Criminal abortion or therapeutic termination of pregnancy?
It was a pleasure to read Alfred Sant’s urbane and reasoned reply to my original letter on the subject of terminations of pregnancy carried out for therapeutic reasons, that is, to save the life of the mother or safeguard her against grievous threats to her health (December 2).
We seem to agree on two basic facts. Firstly, that these therapeutic terminations of pregnancy are carried out, openly and routinely, in public hospitals and clinics. Secondly, that never, in recorded history, has any person who participated in a therapeutic termination of pregnancy been charged with or been found guilty of committing a criminal offence. This applies equally to mothers, doctors, midwives, nurses or anyone else.
There must be a reason why. The obvious reason is that the so-called ‘absolute’ prohibition of abortion contained in article 241 of the Criminal Code has always been read in context together with other, equally compelling, principles of criminal law. Criminal abortion is one thing, therapeutic termination of pregnancy a wholly different one. The two belong to entirely distinct classes.
To apply article 241 in total isolation, divorced from other mandatory legal principles, would be bad law and worse practice. In fact, throughout history, no prosecutor and no judge has ever, not once, dreamt of doing so. To fear that, some day in the future, both a weird prosecutor and a retarded judge may concurrently reverse the sane doctrine of centuries, to criminalise therapeutic termination of pregnancy, is pure scaremongering, nothing more and nothing less.
Photo: Shutterstock.comJurists usually base this distinction between criminal abortion and therapeutic ‘abortion’ on the principle of double effect (doctors intervene with the sole intention of saving the mother’s life; the death of the unborn foetus or embryo is solely an undesired consequence of the intervention to save the mother). I did the same but also added another reason: the basic principles of self-defence.
That Sant or others disagree and find weakness in the ‘self-defence’ reasoning is entirely acceptable. It does not, however, change an iota of the main argument – that the legal rules which apply to criminal abortion never apply to therapeutic terminations of pregnancy.
Giovanni Bonello – Valletta
Abortion: words and facts
In criticising my letter in this paper (November 17), Christopher Barbara (November 23) concluded, with a hint of triumphalism, that “abortion is happening every single day even in Malta”. Is he reporting criminal activities?
He disdainfully refers to the living human embryo as “the contents of the uterus”, an obvious crafty and insensitive attempt to allay valid scruples people have regarding abortion.
Desiree Attard’s exhaustive dissertation on ‘Abortion in Malta – Reviewing the Legal Stance From a Pro-Choice Perspective’, recommended by Barbara, looks at the abortion issue mainly from the pro-choice viewpoint: women’s reproductive rights to gender equality and empowerment are emphasised and a case is made for induced abortion to be considered a ‘right’ on the same basis and decriminalised.
Quoting international treaty bodies, the right to women’s ‘bodily autonomy’ is given precedence over the rights of ‘potential’ life, as if the embryo is not alive but potentially alive!
On the other hand, the sound pro-life arguments recognised in all international treaties, regarding women’s most natural reproductive right to bear children serenely and their embryos’ right to life and development without interruption, are thus neutralised.
Barbara made the point that, in Malta, “the Criminal Code is absolute in its prohibition on abortion and allows for no circumstance where an abortion could be legal”. So he did not even try to understand the “double effect” principle I mentioned in my previous letter? This
establishes that it is morally permissible to carry out treatment in life-threatening conditions affecting a pregnant woman where the loss of an embryo could occur incidentally, though not directly intended. Whenever a pregnant woman’s life is in danger, the situation must be remedied with due diligence and with the firm intention of saving both her and the embryo’s lives, if possible.
To contradict one of my statements and promote abortion, Barbara quoted the 2012 study by Raymond and Grimes, who claimed that childbirth was much more lethal than abortion.
This study has been authoritatively considered faulty and its conclusions very wrong, as can be confirmed by following this link online: Rebuttal of Raymond and Grimes (nih.gov). The facts are that abortion mortality is higher than childbirth mortality in the USA.
Barbara is wrong and grasping at straws. Enough said.
John Pace – Victoria
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.