Theoretically, Maltese law recognises no instances of induced abortion – neither abortion on request, nor abortion to protect the mother’s life. This is a patently unethical position.
Laws are based on an ethical framework, on what constitutes good and bad, and the sometimes confusing cacophony of ideas that goes into deciding whether and how far the government should intervene in its citizens’ freedom.
There is endless debate on what is good and evil, how to construct a philosophy of ethics that is self-consistent as well as practical, and how to apply it to a nation.
There is, however, one important point when building a philosophy of thought – to be internally consistent. The law that forbids abortion in all cases, I suspect, is based on a singular notion of the value of life, particularly that of human life.
Coupling an absolutist idea of the value of human life and the conviction that the embryo should be attributed the same value as a fully developed, self-aware human being, it is logical to conclude that embryos should never, in any circumstances, be killed.
But the premises that go into inferring this conclusion are not free from rational enquiry. They must be demonstrated to be internally consistent with the rest of the ethics.
Without going into why the human embryo is not as valuable as a fully developed adult, one can still show the other premise to be inconsistent with the rest of the ethics.
It is simple, really. Nobody in his right mind, given the correct circumstances, attributes absolute value to human life – not even proponents of Christianity. After all, the idea of self-sacrifice is a Biblical one.
But let me mention two cases of practical interest in the modern world: a soldier at war, and a doctor turning off life-support when a patient is irrevocably moribund.
In both situations the intentional loss of life is deemed justifiable, and for good reason. Why does a doctor who turns off life-support not adhere to an absolutist vision of the value of life, some may ask? Because if he did, he would try and preserve life at all costs, even at the emotional, financial and painful burden that preserving life would entail.
No, the doctors and medical staff recognise that there is, in the exceptional case of a patient heading towards inevitable death, a cause that takes priority over the value of life: that the patient has the right to die in peace and minimal distress. In other words, they recognise the relativity of issues.
The same can be said about the soldier protecting himself or his country in war.
By acknowledging this ‘relativity’ I am not implying an acceptance of everyone’s viewpoints as equally valid – all I mean is that ethical values should not be taken as absolutes, and that each situation demands individual attention by means of a complete study of its context.
Is killing in war and by means of foregoing life-support in exceptional circumstances illegal in Malta? I think not.
Thus, those laws that prohibit abortion to protect the mother’s life on the grounds of it being a violation of an absolute standard of life are predicated on an inconsistent ethical statement.
Furthermore, the ethics upon which these laws are based makes the assumption that it is justified to lose the mother’s life, as long as no intentional killing took place. That is an assumption of an extremely dubious nature – equivalent to killing by omission.
It is therefore my firm belief, as should be that of anyone who approaches the subject with an open, rational mindset, that this law should immediately be repealed.