Will the MPs who voted for the amendments on the IVF law rot in hell for allegedly introducing abortion by stealth?

Are those who voted against these amendments hard-hearted individuals who have no sense of compassion for patients who would so much love to have a child?

Fair questions begging for a clear answer.

During the divorce referendum debate, an important step forward was made by seven priests (I included) who penned a statement affirming that people and MPs have a duty and a right to vote according to their conscience, whatever their conscience mandated. This is a basic tenet of Catholic moral theology.

When politicians are faced by a law, parts of which they find objectionable, there are two possible routes to follow.

They can say that their objections are so fundamental that they will have nothing to do with it and vote against it. This seems to have been the position of the PN MPs who voted ‘no’.

I fully respect their decision. Differing positions are so common in such circumstances. I find it strange and eerie that some from the government’s side expressed objections in private but did not have the courage to state them in public.

The majority of PN MPs believed that since the general objective of the law – helping parents with certain conditions to have a healthy child – is a good one, then all efforts should be made to reduce the negative elements as much as possible. That achieved, they did vote ‘yes’. This is a reasonable position.

The PN MPs who voted ‘yes’ say they succeeded in introducing two important changes.

Now it is no longer the Embryo Protection Authority that can increase the list of genetic conditions. This has to be done through a legal notice which can be debated in parliament, thus increasing the level of political transparency and public accountability.

There is still, the same MPs say, a more important amendment which will substantially lessen the number of tests on embryos fertilised as part of the IVF process (technically called PGD test). In eight out of the nine conditions listed in the law, one does not need to test the embryo to check for any abnormalities. It is enough to test the eggs (oocytes) produced by the woman.

The amendment introduced legally obliges the authority to give prospective parents full information about that this test (technically called polar body biopsy) which is both risk-free and  as effective as embryo testing. The prospective parents then decide which test to carry out.

Isn’t it sensible to conclude, the PN MPs say, that in these eight instances, parents would prefer a risk-free test than test the embryo with includes an element of risk?

The ninth condition which can only be discovered by embryo testing is Huntington in males.

Now these prospective parents can choose between embryos to ascertain that their offspring will not suffer from the same serious genetic condition. Both the ‘defective’ embryos and the ‘healthy’ embryos not used for implantation will remain frozen.

MPs have a duty and a right to vote according to their conscience- Fr Joe Borg

I am neither in favour of choosing between embryos nor of freezing, and have written against embryo freezing. But freezing has been legal – in exceptional cases – since 2012 and became the norm in 2018.

As part of the IVF process, five eggs are fertilised and the ones which are not implanted in the woman are frozen.

So, a vote for the new law was not a vote for the introduction of freezing. And it definitively was not a vote for the introduction of abortion by stealth or otherwise, as several on social media mistakenly stated.

The majority of PN MPs believed in conscience that the amendments they introduced made a substantial difference.

They decided to vote for what would guarantee the best possible good in the circumstances, since the government had enough votes to pass the legislation as originally proposed.

In such debates one should keep in mind the essential difference between a church and a political party.

Political parties do politics which is the art of the possible, something more difficult to achieve in a pluralistic state like ours. One is obliged to do the best in the circumstances even if this means choosing the lesser of two evils.

The church, on the other hand, is prophetic. It constantly motivates and stimulates humanity to always strive for the highest good. The church should continue to be vociferous as such a critical and prophetic voice is essential in a pluralistic society.

It is reasonable to argue that in complex situations the ‘best in the circumstances’ (the political duty) does not always tally with ‘the highest good’ (the church’s mission).

The church and the pro-life lobby should now be very attentive not to fall into the same trap that the church in the US fell into. In its pro-life struggle the church got entangled with the Republican Party and Donald Trump, who are anti-abortion but not pro-life.

Our pro-life lobby is one to be commended. But it now needs a good strategy to continually push forward more of a pro-life policy instead of a mainly anti-abortion one.

It should continue to steer away from fundamentalist religious leaders and right-wing conservative politicians. Otherwise, it can endanger its noble pro-life mission by being seen as an għonnella lobby group or party.