Ten reasons to protect life

The main criticism levelled so far against the Government following its initiative to entrench our anti-abortion law in our Constitution was that the proposal was driven by fundamentalism - defined as a strict adherence to traditional religious beliefs.

Some went as far as to refer to the proponents as "Taliban". The free debate that followed the proposal, which followed our suggestion that the life of the unborn be expressly protected by our Constitution, proves that there is no intolerance towards dissenters.

The minority who disagree with the proposal have loudly voiced their opinion through the media. The consenting majority has largely expressed its approval through means other than the media, like for example through the thousands of letters sent to Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg in support of the proposed amendment. Hence, the reason for this article to highlight ten good reasons to support the pro-life Constitutional amendment. Here they are:

1. The Maltese cherish life to the full. There is a consensus among us that the right to life of the unborn deserves to be expressly protected by our Constitution, like all other fundamental human rights.

2. The present criminal provisions on abortion found in our criminal code can be changed by a simple majority in Parliament, i.e. 50 per cent plus one vote would suffice to legalise abortion. In the event that the abortion prohibition is entrenched in our Constitution, this would ensure a high degree of protection to the life of the unborn since any attempt to legalise abortion would then require the support of a two-thirds majority in Parliament.

3. The argument is put forward that the vast majority is against abortion and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. This argument in itself does not offer adequate protection to the unborn. The right to protection against inhuman treatment and the right to privacy are no doubt popular, yet they are still protected by the Constitution in Articles 36 and 38 respectively. When it comes to fundamental human rights, majority approval on its own against abortion does not instil sufficient confidence.

4. Most European countries recognise the right to life in their Constitutions. This notwithstanding, abortion in these countries has been introduced by a simple parliamentary majority. The only exception is Ireland, which has a pro-life Constitutional clause, which has so far enabled it to withstand any attempt to subtly introduce abortion. We are protected from outside pressures through the protocol to the EU accession treaty. We need the pro-life clause to protect us from internal pressures.

5. The experience of other countries should convince us to act fast and to act now. In 1973, the US Courts, in Roe vs Wade, decided to start legalising abortions. Today efforts are being made to reverse the effects of this judgment. Similarly, in England there are growing calls for the legal limit on abortion to be reduced to 12 weeks, the worldwide trend is to reduce the number of abortions and therefore our efforts to stop abortion ever being legalised in Malta are not a retrograde step.

6. The proposal provides a vision to Maltese society based on values that are inherently right though not necessarily modern.

7. The proposed constitutional amendment will prove to one and all that the Maltese are proud of their fundamental values and want to safeguard them in the best way. In entrenching the abortion ban in our Constitution, Malta will be sending a statement loud and clear to other countries of its commitment to the right of life. Our country will be a beacon for the pro-life movement around the world.

8. What is best cherished deserves to be best protected. Gift of Life is also concentrating its efforts on assisting with the educational and support aspects of this issue. Gift of Life is aware that the Constitutional amendment on its own is not sufficient to fight the battle against abortion. It is certainly however an important part of it. To be against abortion but not in favour of the Constitutional amendment is illogical and inconsistent.

9. There are those who expressed the need to study the legal implications of the proposal. The Chamber of Advocates supports the entrenchment as it safeguards the unborn human being. The Chamber supports this issue on condition that a definition of abortion be stated so that life should be protected from the moment it starts and this protection should be clearly reflected and defined in the law. This notwithstanding, the fact that the proposed amendment will be subject to interpretation by our Courts does not make the amendment undesirable. All our laws are subject to interpretation by our Courts.

10. It has been argued that the proposed amendment is intended to bind future generations. According to this line of thought it would follow that practically the entire Constitution is intended to bind future generations - something that is beyond the scope of the Constitution and the proposed amendment.

The proposal that the life of the unborn be expressly protected by our Constitution is not intended to aid any political party gain mileage, nor is it intended to bind future generations. What is intended is solely a higher degree of protection to the life of the unborn, and it is to be considered only in this light.

This entrenchment will protect the silent voice of the unborn today and in the future. Our Constitution guarantees and safeguards the most basic values of a civilised society and that includes the right to life.

As Pope Benedict was quoted as saying (The Times, June 22): "Recognising the sacred nature of human life and its inviolability without any exceptions is not a small problem or something that can be considered part of the pluralism of opinions in modern society."

info@lifemalta.org