When he was running for the Democrats’ presidential nomination, Pete Buttigieg, now US secretary for transport, was asked whether he supported a total ban on pregnancy termination.
His answer ran along these lines: when a woman or a couple are struggling with making such a difficult choice, they will examine their conscience, consult friends and family, some will seek guidance from a spiritual or other counsellor. Is it really for the government to get in the middle of such a difficult personal decision?
In Malta, the debate on whether the termination of pregnancy and assisted dying should be made legal is gaining traction. Both sides present themselves as being on the side of righteousness. Each attempt to occupy the moral high ground by calling themselves pro-life or pro-choice rather than being against anything. But, as Buttigieg’s reply shows, the nature of the current political debate is fundamentally mistaken.
Both sides of this debate believe themselves to be morally right. Their position is often deeply and viscerally held. It is part of a belief system and, therefore, not, and never will be, influenced by so-called ‘reason’ and logic. Because this is not that sort of discussion. It’s a discussion of ethical perspectives and moral beliefs, things that differ from person to person and for which there is no universal ‘truth’.
There was a time, years or decades ago, when the belief system predominant among the Maltese population was clearly and almost universally against pregnancy termination and assisted dying. The legal system reflected that widespread social perspective.
Those days are long gone. Social mores have changed and a significant proportion of the population now holds different views. Hence the increasingly rancorous debate.
The question for the government in a free democracy is not to make judgements as to whose beliefs are right or wrong, thereby excluding the views of those who have a different perspective. Nor is it the role of ministers (or shadow ministers, for that matter) to impose their own personal beliefs on the whole of society.
Keeping pregnancy termination and assisted dying illegal represents the imposition of one group’s views over the others- Joe Zammit Lucia
Rather, the question for the government is this: given the plurality of views within the society it is governing, what is the best legal framework within which to find an accommodation that is as satisfactory as it can be for as many of its citizens as possible?
When framed in this way, one thing becomes clear. Keeping pregnancy termination and assisted dying illegal represents the imposition of one group’s views over the others.
Legalising, on the other hand, does nothing to prevent those who are against these activities from following their conscience and not participating if they feel that such practices go against their ethical views. Provided that, for instance, there are carve-outs that protect those healthcare workers who have moral objections from being forced to participate. Everyone becomes free to behave according to their own moral perspective.
In short, making termination legal forces nobody to have a termination. Keeping it illegal, on the other hand, limits the freedom of those who see it as acceptable.
Readers will notice that I have not expressed my own views on the rights or wrongs of pregnancy termination or assisted dying. That is because my own personal views are irrelevant. They will not persuade those who hold the opposite view. And neither should the government care a damn about what I think.
I also realise that the perspectives put forward in this article will generate disagreement and maybe even outrage by some. Various counterarguments will be deployed. We all know what they will be, so no point rehashing them here.
That is all to be welcomed and people should be encouraged to express their personal opinions, provided everyone accepts that that is what we are all doing, expressing personal opinions with which others have every right to disagree.
As American author Robert A. Heinlein put it: “The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
It is time to accept that many different perspectives exist in today’s society.
In these particular areas of public policy, the differences are utterly unresolvable, no matter how much each side screams and shouts. Which is why the government should avoid becoming embroiled in such interminable acrimonious debate and focus on what it is there to do: govern, as best possible, for the whole population.
Joe Zammit Lucia is founder of RADIX network of public policy think tanks.