Martin Scicluna’s letter ‘Referendum lesson’ (July 16) is supposed to be responding to a letter titled ‘Extreme cases’ (July 12) by Klaus Vella Bardon.

Scicluna prides himself on his objectivity but his clever blend of objectivity and selective response is not objectivity at all. He sidestepped the main point made clear by Vella Bardon and othersin correspondence, which is that a voluntary abortion kills an unborn child, without, of course, considering the interest of  the child.

I think Scicluna should be clear. When he declares “I am unavowedly [does he mean avowedly?] in favour of freedom of choice” can he please also  state whether or not he is saying  that his passion for freedom of choice is exclusively reserved to the mother and that the inability of the unborn child to choose whether to live or be killed  is irrelevant?