When I started reading Isabel Stabile’s article ‘Abortion laws fit for purpose?’ (July 20) in reply to my article ‘How to save  the mother’s life’ (July 11) I thought she would give her views mostly on what I said Tony Levatino, another US obstetrician and gynaecologist like her, told the US Judiciary Committee a few years ago on abortion. That as an obstetrician in all the medical interventions he made to save mothers’ lives he did not have to deliberately kill one single unborn child. But it was not to be. Stabile dispensed with what Levatino said in a very few words. 

Not only, but she asserted that my Levatino quote was “a potentially dangerous clinical situation”.

Surely Stabile is aware that she was pointing her finger, really, not at me but at Levatino. She should have explained what she meant by “potentially dangerous clinical situation”, sent her critique to Levatino himself, inform us accordingly, and we wait to see what happens.

Her interview dealt mostly with the alleged rights of women to choose, to decide what to do with their own bodies, especially if they had a medical condition during pregnancy. In other words to have an abortion... to have the liberty to conveniently, and deliberately, dispose of their unborn children. 

‘Pro-choice’ is not about the choice between eating an orange or an apple, or taking a cruise, or a flight to Bermuda. It’s a choice between saving the life of an unborn child, who has rights, indeed even legal rights, to life, or procuring his death. No quibbling with words. No playing with semantics.

Paragraph nine of the Preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child of the United Nations of 1989 says: “Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

Why do practically all pro-choice people allege that pro-lifers do what they do from a religious perspective as Stabile seems to have done this time with her long exposition about morality, her morality? 

Pro-choice is a choice between saving the life of an unborn child or procuring his death- Tony Mifsud

The International Society for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health, with branches in the US and Germany, is committed to the initial phase of human development – prenatal and perinatal life. It is not a religious organisation. It is an academic institution. It considers the earliest stage of life as the first ecological position of the human being and the womb as its first ecological environment.

Pregnancy is perceived to be a period of active and continuous dialogue between the prenatal child, the mother and her psychosocial environment. From a holistic view, human life is recognised as an indivisible entity and continuum of all human functions, both physical and psychological in which no division between ‘body’ and ‘mind’ can be made. This comprehensive and holistic approach is also reflected in the interdisciplinary character of its membership.

Its aim in research and practice is the improvement of the quality of life of the human being. The prenatal stage of life represents a unique opportunity for primary prevention of psychological, emotional and physical disorders in later life. As an international organisation ISPPH works with its North American partner, the Association for Pre- and Perinatal Psychology and Health (APPPAH), and its Italian partner, Associazione Nazionale per l’Educazione Prenatale.

The Malta Unborn Child Platform has been taking action and writing on the rights, protection and development of the unborn child for decades. At MUCP we adopt a psychosocial perspective. 

We have seen children severely disabled for life because of their parents’ selfish and careless attitudes while their unborn children were in their mothers’ wombs. This by the misuse, and abuse, of alcohol, drugs and tobacco. Also by exposure, unknowingly, to toxic and chemical substances at their places of work.

Why has Stabile come out against Life Network when this organisation is giving  invaluable help to women who are contemplating abortion or who are suffering from the trauma of abortion?

It’s good to see the government, through Family and Children Minister Michael Falzon, also the minister responsible for social work, acknowledging and appraising the services given by Life Network and making a donation of €130,000 to facilitate its services to needy women. That’s how it should be. 

Stabile emphasised the need for laws on abortion for the benefit of non-Maltese residents. Isn’t Abortion Support Network (ASN) of UK, presumably aided by the organisation Stabile founded with others, already helping all those who wanted to go to the UK to have an abortion? ASN has provided them with financial assistance and all the contacts they needed. Why is Stabile still complaining in this regard?

Stabile writes about ‘abortion laws fit for purpose’. What purpose, if I may ask, if not for just one... convenience. For the women who have an abortion, and the abortionists, usually obstetricians, who make huge profits from it.

Stabile should ask Levatino about this. Earlier, one could have also tried Bernard Nathanson, another prominent US obstetrician. Only Nathanson is now dead after also turning from pro-choice to pro-life and after creating and narrating his famous educational film Silent Scream about the horrors of abortion.

Tony Mifsud is coordinator, Malta Unborn Child Platform.