No compromise on protection of life

Pierre Mallia's objection to the entrenchment of the abortion law in the Constitution is worrying (Divergent Views on the Start of Human Life by Cynthia Busuttil, July 28).

He is quoted as saying: "Some people say that IVF is abortive because there is a loss of embryos. But this also happens in natural conception, when around 80 per cent of fertilised eggs are lost... If the abortion law is entrenched in the Constitution, it has to be ensured that it does not hinder IVF."

The matter of IVF and the law banning abortion are two distinct issues. Any attempt to link the two matters does nothing at all to promote a pro-life message.

We feel that Dr Mallia's remarks are at best misleading, as the proposed entrenchment is intended to protect the unborn child from induced abortion only once the embryo has been implanted. A natural abortion is not the same as an induced one. As we understand it, embryos implanted after IVF are only aborted naturally.

It would have been more helpful for Dr Mallia to air his views together with some form of clarification regarding his concerns. His comments leave the reader wondering what his concerns actually are in the first place, leaving one to speculate as to why he is so much against making it harder for abortion to be legalised in Malta.

The law against abortion has existed for over a century and nobody has ever proposed to change this, so how is it that to Dr Mallia, this same law has now become a potential threat to IVF? The proposed entrenchment does not change the law, but it seeks to simply elevate the same criminal code into the Constitution of Malta. So in effect nothing actually changes except that it becomes much harder to change the law that bans abortion. We remain, as we are certain many others are also, very confused as to why this troubles Dr Mallia?

The same doctor was recently quoted in another local newspaper as being in favour of the morning-after pill, which he is well aware can also be abortive. Maverick pro-choice opinions towards such delicate matters of human life are of great concern to the pro-life movement. Science should not be the sole arbiter in matters that affect morals so profoundly. We trust that a measure of good sense is our safest guide towards protecting the unborn child at all stages of development and that our laws will always protect the innocent.

The choice of words used by the doctor, such as "good compromise", negate the importance of the issue at hand. The protection of human life can never be a compromise as though this was some battle of intellectual prowess. This attitude and the choice of words used have absolutely no place in the matter of human life. When there is any doubt scientifically and even morally, we must always act with the utmost caution.

Gift of Life trust our island's decision-makers in their very important role of discerning the two delicate issues. Thankfully, the moral fabric of our island and our politicians continues to prevail; we look forward to the proposed laws to protect human life from the earliest possible moment.