It has often been said that comparisons are odious. However, it is equally odious to fail to point out real holocausts, as well as potential ones. A holocaust is precisely what may result if the proposals to introduce embryo freezing, anonymous sperm and egg donation, as well as surrogacy, come to fruition.
According to the UK’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), in vitro fertilisation procedures accompanied with the availability of embryo freezing have resulted in the deaths of just over two million embryos since 1990 in the UK alone. To give an indication of the scale, two million is approximately the population of Slovenia.
It is rather jarring that these embryos die as a result of a procedure intended to enable procreation, since this same procedure ends up killing more people than it creates.
Ever since the introduction of the Embryo Protection Act, embryo freezing has been prohibited in Malta. The purpose of this law is to protect the human embryo, who is as alive as you or me and who has an equal right to life. Stripping the Embryo Protection Act of its various protections would expose the human embryo to a free-for-all. There would be no guarantees that the embryo is not killed or is not subjected to eugenic selection, which is also prohibited at the moment.
This means that if allowed, the doctors would select the best and the healthiest to implant in the prospective mother. The rest of the embryos, the ones not deemed of sufficient quality, would either be discarded or experimented with. No words are needed to describe how inhumane this would be.
Some quarters have tried to base the case for introducing embryo freezing on compassion. At such a juncture, it is apt to point out that the Embryo Protection Act is already based on compassion. It is based primarily on compassion for the weakest party involved, the voiceless human embryo.
Indeed, it would be contrary to even the most underdeveloped instinct of compassion to remove the aforementioned protections from the law. To date, Malta has enjoyed the distinction of being one of a decreasing number of countries which treat human life with sacred reverence. Stripping fellow human beings of protection is regressive, not progressive.
Embryo freezing is far from necessary to have successful in vitro fertilisation. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that even without embryo freezing being available, the success rate of IVF in Malta surpasses that of the UK, which allows embryo freezing.
It is not far-fetched or fantastical to claim that legalising abortion will be the consequence of the proposed amendments
Furthermore, it ought to be pointed out that embryo freezing is not a stand-alone measure. It demonstrates that once the healthiest embryos are implanted in the prospective mother and the rest are discarded, then one can go on to more drastic measures to weed out those deemed unfit to live.
Embryo freezing empowers doctors and parents to decide who is worthy of continuing to live. This is a choice which no one should be able to make. From determining who is unfit to live, it is then a short step to allowing mothers to kill unborn children when the pregnancy is deemed inconvenient.
The current proposals to meddle with the Embryo Protection Act would remove the protection from the law. They would turn the law into an instrument by which the human embryo is manipulated at will.
Recently, bodies of scientists have begun applying to conduct research during which they would modify the DNA of human embryos. To use their own words, the embryos would become the human version of genetically modified crops. Such activity is what results when respect for the dignity of the human person is trodden on by means of laws adopting a gradual approach to chipping away at human dignity.
It is not far-fetched or fantastical to claim that legalising abortion will be the consequence of the proposed amendments. This is because once one accepts that an embryo is frozen and his or her development postponed indefinitely, then it is very easy to develop that into an argument that the embryo’s further development is not desired and that the mother may be allowed to kill it.
It is precisely for these reasons that no part of the Embryo Protection Act should be changed.
Ramon Bonett Sladden is a final year law student and a member of Pro-Life Network.