Sue Gambin of Malta Infertility Network (‘Abortion and embryo freezing are not the same’, The Sunday Times of Malta, December 20), makes the same accusation that has been made in other quarters that pro-life movements are equating abortion with embryo freezing. It is obvious that she does not bother to read carefully what is actually being said.

It is commendable to note that she condemns abortion. Yet she must be aware, if she follows what is being said and written locally, that the campaign to weaken Malta’s revulsion to abortion is well underway.

Gambin should know that cultural changes take time and change is introduced gradually step by step.

She favours embryo freezing. Yet why should we have embryo freezing when we know that a number die in the process and others are left frozen indefinitely facing a very uncertain future?

It is important for pro-life NGOs to make the public aware of what is at stake. Accepting that some of the embryos that have been produced in IVF procedures will die is not abortion, but death is the end result just the same.

Why should Malta introduce embryo freezing when current IVF techniques using frozen ova give fertility success rates that are equal if not better than embryo freezing?

Embryos resulting from IVF are not the result of a natural process and embryo freezing places them at high risk. Pro-life NGOs are rightly concerned with proposed changes to the Embryo Protection Act.

After all, as so eloquently pointed out in the expert conclusions of the position paper recently commissioned by the Church: “In the light of the prevailing scientific data and the results reported by the local service, the introduction of embryo freezing within the Maltese service is both unnecessary and unreasonable and is likely to create ‘embryo orphanages’.”