values on Malta. You agree with them because I assume they are of course your very own values. Values that contradict life, family and society. Malta loves its children in the most part; we have our difficulties, that is true. Hardly a time for lessons in pro abortion morality from the Wain's all over again. Your opinions are very very hard to grasp. If you cannot see the values we talk about, it may be because you grew up in an environment that never gave them to you in the first place. That is no reason to attack them. GoL are the only ones who seem to make any sense in this madness. That is why, I converted to their proposal to keep this madness you praise, out of this country

Samuel, you obvioulsy have no idea what yu are talking about. WHO say (WHO plenary report 2005 Geneva, that 83% of all worldwide abortions are done for social reasones ranging from a fear of stretch marks to my husband divorced me. Please be serious. This country does not want abortion and will enver have abortion. I am all for thsi amendment, I am sorry to say that our Government may have used the pro-life movement as they do not seem to be serious about doing it, despite pretending to be in favour of it when it suited them before the elections. Gonzi where are you?

GOL, as usual, are sensationalising the issue and are trying to buttress their pro-entrenchment arguments by alluding to "relentless" and "shameful attacks" and alleged attempts to impose values by pro-choice moverments. Are they really serious when accusing anyone of imposing values since it is exactly what entrenchment does.... impose expired values on future generations!

Besides the fact that I cannot for the time being see any real threat of Malta being forced into legalising abortion, it is ironic that GOL are preaching against imposition of values when they have embarked on a crusade (and I mean this literally) to impose values on present and future generations by making it harder to vote in favour of the values prevalent in our society from time to time.

GOL speaks about "higher Maltese family values". While I have serious reservations on whether "Maltese" (GOL's?) family values are any higher than those of other countries or indeed high, I believe that as long as these values are reflected in our society, they have nothing to worry about. However, I hope that if some time in the future, what they call the "Maltese" family values change and new Maltese values become prevalent and are confirmed by democratic process ie. a majority of Maltese voters, Malta should not have what could be a 100 year old entrenchment weight around its neck.

Have we not a tight safeguard in the EU treaty against any such institutions forcing abortion on Malta? One shall also remember that a similar resolution was passed in the EU parliament in 2001.

What are safeguards for?

The debate on abortion worries me a lot and I do not think we are taking it seriously enough. Abortion has to do with human life. This resolution is just the tip of an iceberg. Lack of respect towards the life of an unborn child considering him simply as a biological material worries me a lot. If we are not capable to defend the defenseless and innocent human beings, how can we assure our lives and that of other fellow human beings? In this way, we are putting our life at risk. Human life is not untouchable anymore. Resolutions, declarations, laws were always meant to protect those who are in a disadvantage situation, to avoid the law of the jungle, where the strongest thrives exploiting the weakest. If declarations and laws are going to lose their purpose they will become meaningless. It will be a pity.
In other words, what is worrying me much more is not abortion in itself but what brought us to such a resolution and where will lead us in the next future.
I think yes we should enforce our Constitution on this matter.

I am acctually appalled at the comments being made here and the pressure being made on the Maltese Nation to legalise abortion. I think this threatens basic values related to human life. If we are truely a Catholic nation then this is an issue we should all stand up against and not try to find excuses to justify why it should be introduced. Does any one know the psychological effects on the mother of an aborted child. No one has the right to claim a life for any reason what so ever let alone that of a defensless child.

It is bad enough pregnant women in Malta do not have the right to choose, entrenching this deprivation for Maltese women in the constitution is utter nonsense. How about taking away women's right to vote and entrenching that in the constitution? What will be next the restricting the freedom of choosing your religion and entrenching that in the constitution?

Mr. David Farrugia, in my opinion there is nothing medieval in seeing through the constitutional amendment Pro-Life is proposing. If this happens, it will happen through perfectly regular, legal and democratic mechanisms that have been governing our country for a good number of years. Why should we view this constitutional change as abusive? Could Mr. Farrugia explain why this change would be abusive and why he considers all other changes not to be so? In reply to those that ascribe to Church and Curia the courageous defence of the unborn person, I say that this is not only a theological issue but primarily an issue that deals with basic fundamental human rights. I could be non-Catholic but staunchly contrary to abortion. Please do not instrumentalise the anti-clerical sentiment while trying to prove your point as you have all the right to do. You would be constructing your thesis on invalid and non-sensical arguments.

I think we are missing a very important point here. The reference to 'higher maltese family values' is a pretentious comment. Who is to judge that the Maltese values are higher than any other country's? I have travelled abundantly and lived in several different countries over the last forty some years, and the Maltese values are no higher than anyone else's. Values are subjectiveand individual not a virtue that any country can brag about. In the same way and by the same criteria whether abortion is legalized or not should not affect or diminish a country's values. Anyone who is adamant about abortion in Malta or any other country that does not have it yet legalized will seek abortion in a country where it is. Likewise, any individual with good moral values, independently of where she may reside will take accountability for an accidental conception and give an innocent child a life and a future, to the best of that individual's ability. It was never the embryo's accident but its parents'

I subscribe to every word in your comment Dr Emmy Bezzina. The problem is that in Malta there is no possibility of debating abortion because the moment one professes himself or herself in favour of pro-choice legislation you are automatically labelled a 'murderer'. This has the obvious consequence of conditioning people into silence. There is however a reality of a yearly average of 150 Maltese women who reportedly travel to the UK or Italy to perform abortions. I am appalled by such a reactionary and extremely orthodox position of most people in Malta who abet GoL's hysterical lobby. I know of many Catholics who argue that as Catholics they would never perform an abortion but then do not feel they have the sententiousness and presumptiousness of imposing their morality on women without any regard for the innermost feelings, motivations, traumas those women may be going through.

The right to life is superior to any other right, even the right of free choice and privacy. Without life there can be no other rights which could be exercised freely. Life is sacred and it is our duty to protect those who want to live or start living but cannot voice their thirst for life.

Everyone should at least recognize Gift of Life's attempt to preserve the Roman-Catholic religion, however as established in many cases of the European Court of Justice (mainly Costa) enshrining the Constitution with a ban wouldn't have an effect. Simply, European Law has primacy even over the Constitution, so in the case abortion becomes legalized through the treaty or other resolutive or law of the EU, amending the Constitution will still have no effect as every time abortion-ban is challenged in Malta, courts will just have to disregard the Constitution and apply EU law.

Mr Farrugia: I have commented previously on this site and have nothing to hide. I would like to see terminations introduced to Malta in a tightly regulated and safe fashion. I have my reasons, and they've been aired elsewhere: this is not the place for them, as we're talking about amending the constitution to make future introduction of abortion harder, not introduction per se.
But this is neither here nor there - I'm impressed you're so keen to draw battle lines, instead of crossing over to see what I've got to say before charging into the attack.

Mr. De Giorgio: please don't sensationalise the discussion with 'what if' pie-in-the-sky scenarios and gruesome videos. Legal abortion would be regulated, setting a cap on the age of foetus allowed for termination - your 'baby' video isn't going to happen with legalised abortion. Moreover, I'll say straight away that my grounds for abortion would not be purely social, as social services should be around to cater for parents who cannot support a child. I would propose it for victims of rape and for parents whose foetus is handicapped and/or deformed.

(Battle lines clear enough for you?)

Samuel Scicluna, these libertarian changes for the better could have meant that your mother might have aborted you and therefore you wouldnt have had the opportunity to post your comment.

Changes for the better?
Go watch an abortion movie, babies torn apart.

I'd rather change the constitution to protect maltese babies from a henious act.

Dear GoL, exactly what are the "higher Maltese family values" you believe we possess that other families lack? The only difference between a Maltese family and one in another country that I can think of, is that the Maltese one is governed by an institution that has increasingly relinquished its responsibility to the Curia.

Well Samuel. Let's be clear on this. Are you for legalizing abortion or not? If yes, just say so. This is not a subject which tolerates half-measures. Either you are in favour of legalizing, or you are not. Those who are in favour should simply say they are in favour. So that the battle lines are clearly drawn.

The Delegation representing MALTA at The Council of Europe was abusive and unconstitutional as to date we still have no Government and no Opposition; Parliament has not yet been convened and no Members of Parliament are currently appointed. So the Encircled Group of dilettantes and part-timers that dared represent us in Strasbourg did not have any legal right to represent Malta.

As for all of them voting against,what did you expect from persons who cannot dare be themselves on serious matters that will cost them eventually their seat.Maltese are outwardly manipulated,but their inner minds can analyse hypocrisy for integrity! The Council of Europe has spoken and we in Malta should decriminalise Abortion which is basically a fundamental right of every pregnant woman to determine whether she has reasons to eliminate the foetus within her or not.
Our Parliament once convened should ignore the cries of these fanatics.Certainly as Abortion was neither on the Agenda of the GonziPn or MLP,these Parties have no legal Mandate even to discuss Abortion.In the interests of the fundamental rights of Pregnant Women, once again let Malta follow the Council of Europe suggestion and eliminate Abortion as a Crime from our Criminal Code.ALPHA has wholeheartedly always supported that.

Emmy Bezzina
Alpha Liberal Democratic Party
alpha@emmybezzina.org.

Reading the above gives me the impression that GoL are acting like doomsayers who want to impose values upon future generations. If I'm not mistaken we already have strong anti-abortion laws in Malta. Trying to meddle with the constiution, in my opinion, is reasoning in Medieval era style. This is dangerous. First we'll have abortion, then what? Oh yes...let's try Divorce, Family law..............Europe is SOOO evil, all of a sudden!!!

Another reminder by the people who would see Malta left behind in times of libertarian changes for the better.

No to constitutionalization.