The article Call For Morning-After Pill For Rape Victims (September 17) was really the icing on the cake in the Maltese anti-abortion movement.

For one thing, I strongly disagree with the way this initiative operates, which insists on discussing the issue of abortion in tandem with issues such as divorce, gay marriage and euthanasia. Because in less than half a page, each and every one of those issues came up.

Perhaps this group should change their name to a more accurate one. How about Catholicism's Guilt Squad? Or The Self-Righteous Enforcers?

Besides the religious blockade that separates state from public opinion, is it not a little unbalanced that something so controversial is disputed somewhere like the Youth Parliament instead of public debate? For one thing, one can safely assume that the Right to Life groupies are Catholic, which is therefore not a representative sample of the population.

Yes, most people will "admit" to being Catholic but most of those will also tell you that they disagree with the Church on many counts, including its treatment of gay people, its views on contraception and its history of violence, cover-ups and hypocrisy.

For the sake of clarification, I am neither for nor against abortion. And, by abortion, I mean any form of it, including medical procedures or pharmacological means.

It seems that the Right to Life representatives, who so staunchly defend the idea that life begins from the moment of conception, have made the latter less ominous than the former. Both are abortive means with the same result, so let's not assume that there is any difference in outcome, only in cost and risk.

But I digress. I am neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. Personally, I would not have an abortion done for several reasons. I am still studying, do not have a stable income and still live with my parents.

All very good reasons not to get pregnant in the first place. Then again, I live with very supportive parents who, following some initial outburst, would probably let me and the child remain at home with financial and emotional support to boot.

This sets me apart from a number of young women. How many teenage mothers have faced eviction from the family home, exile from the family itself and no support whatsoever? How can I, raised in a stable environment that can continue to sustain me should an "accident" happen, comment and decide on the fate of those whose struggle I cannot even begin to fathom? Does a woman have to feign rape in order to avoid troubles and hardship that only she can foresee and understand? Will the Right to Life group see to it that her child is fed, clothed and safe should she find herself homeless?

Of course, one must not assume that all the women seeking abortion are in such dire straits. I'm certain that a high percentage of financially stable, educated and driven women would chose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. In this case, I assume two things. The first being that such an educated woman would not allow an unwanted pregnancy to happen to begin with. The other assumption is that a woman as described above would have no trouble travelling abroad for a procedure and, thus, local legislation on the matter has little to no impact on her or her decisions. It matters to those who have no means to travel and no alternative that doesn't involve a lifetime of hardship and missed opportunities.

I think the term "pro-choice" is often taken out of context to mean "for abortion". This is untrue: what I am defending is the right for women to make a choice, unhindered by the constraints imposed by a religion she may, or may not follow. What right have I, or anyone else, to decide for her?

The same really applies to the other issues discussed in that sitting of Youth Parliament. Do any of those present know what it's like to so desperately want to raise a child and require medical assistance to do so but will be denied this experience because their family does not fit in with the "married and heterosexual" category? Adoption you say? The procedure is rigorous, tiring and swamped in bureaucracy. Besides, show me one couple who would prefer adopting to raising their own flesh and blood and I will gladly eat my words.

Maybe this pressure group should be focusing on other issues more predominantly. Improve sex education to reduce the number of young, at-risk parents. Introduce an initiative for cheaper or free contraceptives, to make it easier to engage in safe sex. Make adoption easier so that couples who cannot have their own children are not disheartened by the process and simultaneously give more children in the care of the state a new chance at life.

Then again, one mustn't forget who is pulling the strings here. Only when the state stops hiding behind the cassock of the Catholic Church will every citizen, regardless of faith, be fully represented in this so-called democracy.