The final session of the National Youth Parliament was held at the new home of Malta’s Parliament. One of the subjects dealt with was the very current and controversial theme of the right to life. The resolution proposed by the ‘party’ that dealt with this issue was unanimously approved by the entire parliament.
This fact puts Maltese youths at the forefront of defending human life fromthe moment of conception. The resolution sustains the culture of life which prevailsin Maltese society and propels it to thenext generation.
The resolution focused on identifying and repelling a number of threats to human life: the proposed evisceration of the Embryo Protection Act, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. The content of the resolution was in direct contrast to the ideas of some people who are all dedicated to destroying human life and replacing it with death and despair. If some quarters of Maltese society have their way, the Embryo Protection Act will be stripped of all the protection it affords the unborn child. The introduction of embryo freezing and the sale of sperm and ova would turn the law into a means of producing embryos, instead of protecting them.
The young people involved in the National Youth Parliament generated vigorous debate, and the theme of the right to life echoed around the chamber continuously. All those present agreed that embryo freezing offends the dignity of the embryo as a genetically distinct human being, and that the sale of sperm and ova directly contravenes the child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her biological parents.
The fact that young people recognise this simple reality bodes well for the respect of human dignity in Malta.
The viewpoint of the alleged right to have children ends up producing children to satisfy a right which in fact is no right at all
It was affirmed that the embryological phase of life is just as normal a phase as adolescence and old age. Again, this was met with unanimous agreement.
As regards the sale of sperm and ova, we explained to our parliamentary colleagues that day, who included the Prime Minister and members of cabinet, that both of these practices, which are intended to enable conception, instead end up depriving the children about to be conceived of one of their biological parents.
It is easy to look at this from the point of view of the alleged right to have children, however that same viewpoint also reveals that the rights of the child conceived, in particular, the right to know and be cared for by one’s biological parents, are violated. The viewpoint of the alleged right to have children ends up producing children to satisfy a right which in fact is no right at all. Is it not a contradiction that a procedure intended to facilitate human procreation results in the elimination of one half of the biological equation?
It is enough to know of the case of Christopher Whitman, who at age 20 found himself in need of money. He went to Harley Street in London, and registered as a sperm donor with a clinic. Like all sperm donors, he was paid for donating sperm (thus rendering it as sale and not donation). In his thirties, when he was already married, he started to wonder what had become of all the sperm he had sold to the clinics. Eventually, he managed to discover that through his sperm, twenty girls and fourteen boys were born, making him the biological father of a staggering thirty-four children, not to mention the child he had with his wife. Needless to say, these thirty-four children could not possibly know who their father was, and probably lived for years wondering who it could be.
Countless stories like those of Whitman exist, such as that of Joanna Rose, Tom Ellis, Christine Whipp (formerly Emma Cresswell), Lindsay Greenawalt and others. These are all very real people who by their own admission, suffered greatly from not being able to know their father.
These moving testimonies were heard by our colleagues in the National Youth Parliament, and this served to further drive the message home that the sale of sperm and ova creates orphans who would be unable to know one or both of their biological parents.
Where a culture of life does not prevail, a culture of death takes its place. It is not difficult to notice that all the threats to life outlined in our group’s resolution all involve the intentional bringing about of death. That is precisely why we, as Maltese young people who recognise that human life is threatened in Malta and around the world, have decided to stand up and be counted as valiant defenders of human life as from conception.
As Maltese brethren, we should rally and fight for the rights of human embryos,children in their early stages of development, who will otherwise remain voiceless and defenceless.
Ramon Bonett Sladden and Sara Portelli are members of Life Network.