Trivialising life
I refer to two letters in Times of Malta (December 19) expounding opposite views about abortion.
One letter shows clearly that there is no “fundamental human right” to abortion, as stated in the other letter from a member of Doctors for Choice who justifies abortion for “risks” – which, too often, are trivial excuses.
Abortion is certainly not healthcare or a justified medical service because it is an interference aimed to kill, not an intervention to save life. It is the deliberate destruction of innocent and helpless human beings.
As practised in many countries, most abortions are wanton assaults on normal women’s bodies to destroy human life in utero without a genuine medical indication and it has become a lucrative business preying on young women’s emotions.
The pro-choice correspondent who hopes that “no woman must die before abortion is legalised” should justify his statement by providing statistical evidence of deaths that have occurred in Malta because of Article 241(2) of the relevant Maltese law, which aims to protect life, and is based on solid ethical values, which values have been trivialised for utilitarian purposes in countries that allow abortion at will.
Calling abortion “standard international practice” does not make it ethical or a human right; it remains an illicit medical or surgical interference and not a justified intervention to cure.
It must be emphasised that the anti-abortion argument is not just a religious ruling but is based on universal justice, human integrity and basic medical values. The Hippocratic Oath good doctors embrace predated Christianity.
John Pace – Victoria
Christopher Barbara wrote: “If ‘life begins at conception’, as some would have us believe” (January 1). This seems to imply that, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, he, and, presumably, his Doctors for Choice colleagues, do not believe it.
Carmel Sciberras – Naxxar
From the online comments board
Education minister slams ‘extreme teachers’ strike
First and foremost, it’s not so wise to insult the majority of the educators by saying they are “not dedicated” just because they are not willing to risk their own health and others’.
Secondly, what protocols is the minister referring to? Do you think checking the temperature upon entering and keeping children in their own bubble is enough? Do you honestly think that children are abiding by these rules from start till end of the school day? Get real!
The minister should blame herself for not having a plan B and also blame the prime minister who claimed that everything will be back to normal very soon since the vaccine arrived. That is why many people flocked out during the festive season. Now look at the figures of COVID cases.
Shame, shame, shame.
Damian Lee
I believe schools should reopen and readmit students to receive tuition in class. It is still very valid to ask, however, why Church and independent schools were well prepared to make the transition to online learning while state schools trail behind in this respect. This at a time when financial resources on education seem to be unlimited. Somebody needs to be held accountable here as to why state schools got to this.
This government has been living in denial about the pandemic since May. Robert Abela is still optimistic that, within three months ,the country would leap ahead of all the others on the track to recovery. False pretensions lead to wrong decisions and education is a typical example of this.
A. Mifsud
A new broom always tries to sweep clean. And thinks that it is better than the old broom. Alas, such pretensions are often soon dispelled.
John Borg
I wonder why she visited the Gozo schools. She is not the minister for Gozo. Why not schools in Malta? The numbers are larger and she could have assessed the situation better.
Josette Buttigieg
“Justyne Caruana called for good sense to prevail.” Funny. She should redirect the same sentiment towards her party leader.
Norbert Gauci
Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.