Chanelle Busuttil, public relations officer, Gift of Life Foundation, Mosta
Abortion law in the Constitution
Pro-life arguments have very often caused my thinking process to short circuit. What do pro-lifers want? Do they want to decrease the number of abortions or do they want to eliminate them altogether? Is this possible and at what cost? What are the effects of making abortion legal or vice-versa?
If I want to be completely honest, like many others I would beg to differ with the argument that making sure abortion is illegal will decrease the numbers, let alone stop abortion altogether.
On the other side of that coin, there is not a single doubt in my mind that if abortion were legalised, the number of abortions would rise, as has happened all over the world.
Gift of Life has been pushing for years to protect the right to life of an individual "from conception". Many argue that this should not even be a matter for discussion since it is a foregone conclusion that abortion will never be legalised in Malta and even if so it is a matter which should be left to the individual. So what could possibly justify such a hard stand?
Firstly, I invite all readers to have a look at the articles of the Constitution. Some are very serious matters, like the protection of life of each individual, while others are relatively trivial such as the setting up of local councils or the description of the Maltese flag. So it is obvious that entrenchment in the Constitution does not happen to make sure that no one can reverse these decisions again but simply so that a matter of debate cannot be polarised.
Entrenchment in the Constitution does not mean that the matter can never be reversed but that instead of a simple majority of 50 per cent +1 to overturn a law, two thirds of the members of Parliament need to agree. At the moment one person with an axe to grind with his own party can overturn any law. With the government holding only a one-seat majority, it is very easy for an issue like abortion to be overturned without reflecting the views of the majority. To quote Prof. Kenneth Wain, from an interview carried out by Malta Today dated December 18, 2005: "Laws must respect the prevailing beliefs of the people living in a society, their dominant moral and religious outlook". Entrenchment will only ensure that if and when abortion is legalised, it will be done democratically and not for personal reasons of one member of Parliament.
We are only four and a half years away from an election which will see a fierce battle between two of the most influential leaders Malta has seen for a long time. It is highly improbable that that these two gentlemen will use the issue for the gain of their party, but we all must agree that "all is fair in love and war" and we will only be doing them a favour by removing the ammunition from their loaded guns.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
33 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Marlene Vella
Sep 28th 2008, 16:28
@ K. Pullicino:
What I believe is fundamental is not using votes, let alone party politics on such an issue - you're welcome to read my comment again.
As for arguing with the Creator, please, we're all more than free, I hope, to stick to our beliefs - and that too, yes, is fundamental!
K. Pullicino
Sep 27th 2008, 22:46
"making it difficult for future generations to debate the issue as they deem fit."
If it does get amended, future generations can still debate it, so much so that they can revert the change back.
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 27th 2008, 13:04
@Paul Borg
It is not at all extraordinary that no one bothered with your "abortion is murder" argument. It is entirely out of place. This is a debate about whether a prevailing view should be embedded into the Constitution, with the express aim of making it difficult for future generations to debate the issue as they deem fit.
If you feel so strongly about the murder of unborn children, I suggest you use those arguments in countries where abortion is actually legal.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 27th 2008, 09:17
Franco
Opinions are one thing but to pass judgement "dumb" is unbecoming of anyone whatever a person's views. I agree that a woman has no right over a babies life. We ought to respect all life. We need support and less judgment, more understaning and less sweeping statements.
Lynn, we have more of an obligation as women rather than more of a right to kill our babies.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 27th 2008, 09:12
Protect life from conception and we will protect human life at all satges. Human life is not a product.
"A waste. A burden. That is how influential medical ethics expert Baroness Warnock
views people suffering from dementia. Lady Warnock, a prominent adviser to the
British government, told the Church of Scotland's Life and Work magazine that
people suffering from dementia should be allowed to kill themselves rather than
continue to burden their families and Britain's National Health Service. Sadly,
Warnock's comments are all too consistent with our modern utilitarian view of
life. Lady Warnock argues that people suffering from dementia are
"wasting"
their families' lives and the nation's resources. She believes that merely having
dementia makes one's life not worth living. She maintains that people should
be allowed to give advance notice to a third party that they wish to be killed
when they reach a set point of mental deterioration. And she wants to expand
this "advance directive" to include just about any situation where
a person believes their life is no longer worth living" Lifesite News.
This is possible only when a state removes the right to life from conception.
Franco Farrugia
Sep 27th 2008, 05:01
@ Lynn Zahra - So, you profess to be pro-choice. So, you think that you have control over the life that is growing, that is already there, in your womb. Just because your own body is hosting another body which is however dependent on yours, you have a right over its future life. And that nobody has the right to interfere.
Well, I too, see no reason why abortion should appear in the Constitution. But, until I can be convinced otherwise, I cannot imagine anyone in her right senses being pro-life and coming up with the age-old argument that hey, I am the woman, this is MY body we're talking about and I will do as I like with it.
That article is dumb! Passe', at best.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 27th 2008, 00:56
Miss, Ms, or Dr Zahra, I assure you that neither does DCG or you represent the majority of women. It is clear that the vast majority of women are prolife here in Malta. I speak for these who far outway the pro choice for abortion.
Borg.
Men have indeed got a say. I may have been a little hard earlier I admit. I just get so upset with other women and have met some terrible men in my past
K. Pullicino
Sep 26th 2008, 23:34
"shoving fundamentalism down everybody's throat is going to work, just like this proposed amendment is trying to impose GOL's views on everybody else"
What do you mean by fundamentalism? Isn't life fundamental to everything else? Of course we should do our utmost to protect life because it is fundamental for... well, everything.
Perhaps you should argue with the Creator asking Him to change the nature of life?
Paul Borg
Sep 26th 2008, 23:24
Is it not extraordinary that none of the pro-abortion people have taken on my long post below about abortion being murder. As to the argument that only women should have a say on abortion: 1) Are only women capable of becoming obstetricians and gynaecologists? Can only animals become vets? and 2) Abortion leads to loss of respect for life in general and this flows through all society: it coarsens it and makes it more viscous and this effects both men and women. However I do agree with the claim that the most vociferous supporters of abortion ( and contraception : pre or post encounter) are men who want to have free sexual access to women without any ensuing natural consequences and responsibilities: it is for this reason that they impose all burden on women on this issue including the matter of the trauma of abortion. AS to the women: be careful about being lead down the garden path by extreme feminists: The right they claim women have to sexual freedom and promiscuity has done more to make women "sex objects" than any patriarchy in the past. The dignity owed to women by men has been lost.
Lynn Zahra
Sep 26th 2008, 21:49
@Miriam M.Micallef
Kindly stop using "us women" as if your'e the spokeswoman for all women or all Maltese women.
More Maltese people than you think are pro-choice - so just because , as you very well know, many are embarassed to say so openly, you and gift of lift would be very much mistaken to thing being such a nuisance on this venture will get you there.
Marlene Vella
Sep 26th 2008, 19:26
"No matter how much you all try, in the end, the Government and the Opposition will take a stand for this amendment cause there are far more votes to lose if they don't against the little cluster of liberals."
Thankyou Miriam Maria Micallef, shoving fundamentalism down everybody's throat is going to work, just like this proposed amendment is trying to impose GOL's views on everybody else through the constitution. It's just about that, abortion is illegal as it is anyway!
Please, as Raphael Vassallo has pointed out through his quote of Kenneth Wain, how much do GOL really care about about let alone respect future generations' views???
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 26th 2008, 19:18
Mark,
Just because it is debatable to you does not mean that Maltese women and men ought to hold back to discuss it for your sake and the sake of Raphael and DCG.
Whether or not the baby is a person philosophically, it makes no difference to the post abortive woman. Tell women that their miscarriages are just blobs of cells and you really are not winning support at all.
Mark Mifsud
Sep 26th 2008, 18:26
Miriam Maria Micallef,
I am neither trying to "confuse issues" nor am I trying to call for abortion at all costs. For me abortion is and remains a very grey area and hence I'm surely not calling for it to be made legal. What I am calling for is for Gift of Life not to resort to decpetive tactics (such as in the above letter which nearly makes it sound as if a single renegade MP can singlehandedly introduce abortion). This trying to create an impression of an imminent "danger" is clearly deceptive. There is no such danger: Gift of Life know it, but they pretend otherwise.
Secondly, I repeat, what I do find worrying is this attempt to force into the constitution something as debatable as what makes a person a person.
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 26th 2008, 18:15
Funny how all the comments below seem to always trace their steps back to Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Can any of the proponents of this amendment actually argue their point without resorting to the same old 'ad hominem' fallacy?
K. Pullicino
Sep 26th 2008, 18:08
"Or is it OK to be a man and talk about abortion, so long as you are pro-life?"
I'm pretty sure Ms. Caruana Galizia and many who posted in favour of abortion on other articles, disagree very much with you.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 26th 2008, 17:53
Mark Mifsud,
It may suit you just fine to have the morning after pill legalised. It is also abortive as of course you know, but would be greatly conveneient for you would'nt it? It would remove the consequence of men's refusal to use a condom. PLace all the responsibility of "taking care"on us women, then tell them to get rid of the problem when the man forgets to withdraw because he can't help himslef. The morning after pill is also abortive. Just google and read up. So, the MApill should remain illegal as it is today and chnaging the Constitution won't make it any more illegal. You attempts at confusing the issues is typical of those who want abortion at all costs. Lying, is not going to give you credibility. My teen age daughter came home once telling me that a friend of her (15) was pregnant and the guy told her to have an abortion. The MA pill is another way of letting men who have not sense of responsibility watch the football the next day without having to worry about being a father.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 26th 2008, 17:46
PS Raphael,
If I take advise from you on DCG I may end up regretting saying Live and let Live. How sad that the pro-choice argument always trips up on itself. Imagine saying LIVE and let LIVE and then go on about how necessary abortion may be for some women. Us women do not need people like DCG to tell us what we feel. DCG does not represent me or any of my female friends. The odd thing is that she probably really thinks she is right.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 26th 2008, 17:39
What I find most admirable are men and women who do so much to protect life. What I find very alarming and most worrying are people who duck and dive to avoid the coming clean and who find it so hard to stand up for the weaker ones. OK Raphael. If you are content to live in your little world of make belief with the usual loud clan of anti personhood campaigners like Casha, DCG and Micallef, that is your perogative. No matter how much you all try, in the end, the Government and the Opposition will take a stand for this amendment cause there are far more votes to lose if they don't against the little cluster of liberals. I think that Divorce and abortion are closely linked. I think that if we allow divorce in today, we will have termination in state hospitals tomoorow. Why, because they are linked closely as evident in other countries that introduced divorce first. Soon after, liberals were then calling for the choice for abortion. In Malta however, some liberals who have been writring in the last week are already calling for abortion before we have divorce. Imagine what will happen then.
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 26th 2008, 17:27
Oh, and Miriam: perhaps you should inform Paul Vincenti that he has no right to an opinion in the matter, as like myself he is also male.
Or is it OK to be a man and talk about abortion, so long as you are pro-life?
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 26th 2008, 17:12
Miriam: Perhaps you should also heed Daphne's advice and think a little before rushing to print.
As I am growing tired of repeating, the issue here is whether or not to amend the Constitution. Being pro-choice or pro-life has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Is that too difficult for you to understand? And since when do you have to be female to discuss legal matters, anyway?
Ironically, it seems K. Pullicino was right. Only, the anti-male comments are now coming from Gift of Life.
Mark Mifsud
Sep 26th 2008, 16:54
After Gift of Life's recent media sorties it is pretty obvious that they had a strategy meeting and rethink. Waving plastic fetuses around is passe (at least for now) and the new motto is "Minimalise, minimalise, minimalise!"
First they started with telling us that they only intend to change this small little subclause with this other even smaller little subclause, and now they are telling us that all they want to do is protect against some party introducing abortion nearly by accident!!!
Not only are these people in essence undemocratic but no we also know that they are ready to use deceptive tactics in order to reach their goal. Why don't GOL tell us the whole story? Why dont they tell us that they defacto want to include something as objectively debatable as the definition of a person inside our constitution! Why aren't they open and tell us their true goal: which i assume is abusing the constitution in order to ban any possibility of the "morning after pill" to be introduced?
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 26th 2008, 16:51
Do you have children Raphael. What qulaifies you to tell us women what is and what is not a right choice? Take a hint Raphael from DCG, leave this discussion to those whom it effects most.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 26th 2008, 16:50
Dear Raphael, you forget that Kevin Wain's argument is an argument for choice. The point being that you seem to be defending choice for abortion here. Am I correct ? If so, your argument would be to not let the unborn child have the right to life so that others may choose to kill the a baby later on? Even though you have at times claimed to be agianst abortion personally, you semt o belive that advocaing choice is herioic!!
Well, that is most manely of you. Maybe you should take Daphne's advise and stay out of the argument. Women are far more sensitive to this issue than men can ever hope to be. There is something very unnerving about a man calling for free choice for abortion.
What about the baby? Oh of course, you handel that one by proclaming that the baby is not a person. So all of a sudden, a baby is no longer a baby?
K. Pullicino
Sep 26th 2008, 14:04
Incoming barrage of "Anti-men" comments! Take cover!
Oh, wait... It's a woman... sorry, then:
Incoming barrage of "Anti-egoistic women" comments! Take cover!
Paul Borg
Sep 26th 2008, 13:30
and he goes on, society has no obligation to assume the costs of caring for such persons for the length of their life. Note also he extends this argument to euthanasia for the very sick and the elderly. If this is the society you want then push for the abortion of this class of unborn children. You sate that such cases are few and therefore exceptions must be made. There is a very old, true and tried legal maxim which states; Legislating on the basis of extreme cases always leads to bad law.
Paul Borg
Sep 26th 2008, 13:22
The obligation in the treatment of a pregnant woman with cancer is that both lives have to be taken into account. So long as there is no primary attempt to harm the developing child prudent treatment can proceed which takes into account the presence of the other person. If the child is "incidentally" harmed there is no moral liability so long as all attempts were made to protect both parties. There is no moral justification for the murder of an innocent child resulting from rape. There are many practical solutions to provide all forms of help and assistance to the injured woman up to and including the "adoption" the child after birth. Evidence from war zones suggest, to their great credit, that many such woman are stronger and more than we give them credit for and bond quite effectively with such children. The third scenario: who says it is a kindness to murder a disabled baby?. You are justifying murder for "utilitarian reasons" just like Professor Singer, who uses the same argument to justify infanticide: "if a baby born disabled or unwanted society has the right not to care for or feed it" (cont)
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 26th 2008, 13:16
As for the quote attributed to Prof. Kenneth Wain, it is worth pointing out that in the same interview Wain went on to say:
“Although I believe that the present generation has every right to dictate the laws with which to regulate society, I do not believe that it has any right to dictate them in such a way as to radically close off the choices of future generations. We should respect and trust the moral and intellectual maturity of our children and grandchildren.”
Paul Borg
Sep 26th 2008, 13:10
@ A. Bellia. Even the most avid supporters of abortion now agree that biologically speaking it cannot be denied that it is the deliberate termination i.e murder of a person while still in its mothers womb. Thus the American social commentator Camille Paglia argues for abortion on the grounds that the "right of the mother to an abortion trumps the right to life of the developing child. The Australian Peter Singer. Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University (who incidentally also supports infanticide) argues that utilitarian considerations as well as the more developed capacity of the "mother" to "reason and capacity for satisfaction" she therefore has the right to terminate her unborn child's life. They both insist that it is intellectually dishonest to deny that it is murder. As to the specific issues raised: In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the pregnancy is not viable but it is a fatal threat to the mother. The only obligation and intent is therefore to save the mother. There is no primary or secondary objective to kill the child but it is incidental to saving the mother. Same principle with cancer (cont.)
Ramon Casha
Sep 26th 2008, 11:44
So according to Chanelle Busuttil, a single MP could legalise arson, robbery or murder, right?
If that's a sampling of the kind of thinking that goes on in GoL, I'm not at all surprised that their own arguments cause their thinking process to short circuit, as Chanelle said.
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 26th 2008, 11:12
"At the moment one person with an axe to grind with his own party can overturn any law. With the government holding only a one-seat majority, it is very easy for an issue like abortion to be overturned without reflecting the views of the majority."
This is nonsense, I'm afraid. The most a person with an axe to grind can do in a single-seat majority situation is prevent a law from being passed. The implications are serious, because the government will no longer be able to govern - look under Mintoff in 1998 for further details. But "overturning" the abortion issue - by which I presume Ms Busuttil means legalizing abortion - would still require a parliamentary majority: i.e., 50% + 1 of the House.
A Bellia
Sep 26th 2008, 09:36
cont......
I know that these cases might be very rare, but the fact is they DO happen. There is no concrete right and wrong on this issue, but a very vast Grey area. So please, I beg, do not generalize or judge in such a way as no one can say exactly the circumstances of ones own decision.
A Bellia
Sep 26th 2008, 09:33
While I do agree that abortion as a contraceptive is wrong and should never happen, I still have reservations about it's illeglity being written in the constitution. The debate is not as black and white as just killing an individual, there are many factors which could lead to abortion. What the parliament and gift of life have to do is answer honestly certain questions about what will happen if the amendment is introduced.
1 If the pregnancy endangers the woman's life (eg. Ectopic pregnancy, cancer......) will she be allowed to abort?
2 In cases of rape will there be the right to abort? Some may say it is not the "child's" fault but in most cases the female is so traumatized by the violation that she is unable to love the child like she should and that in turn would give the "child" an inferior life.
3 In cases of severe disabilities where the "child" would only live in terrible pain for a very short amount of time, wouldn't it be somewhat kinder to not bring the "child" into the world when all he/she would know is pain for a few days or weeks?
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 26th 2008, 09:27
So good to see that GoL have women in their ranks. Women have an importnat though not exclusive say in the matter. This is a solid letter which I am sure, the secularists, pro-aborts for choice and men haters will attack all the same. Maybe if they read theis letter and understand that wome are hurting from abortion, they will finally cut through the emotional charge of their drive at all costs to have abortion legalised in our dear Island. When you read the letters of those against the Consitutional change for life, one quickly realises they are all pro-chice for abortoin. Come on MLP, close this door once and for all.