The Maltese liberal élite has turned out in full force to oppose the Pro-Life Lobby's initiative to incorporate the anti-abortion laws in the Maltese Constitution. The arguments against incorporating the prohibition of abortion in the supreme legal document contain an absence of logic that disturbs me considering they have been promoted by some who claim to be members of our intelligentsia.

The following are some of these arguments:

There is no need to amend the Constitution because there is a general consensus against abortion.

This is myth number one: I thought that our Constitution should contain provisions on which there is consensus not division. Our supreme law contains provisions relating to neutrality, foreign interference, the electoral system and the colour of our national flag. Why not include the inalienable rights of the unborn child?

Myth number two: Why not incorporate the crime of wilful homicide in the Constitution as well or all the provisions of the Criminal Code?

The crime of wilful homicide is prohibited by article 33 of the Constitution that guarantees that no person be intentionally deprived of his life. Besides, while all countries around the globe prohibit wilful homicides, most allow abortion. The more important crimes are all in conflict with the fundamental rights of the individual.

Myth number three: The Constitution already guarantees the rights of the unborn child.

I beg to differ. Most European countries that have legalised abortion did so in spite of the fact that they have an identical provision to article 33 of our Constitution in their supreme law. Indeed article 33 is reproduced verbatim from article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Commission of Human Rights in 1992 decided that abortion of a 14-week foetus was not in violation of article 2 of the convention: (R.H. vs Norway- 19.5.1992 Appl. No 17004/90).

A Maltese national may perform abortion outside Malta with impunity.

I fail to understand why such a fact should obstruct the path to entrenchment of our anti-abortion law in the Constitution. All criminal laws are basically territorial in their application. We cannot impinge on the criminal jurisdictions of other countries. How this fact is put forward as an argument against entrenchment still baffles me.

Entrenchment will not change anything.

Laws do not eliminate crime. Nor do they necessarily educate people. They, however, form the backbone of our values and traditions. Abortion is not always an easy crime to detect. I for one do not think it is a crime commonly committed in Malta; probably for the simple reason this procedure is available in almost all European countries, near and far.

This does not change one single iota from the correctness of our legal position in prohibiting the intentional causing of miscarriage of a woman with child.

The constitutional amendments will not allow any future government to introduce an abortion law, or exceptions to the current legal provisions, by a simple majority to pamper a slight majority in the polls in favour of the introduction of such a law. It would require a two-thirds majority.

Myth number four: It is dangerous to insert a definition of the beginning of human life in the Constitution.

The proposed amendment does nothing of the sort. It merely transposes the current Criminal Code provisions in our Constitution. It will be up to the courts to decide when a pregnancy starts.

But philosophical and scientific disputes on such an issue should not mislead us into leaving the situation as it is today and expose the entire nine-month pregnancy period to the whims of any future government or of a fickle public opinion.

A scientific survey conducted by Xarabank confirmed previous polls to the effect that a majority of much more than two-thirds of the public not only oppose abortion but favour the proposed constitutional amendment; 88 per cent of those polled by Xarabank and 124 organisations favour the entrenchment. In the light of such findings I ask:

Who is out of tune with public opinion, the pro-life lobby, which has been unjustly branded as fundamentalist, or the liberal élite?

Dr Borg is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Justice and Home Affairs.