Since MP Marlene Farrugia presented a bill in parliament proposing the decriminalisation of abortion and since the European Parliament adopted a resolution that labels abortion as a human right, many of us got involved and joined the ongoing debate.
Lately, Labour MEP Alfred Sant called for an “open and tolerant” debate that should respect the cultural and behavioural norms, without letting them override inalienable rights.
Sant’s suggestion for an open and tolerant debate at a time when such an issue is being hotly debated is appropriate. But such a delicate and important topic, which has also been debated in many other European countries, requires thought, planning and the involvement of all stakeholders, including the Church.
In our constitution, which endorses basic principles and laws that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantees certain rights of the citizens, it is stated that the religion of Malta is the Roman, Catholic, Apostolic Religion and that the Church authorities have the duty and the right to teach which principles are right and which are wrong (Article 2).
I am referring to the constitution to simply show how religion is part and parcel of our make-up as Maltese citizens. So, when Sant insists that in the debate on abortion one should respect the cultural and behavioural norms, without any reference to our Christian values, he has excluded a very important trait from our Maltese heritage.
If the debate is to be open and tolerant, as Sant rightly suggests, no aspect of our humanity should be excluded and no stakeholder should be left out. To bar the Church from participating simply because her views are not in line with mine does not make a debate open and tolerant.
Brendon Sweetman, professor of Philosophy at Rockhurst University in the US, when discussing ‘Secularism and Religion in Modern Democracies’, states: “In a free society, any type of restriction or suppression of a view before a public debate is held violates the basic principles of democracy and freedom.”
We need to find some common ground where both positions are debated- Ray Azzopardi
In the encyclical Gaudium et Spes, it is stated that “(the) split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age”. That is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, when addressing politicians, diplomats, academics and business leaders in Westminster in 2010, suggested “that the world of reason and the world of faith – the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief – need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilisation”.
Let there be a debate but let us be open and look at the whole person. Discussing specific issues and individual interests without referring to the good of society at large would be narrow-minded and would result in grave consequences on the rest of society at large.
Pope Francis, in his book Let Us Dream – The Path to a Better Future, when arguing about the common good, states: “Looking at the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.”
Before concluding that abortion is a ‘human right’ it is good to heed to the Catholic social teaching that emphatically states: “The ultimate source of human rights is not found in the mere will of human beings, in the reality of the state, in public power, but in man himself and in God his creator.”
To be open in a debate, one must be ready to listen and give up one’s prejudices and misunderstandings. Pope Francis, in the aforementioned book, makes constant reference to the need of discernment in debates. The pontiff affirms that “there is a principle worth remembering in these times: ideas are debated but reality is discerned”.
No one expects to come out of such a debate with a clear-cut conclusion. But, if conducted openly and tolerantly, as Sant advocates, there is bound to be a clearer perception of reality and the values one needs to adhere to.
I am sure that the ‘pro-life’ camp would want pregnant women to be supported and consider their problems as real and that need to be addressed. On the other hand, the ‘pro-choice’ camp wouldn’t want to deliberately murder a ‘developing child’ within a mother’s womb.
The debate cannot be considered open, though, if there is only reference to ‘women’s rights’, ‘sexual rights’, ‘maternal health and reproductive rights’ without any reference to the rights of the unborn child.
We need to find some common ground where both positions are debated. Only then can the debate be ‘open and tolerant’. The common good should be the basis of such an important debate.
Ray Azzopardi, retired headmaster