An organisation claiming to be pro-choice’ and that, for reasons best known to itself, chooses to remain anonymous, has only just called for a review of abortion legislation in Malta. In support of its demand, it cites women’s health as well as their physical and mental safety.
Unfortunately, having made these high-minded claims, it then seems to run out of steam in its efforts, reverting instead to a series of tired, hackneyed arguments that even the main pro-abortion organisations of the world have long given up trying to propagate.
The organisation kicks off with the popular but deceptive claim that abortion should be allowed if it will save a woman’s life. However, it makes no reference to the fact that this sort of situation is not merely misleading but extremely rare, so rare, in fact, that the select panel for the 2012 International Symposium on Maternal Health, declared thus in the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare, issued on September 8, 2012:
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
“We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
“We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
The pro-‘choice’ organisation follows up with the puerile argument that Maltese women can occasionally get round the law on abortion by travelling to other countries to obtain one and, therefore, we should spare them this inconvenience by making it available locally.
Of course, it glosses completely over the fact that abortion is illegal in Malta for a very good reason, namely that we still believe it is wrong to take a human life and that this remains wrong wherever it is done, even when it is possible to do the deed without falling foul of the law
Next to put in an appearance is the tired old chestnut about putting women’s lives in danger because, supposedly, they will be driven to so-called ‘back-street abortions’.
No compassionate person wants a woman to suffer through the personal tragedy of abortion, whether legal or illegal
The fact is that if legislation is not entirely sufficient to completely eradicate a destructive activity, this does not constitute a reason to make or keep the activity legal. If this were the case, there would be no point in legislating against drug use, to cite but one example.
No compassionate person wants a woman to suffer through the personal tragedy of abortion, whether legal or illegal.
To borrow a quote from Feminists for Life: women deserve better than abortion.
Continuing in the same vein, the organisation whines on about it being a woman’s body that will be affected by the pregnancy, utterly overlooking the obvious fact that it is the body and life of a completely different human being that is destroyed by abortion
Finally, it then winds up the catalogue of outdated claims with a brief reference to mental and physical risks associated with pregnancy. Naturally, it fails to mention that just about all of these risks can be accommodated today without resorting to the butchery of the young human being within.
A statement of this nature, released in the national press, only goes to show how utterly moribund are the arguments in favour of abortion and quite how desperately devoid of substance.
I trust that this transparently deceptive effort will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Ivan Padovani is a member of ProLife Network.