The abortion debate has carried on using the weakest style of argument possible. A level of reasoning that would have solved none of the many crises that men and women meet during a normal lifetime.

For example, only last week, an enlightened pro-abortionist spokesperson complained that the pro-life protest in Valletta was nowhere near the reported 20,000 strong. She further pointed out that the protesters were, after all, simply a mix of clergy, religious fanatics and women past childbearing age.

I asked myself if she had any moral basis for her pro-choice beliefs beyond her numbers game and her dismissal of anyone who thinks otherwise.

All major religions are subjugated to their cultural and historic influences. In fact, atheists have it easy in that, despite their surroundings, they share the same dogmatic belief that there is no God to own or obey. And, yet, you will find them on both ends of the abortion debate.

Why is that?

It is because, regardless of your religious or atheistic labelling, humankind has always and still recognises the need for a spiritualistic existence based on a value system which one needs to follow and see others follow – a realisation referred to in the past by Rousseau and Hobbes as the ‘social contract’ – a balance set between the will of the majority and the rights of the weaker minority.

Science can indicate all the stages of fetal development from conception to birth. Nevertheless, it cannot deny or confirm that that is a life of a humankind. The answer to that question will depend upon one’s sense of what is morally right.

To see the world through the eyes of another is considered a most positive thing. Yet, pro-choicers cannot see through the eyes of a six-month or eight-month fetus and some cannot even see the fetal body itself. It’s my body, my property. It’s just a bunch of cells which, in some cases, even threatens the mental health of the parents as well as their financial well-being.

I laugh when I see the movers of Bill 28 clearly struggling with the word ‘abortion’- Eddie Aquilina

How many of us can remember life in the womb? None of us can.

But, then, how many of us can remember the first few months of after-birth, the nappy change, the bottle or the first smile or laugh? None of us can. What is really different between life before delivery and life after delivery? Newborns still depend wholly upon those who care for them.

The whole abortion saga turns on one fact alone.

If you give no value to the fetal process of life, then why do you suddenly change to respecting the newborn child? If you terminate a pregnancy to alleviate a mental health issue, then what stops you from terminating the life of a day-old child for the same reason? Why is it sometimes called ‘termination’ and at other times ‘murder’? What difference does a day make?

I laugh when I see the movers of Bill 28 clearly struggling with the word ‘abortion’. The strategy is to fool us into believing that the present law does not protect the mother’s life so that they can quietly introduce abortion on demand simply for reasons of mental health.

Admittedly, an unplanned pregnancy can be a problem not only for the mother but also for the father. Pro-choicers never mention this aspect. It’s common occurrence that the father in such cases uses forceful persuasion upon the mother to abort causing her mental stress and anguish. Pro-choicers blame it on the fetus. Get rid of the fetus and you can go back to enjoying your own life’s pleasures.

If only life could be as perfect as they want us to believe.