Let’s avoid partisan blindness

If the issue were not so serious, I would not bother with reacting to Eddy Privitera’s letter (December 12).

In his innumerable contributions to the press, he has proved to be incurably colour-blind.

However, a matter as serious as abortion cannot go unchallenged.

Firstly, I have complete faith in doctors who still uphold the Hippocratic oath, as most did in the past.

If any woman of my immediate family were faced with a difficult pregnancy, with hand on heart, I would trust the doctor to do his/her utmost to save the life of both mother and child.

Every pregnancy is fraught with fear of the unknown and anyone who has faced the birth of a child in the immediate and extended family knows that this is always an issue of high drama.

Malta does not have a problem with the competence and professional integrity of our doctors when caring for pregnant women.

They do their best to save life and the facts speak for themselves. We do not need any amendment.

Protesters at a pro-choice demonstration.

If the government is so convinced about its good intentions, why does it avoid meeting civil society?

I invite Privitera to meet up with exponents of Life Network and see for himself that the government’s amendment is flawed and creates not just a loophole, not even a garage door but, as Miriam Sciberras stated, a runway for the introduction of abortion.

It is a shame that such a matter is being dragged into the partisan arena where dispassionate logic gets torn to shreds.

It is scandalous that one distorts the truth about such a grave matter and resorts to exploiting the allegiance of so many people who place party loyalty above any other consideration.

Klaus Vella Bardon – Balzan

Where’s the rationale?

Eddy Privitera invites those who give full value to the life of an unborn child to answer this ‘simple question’: “What if the pregnant woman who finds herself in serious danger happens to be your wife, daughter, sister, mother or even a very close dear relative or friend? Would they still object?” (December 12).

May I ask him another ‘simple question’. “What if the unborn child who finds himself/herself in serious danger happens to be your own son or daughter?”

Why does he exclude from his list of dear and precious persons one’s own yet unborn son or daughter? Is the reason of this discrimination moral, rational, human or just political, as the rest of his prolific contributions to this esteemed newspaper?

Paul Chetcuti SJ – Birkirkara