Over the last few weeks, I have been accused of being old-fashioned, of having no feelings and of being a fundamentalist.

I felt hurt, numb and helpless. I had voted in favour of life and against destroying it. I had voted against the legal amendments to the IVF law because, by allowing for the genetic testing of the embryo, embryos will be frozen for eternity if the test fails.

I acted out of conviction. I chose to speak out through my vote in parliament. I braved the personal risks and consequences that I might face. I’m in favour of life by deed rather than only through words.

I believe it’s dangerous to choose one life over another because of particular characteristics. I have no doubt at all that we need to continue working on reducing the risks of disease. But we can’t risk lives to do so.

It is not justified to destroy human life because it is a disabled human life. But the new law on IVF gives this possibility a legal standing. The law is contradictory: the amendments to the Embryo Protection Act are about killing of the embryo.

My two colleagues and I, together with another MP who was absent, opposed the bill because our priority is to protect life. We have been criticised not only by radicals who are in favour of abortion and the killing of human life but also by those who don’t understand the law.

Some of the latter are the victims of hateful speeches about what the new law implies. Some people, well aware of the implications, showed themselves to be cowards by staying silent.

The pragmatics were critical because, whatever I did with my vote, the law would still pass as the government is in the majority. Their suggestion was that had I voted in favour, I would have saved myself from being despised. By the same reasoning, members of the opposition should stay at home because all the laws would still pass.

Another critic asked me: “Do you want to remain in the opposition?” Of course not. But I can’t be an accomplice to injustice or to the killing of human life.

Perhaps for the pragmatics, moral values have gone down the drain. They prefer to abandon a helpless life rather than address the necessity of saving it.

Finally, the pragmatics reminded me that the opposition had put forward its amendments to improve this law. This is true but the most important one did not go through, meaning that the testing of embryos will go ahead. The parts we were opposed to in this law have been retained.

For the pragmatics, moral values have gone down the drain- Ivan Bartolo

A government “that listens” will continue to ignore the cry of helpless lives, the embryos. How could I have voted in favour?

In an interview, Health Minister Chris Fearne noted that testing on babies in the womb is still against the law. But he preferred not to commit himself on whether he would change the law. If this happened, it would be called abortion.

Let me tell the intellectual pragmatic he has prepared a slippery slope. German pastor Martin Niemoller, who sympathised with the Nazis when they fought their adversaries, the communists, felt himself slipping down that slope and prayed for redemption. From complicity, he turned himself into a great critic of the Nazis, later being captured and put in a concentration camp.

“First they came for the socialists and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak ou because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.”

The moral of the story is: if we come to our senses, if we look at our moral values, we can be courageous enough to stop ourselves from taking the slippery slope.

As I am still in favour of life from its beginning, I am convinced I did the right thing by voting the way I did. I’m ready to face the consequences and to stand up and fight.

Ivan Bartolo is PN spokesperson on social housing and the fight against poverty.