“The whole truth is generally the ally of virtue; a half truth is always the ally of some vice.”

The bishop never said, and his message does not in any way imply, that the life of an unborn child is more important than that of the mother

The second part of this sentence by J. K. Chesterton fits to the heel the Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations’ press release (May 17) in connection with Bishop Mario Grech’s speech on abortion to mark World Unions of Catholic Women Organisation (May 16).

Why did the MCWO find it fit to pick and choose from the Bishop’s message and, in a very ambiguous manner, show their “concern” about the “categorical” character of the bishop’s message?

They did not address the bishop’s message with the dignity and respect due to an opinion, whether one agrees with it or not.

The bishop was discussing the unviolable right of the unborn child to life. An ambiguous messages such as that issued by the MCWO does not contribute to healthy discussion but only contributes to strengthen the hand of those who want to see the eradication of the right of the unborn child to life.

The bishop in his message was categorical about one truth which is that “abortion is the killing of a child” and that whoever “intentionally performs an abortion has a grave moral responsability”.

He then goes on to explain the principle of double effect and these are his exact words: “When a pregnant mother is seriously sick and is therefore in need of medical treatment which indirectly can put at risk the life of the child, such a treatment is ethically permissable so long as all means are used to safeguard the life of both mother and child. The direct killing of the child is never permissable in order to save the life of the mother”.

Why is the MCWO “strong(ly) concerned” about these statements? If they truly believe in the right of the unborn child to life then they should have been in agreement with the bishop. They also seem to agree with the principle of double effect and so they should have also been in agreement with his exposition.

The message of the bishop was very clear and in no way offensive; a pregnant woman who needs medical treatment for a life-threatening condition or disease is permitted to undergo the necessary treatment and this is the practice in Malta.

What is not permissible is the intentional removal of the foetus as part of the said treatment.

What is the better option for a pregnant woman, telling her outright that the child has to be killed in order to save her or else tell her that the treatment will be given and things are allowed to take their course?

Is it not a more heart-rending burden on the mother to know that in order to save her own life her child had to be killed? And is it not more dignified and respectful of her true freedom to allow her to choose whether or not to have the treatment?

Why should it be so catastrophic for a mother who out of love for her unborn child chooses in favour of this child?

It seems that the era of true heroes has been annihilated in the name of a false compassion! Wasn’t it what Santa Ganna Berretta Molla did? She was not an uneducated person coming from some remote uncivilised backwater!

She was a north Italian paediatrician and gynaecologist married to an architect. Out of her free and well-informed will, she chose for her unborn child to live.

This does not mean that all women are to follow in her footsteps. A mother can choose to have the treatment and be left with the hope that the life of her child might be preserved.

She can live with her choice in serenity and a clear conscience. This choice is also to be respected.

Yes, her right for treatment has been safeguarded but the life of her child in the circumstances, unfortunate as they are, has also been safeguarded. No one took it upon himself/herself to kill the child by a positive act of the will (sic) “to save the mother”.

Why did the MCWO then feel the need to attribute to the bishop that which he neither said nor implied? He never said, and his message does not in any way imply, that the life of an unborn child is more important than that of the mother.

This is a very shallow attempt on the part of the confed-eration to appeal to emotions in the absence of solid arguments.

Theirs is an attempt to please both God and mammon by trying to look favourably at the International Commission of Jurists report and yet appease those who are still holding fast to the principle of the right of the unborn child to life.

This marriage of convenience will in the end produce only confusion, and confusion is a very convenient tool for those who want to push their covert agenda in favour of abortion.

The MCWO should have “shown strong concern” about the report that the ICJ submitted to the United Nations. It is this report which should raise grave concern in us Maltese. As reported in Times of Malta (May 19) the ICJ recommends that “Malta decriminalise abortion and ensure that women have access to safe abortions when their life or health may be at risk or where respect for the right to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment so requires.”

In order to drive their point in favour of abortion these honourable gentlemen of the ICJ are depicting an inexistent scenario in our country when they mention torture, and so on . Can the MCWO give a creditable example of such a dilemma?

I am sure that they will be unable to provide such an example.

Why should our country have recourse to abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk if, as has been discussed, the principle of double effect is allowed in Malta?

The endeavours of MCWO to weaken Mgr Grech’s exposition in favour of the unborn child and the principle of double effect show them up as adorers of the cult of trash. Chesterton describes thus this cult: “In short the cult of trash is contrary of the cult of Truth; it means using language, or even learning and literature, without any lively current of curiosity or purpose running in the direction of Truth.

“I mean by trash the man talking through his hat, because it is a fashionable hat. That is, I mean a man (or woman) talking unconsciously and mechanically, but at the same time pompously and with the pride of being in the mode.”

That is what the ladies of the MCWO have done when they criticised Mgr Grech for defending the life of the defenceless child in the womb and in a most dignified and profound manner defended women and mothers against the assault of false prophets who in the name of a false compassion are hell bent on burdening the heart of some mothers with the unbearable burden of choosing against the life of their child.

The report of the ICJ is an unveiled attempt to impose their agenda in favour of abortion.

We should all resist such shallow attempts and hold on to that which we have until now held dear, the sacred and unviolable right of the unborn child to life which does not allow for any exceptions.