Pro-life or just anti-abortion?

The Sunday Times (23 March 2008) informed us that the "Council of Europe recommends the decriminalisation of abortion in Malta" and also that this "decision has no legal bearing".

The piece clarified that the Council of Europe is not the European Union. We have been members of the Council since Independence but members of the Union only since 2004. Such a clarification is needed since quite a few people, even those ostensibly in the know, do not really appreciate the difference between the two.

The report of The Sunday Times clearly states that the Council of Europe is asking for the decriminalisation of abortion. It does not refer to the legalisation of abortion. The difference is not immediately clear to many.

"The committee's report, penned by Austrian Socialist rapporteur Gisela Wurm, and approved by 21 votes in favour, three against and one abstention, calls upon all the 47 member states of the CoE to 'decriminalise abortion, if they have not already done so; guarantee women's effective exercise of their right to abortion and allow women freedom of choice and offer the conditions of a free and enlightened choice.'"

In simple terms decriminalisation means that the person who commits a particular action will not be sent to prison for his or her action. While I agree that a prison sentence should certainly be the sanction for a doctor or anyone else executing or procuring the abortion, I am not certain that a prison sentence should be the punishment ordinarily given to a woman undergoing one. This is because there can be several circumstances which extenuate the guilt of the mother although that does not diminish by an iota the heinous nature of the act itself.

The reaction to the news from Strasbourg brings to the fore a number of issues.

Free and enlightened choice?

In her recommendations Wurm speaks of giving women the right to "a free and enlightened choice." She utters no word about the right of the unborn child. What is in the balance here is not the right for a free and enlightened choice (whatever that means) but the right to life.

The best answer to the Socialist Wurm can be found in the words spoken by the Pope during his visit to Austria last September. Pope Benedict, while addressing the members of government and diplomatic corps in the reception hall of Vienna's Hofburg Palace, the seat of the Austrian presidency. He described abortion as a "deep wound" in society and as the antithesis of a human right. "The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -- it is the very opposite."

Benedict XVI continued: "In stating this, I am not expressing a specifically ecclesial concern. Rather, I am acting as advocate for a profoundly human need, speaking out on behalf of those unborn children who have no voice."

"I say this out of a concern for humanity," he clarified.

A Constitutional amendment?

For the last three years the Gift of Life has been asking Parliament to change the wording of article 33 in the Constitution to read: "No person shall intentionally be deprived of his life from conception". This amendment would make abortion unconstitutional. They have collected the signatures of 36,010 people and the signatures of 40 MPs from both parties who support its cause. This is just four MPs short of the required two-thirds necessary to amend the Constitution.

The government said that it will not move forward unless the Labour Party takes an official position in favour of the amendment. Though many Labour MPs have spoken in favour, the Leadership of the party did not pronounce itself. One has now to wait for the outcome of the leadership contest. Considering that this will be over only in June, I guess that this argument will only be re-visited towards the end of the year.

On the proposed amendment to the constitution there are genuine anti-abortionists in favour as well as genuine anti-abortionists against. Both positions have their own valid arguments. The debate about this proposal should continue, but not ad aeternum. After all, the greatest safeguard against abortion is a solid pro-life attitude and not constitutional provisions.

Are we pro-life?

Being anti abortion does not necessarily imply that we are wholly pro-life. Does our reaction to out-of-marriage pregnancies help these mothers go on with their pregnancy till its natural termination or does the stigmatisation of the same persons push some to commit abortion? Are unwed mothers provided with a caring and helpful environment which enables them to take care of their children?

A pro-life mentality has many ramifications. Is the lack of fortitude shown by those with the power and position to amend as needed regulations covering fireworks manufacture and adequately enforce them a sign of a truly pro-life attitude? We go from one tragedy to another, from one funeral to another and from the recommendations of one committee to another with great ease. We have yet to witness a minister tackling the bull by the horns. One hopes that the new minister will do more to address the problems surrounding the manufacture of fireworks, both the legal as well as the illegal kind.

The Naxxar tragedy is still fresh in all our minds .... Or is it? The illegal manufacture and storage of explosives cost the life of two persons, the total destruction of four homes and an indelibly branded trauma on the lives of so many others .

People's consciences were alerted. They phoned the police to report other potential tragedies. The police took quick action, arraigned suspects in court and had them condemned. But then, a disappointing anti-climax, one accused was fined €464 while the other a paltry €200. The sentences given by the courts transmit one clear message to all society: storing and manufacturing explosives illegally is not a serious matter.

Is the cost of the pain suffered by so many people redeemed by a few hundred euros? What a shame!