I refer to Martin Scicluna’s ‘Pro-choice on abortion’ (October 18).

We should focus on the real questions if he wants to discuss abortion: is a foetus a human being? He mistakenly claims that a pro-life position is a religious belief, only because the Church has a teaching on it.

The Church has teachings on many issues that are shared by people holding all sorts of life philosophies and religions.

However, it would be illogical to claim that those who, say, oppose theft necessarily hold a Catholic religious belief.

If Scicluna is to challenge the legally-recognised humanity of the unborn child, would it not be sensible to demonstrate why this evidence-based logical reasoning is mistaken? Can he quote chapter and verse of great scientists to explain the reasoning for the conclusion he arrived at?

Or, dare I say, does the science only demonstrate the humanity of the unborn child and that his reasoning is based on keeping up with social and political trends and not in any way on a desire to come to the truth on this matter?

Since the end of slavery in Malta, our laws have developed to provide the human person with greater protection. We have never redefined a group in society out of humanity or indeed a group of citizens depriving them of human rights.

By decriminalising abortion, we would be removing the right to life from a group in society, the pre-born. If we are to do this, we had better be sure we are right and that the unborn are not human beings for if they are, the death of tens of thousands of fellow Maltese citizens will be on our heads.

In a nutshell, Scicluna should make his point through reason and give explanations. He should not call people who don’t agree with him names (it is unbecoming an educated gentleman).

Let’s all have an educated discussion on where life begins, based on hard evidence. We can then work to ensure our country’s laws protect that life strongly, proudly and without prejudice.