No doubt, the abortion debate has started. As expected, the discussion has degenerated to a banal level. From the statistics quoted by Martin Scicluna, to theological interpretations suggesting that Jesus was involved in a version of Judaism which condoned abortion, the Women’s Rights Foundation supporting a pro-abortion stand,  men claiming that women are to take full responsibility for the decision to abort, women claiming that men have no place in discussion.

Self-proclaimed biologists quoting pro-choice blurred research suggesting the preposterous idea  that a fetus is a form of parasite which is in no way a viable human being and is subject to its host’s freedom of choice and so much more.

No sooner the debate has started and the horse is already three lengths ahead of its sulky. We have no surprise winners or losers in this race.

One would have expected the speculators to take advantage of established facts, conduct  research and use published studies to understand the trends and demographics such information provides us with, learn from them and propose alternative ways to deal with similar issues in a holistic, pro-active manner,   avoid coming to the inevitable mistake by re-inventing the wheel and using  irrelevant clichés, which  subsequently will lead us to the ultimate tragedy of introducing abortion.

Anyway, going back to studies.  While conducting my routine inspection on what information is available on the net to support my theories, I came across a study titled ‘Induced Abortion in Italy: Levels, Trends and Characteristics’.

I purposely chose Italy as my subject, as it is one  country which is similar in cultural, sociological and traditional traits. I feel that quoting similar facts and figures from the US or any Nordic country makes no sense in our cultural context.

Not surprisingly, the study reveals that there are more abortions in secular areas than in traditional areas. It exposes other information.  Since the legalisation of abortion in 1979, declines in abortion rates have been greatest in the north, where family planning and reproductive health services are more extensive and well-established.

The above selection of findings is already significant and should help us establish a simple yet important baseline to work on.

We cannot push a theocratic agenda in a secular society

Taking our current state of affairs, we  find ourselves prepared, but no emphasis is being made on the services we have. One such service is the morning-after pill. A whole debate was made and a whole hullabaloo was raised from all fronts.

Some claiming it to be abortive, others claiming it carried risks, some organisations even threatening to name and shame the pharmacies which dispensed it, and so on.

I am not  discussing  moral, ethical or medical implications of MAP in this article, and in no way am I condoning any form of abortion. I fully comprehend that it is a grey area, and that the way it operates may suggest that if the principle of life beginning at conception is strictly adhered to, the pill may be considered abortive.

I have full respect for the fact that an  embryo is the initial stage in a  human life and in the  most vulnerable stage of existence and which deserves our full respect.

The fact remains that the MAP is now available and we must consider it as one of the alternatives. While some of us are still pondering about MAP, the pro-abortion lobby is heading the race offering abortion during the pregnancy term as the only viable solution in this unfortunate circumstance and demanding it to be made legal.

They are not revealing that a woman needs to wait for at least three-four weeks of pregnancy before abortion can be carried out. They are not exposing the risks involved, including the suicidal tendencies this carries. They are not keen in presenting the case as two individuals who are both victims of a horrendous crime and that the ultimate sacrificial victim will be the unborn human being.

The pro-life groups I stand by will probably disown me, but for heaven’s sake, let us be realistic, take stock of the situation and give people reasonable alternatives to push back the abortion agenda.

We cannot claim that the use of MAP is totally unacceptable.

The State should be even considering offering contraception free of charge to persons right from the age of consent. We cannot push a theocratic agenda in a secular society and expect to win the hearts of the many.

Our common interest is saving the lives of the unborn. These lives are precious and completely oblivious to whether they are born in a religious or non-religious context, rich or poor financial backdrops, a socially morally acceptable context or not.

In the meantime, the sterling work pro-life NGOs are performing should continue. Education is key to success and if they continue to motivate people to engage in meaningful long-lasting relationships, provide information on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, provide tangible support to single mothers, and give re-assurance that rather than being a condemning society, we are a supporting and nurturing caring nation, the need to opt to go abroad to get abortion will be greatly diminished.

We must not make outcasts of persons who have come to a point of no return and their only perceptible way out is abortion.

Let us work together at making a better society and let us together embrace life and be proud of who we are and our values. Let us celebrate life and not work on destroying it.

Steve Pace is a company director and ICT consultant.