unbornmalta

TONY MIFSUD

From the Times of Malta of the 10th Januray 2024

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/climate-action-unborn.1077078

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) entered into force in 1994. The first Conference of the Parties (COP) was held in Berlin, Germany in 1995. 

On December 13, 2023, in Dubai, COP28 closed with an agreement that signals the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era. In a demonstration of global solidarity, negotiators from nearly 200 parties came together to increase climate action before the end of the decade – with the overarching aim to keep the global temperature limit of 1.5°C within reach.

In January 2005, the Malta Unborn Child Platform – MUCP, which started in 1999, began speaking and writing on climate change in the womb and how this affects the lives of about 200 million unborn children every year globally, including about 4,000 unborn children in Malta.

Between 2003 and 2012, the MUCP organised 10 national conferences on the dignity, rights, protection and development of the unborn child. In 2007, it published a charter with the same themes. 

Between 2020 and 2022, the MUCP held 19 video conferences online in a broad discussion with the Maltese public on the well-being of unborn children. 

From 2005 to the present day, the MUCP published articles in the press, especially Times of Malta, on climate change and the unborn child, climate change in the womb, climate change initiatives and the unborn, correct climate for the unborn, green pregnancies, pre-polluted babies, embryo freezing, healthy lifestyles for childless couples, sustainable development and the unborn child, the environment and the unborn, environmental justice and womb ecology in world ecology.

Going through Google’s list of articles and studies on climate change and unborn children on the internet, ‘Climate change in the womb’ by MUCP, published in Times of Malta on July 16, 2009, appears to be one of the first articles on the subject. 

‘Climate change and the unborn child’, published again in Times of Malta on December 9, 2009, is the next oldest MUCP article on the Google list.

There are now many other articles on the same subject, the big majority of which were published from 2020.

‘Climate Change and the health of pregnant women’, published in May 2016 by the American Public Health Association, appears to be the next oldest article on the subject on the Google list.

The MUCP published articles on climate change and unborn children, especially in Times of Malta also in 2010, 2014, 2015, 2016 and in 2017, when it presented a proposal to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the two party whips to hold a national conference on womb ecology with the three political parties which all declared to be pro-life at that time.

The MUCP continued to encourage Malta’s highest institutions to widen the meaning of the concept of the environment to also include the first environment to man, the mother’s womb. The petri dish – in connection with in vitro fertilisation – should also be included. The MUCP also suggested that Malta’s political parties should start including womb ecology in their electoral manifestos to eventually have a national policy on womb ecology.

Political parties should include womb ecology in their electoral manifestos– Tony Mifsud

For this purpose, the MUCP established very useful contacts with the International Society for Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine in Germany and with the Association for Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health in the US. It had already planned to bring to Malta Canadian Thomas Verny, a psychiatrist and family therapist, who is the founder of the two international organisations. Verny was the first to coin the words womb ecology in world ecology. In 1981, he published the book The Secret Life of the Unborn Child.

The titles of the many other articles on climate change and unborn children on the Google list show that, during the last couple of years, especially since 2020, the international community started paying much more attention to the harmful effects of climate change also on unborn children. Probably, this happened because of the great advances made in the study of the harmful effects of climate change on earth.

Global climate action for unborn children has arrived. In the US, early human life had been deliberately killed in the womb by abortion, surgically or medically, for the last 50 years. In 2022, in a historic and far-reaching decision, the US Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion no longer exists. 

This did not mean that the killings of unborn children in the US stopped. But the political and societal climate for abortion has started changing. In fact, since then, 21 states banned abortion or restricted the procedure earlier in pregnancy.

In Malta, though, the attention on the effects of climate change on unborn children seems to be far away.

To fight climate change, Malta adopted a National Renewable Energy Action Plan, whereby renewable energy options are currently focused on onshore and offshore wind energy, solar photovoltaic and solar thermal energy as well as energy from waste.

However, while Malta has always been known to be in favour of human life from conception, it seemed to have started reversing its stance.

Last year, political leaders, not the Maltese people, surreptitiously almost introduced legislation in favour of abortion. This was reversed after massive street protests. 

The MUCP still aims to see Malta become a ‘Centre for Womb Ecology’ in the Mediterranean. In 2010, it attempted to begin this journey with the University of Malta but the climate there, at that time, appeared not to be receptive to this possibility. There are now signs that this venture is becoming possible and probable.

In a demonstration of global solidarity, the international community and Malta should widen ‘climate action’ to protect unborn children. 

Diskors minn Dr  Charles Pace Ph.D.   Lettur, Universita ta’ Malta u  Membru, tal-Core Group, Malta Unborn Child Platform fiċ-Ċelebrazzjoni ta’ Jum il-Ħajja li saret il-Ħadd 4 ta’ Frar 2024 fil-Konkattidral ta’ San Ġwann.

——————————————————————————————————————————-

Tafu, dal-aħħar erba’ snin,  liema kienet il-kawża tal-iktar imwiet fid-dinja?

Kienet l-abort.

Ftit ilu, wieħed editur qalli li spiss jgħidulu, li min hu kontra l-abort ma għandux kompassjoni.

Ngħiduha kif inhi, kif tista’ ma tħennx għall-omm bit-tfal li tħoss li la l-finanzi u lanqas saħħitha ma jifilħu aktar piż? Kif ma tħossx għat-tfajla li tibża’ li tqala tħarbtilha  l-istudji u l-karriera? X’itgħid għat-tfajla li taqqalha raġel li jaħqarha? Jew il-mara li taf li iktar sa tgħaddiha lixxa mill-ilsna tal-oħrajn, jekk tagħmel abort baxx baxx, milli jekk tagħti t-tarbija għall-adozzjoni.

Il-kompassjoni hi meta tħoss għal dak jew dik li tkun. Il-kompassjoni hi qariba tal-empatija: meta int tħoss fik innifsek x’iħoss xiħadd ieħor. L empatija hi spiss dik li ġġegħelna nħennu u ngħinu lil min hu muġugħ jew magħfus, irrabjat jew frustrat.   

Imma kif tista’ ma jkollokx kompassjoni wkoll lejn it-tarbija li ġejja? Meta xiħadd imut żgħir, nitħassruh mhux biss jekk kien muġugħ, imma wkoll għas-snin ta’ ħajja li tilef, jew li tilfet. U jekk din il- mewt ikun ġabha ħaddieħor, inqisu li, dan il-ħaddieħor, dawn is-snin ta’ ħajja, ikun seraqhomlha.  U l-abort dan li jġib lit-tarbija: jisirqilha s-snin ta’ ħajja li kienu lesti għaliha.

Għaliex dawk ta’ favur l-abort spiss ifaħħru l-kompassjoni lejn l-omm u ma jridux jisimgħu b’kompassjoni għat-tarbija? Għaliex jgħidu li favur id-drittijiet tal-bendmin, imma ma jridux jisimgħu bit-dritt tal-bnedmin qabel ma jitwieldu? Għaliex jaċċettaw li hu reat meta tagħmel att li hemm iċ-ċans li joqtol lil xiħadd, imma jċaħħdu lil min għad ma twelidx minn dil-protezzjoni? Kif l-ewwel jippridkaw l-inklużjoni, u mbagħad jeskludu lil min hu l-iktar dgħajjef? Għaliex jitkażaw b’min jiċħad li l-klima qed tinbidel, u mbagħad jiċħdu li fit-tqala hemm individwu uman, qed jiżviluppa quddiemhom?

Il-kompassjoni tfisser ħniena lejn il-bżonnijiet ta’ kulħadd, bla esklużjoni. U m’hijiex kompassjoni dik li ċċedi għal li tħoss issa u tgħammad għajnejk għall-uġiegħ li se ġġib għada, jew tinjora x’se tisraq mingħand ħaddieħor. Il-kuxjenza ma għandhiex tħallik taqa’ fid-diskriminazzjoni, jew toħroġ b’argumenti li jinqalbu rashom ’l isfel meta ssib l-iebes. Il-kuxjenza, kemm jekk inti Nisrani kemm jekk m’intix, ma għandhiex tħallik l-ewwel tiftaħar li inti r-realta’ tiffaċċjaha, biex imbagħad, tara li xiħadd se jinħaqar, u tħares in-naħa l-oħra.

Mela kif nipprattikkaw kompassjoni bilanċjata, bla diskriminazzjoni u sinċiera? L-ewwel, b’ebda mod ma nabbandunaw il-liġi li tħares il-ħajja. Imma min jinforza l-liġi għandu jifhem id-diffikultajiet, u jagħraf il-każi fejn għandu jressaq iktar lejn ir-riabilitazzjoni milli lejn il-piena. Irridu ngħallmu u naħdmu biex niffrankaw minn qabel it-tqaliet li mhux żmienhom. U l-ommijiet u l-familji iffaċċjati minn tqala diffiċli, irridu nagħmlu dmirna magħhom. Mhux sew li l-mara titgħabba bil-piż u r-raġel  le, u s-soċjetà le. Mhux sew li s-soċjeta’ l-ewwel twebbel li s-sess hu pjaċir ħafif bi ftit responsabbiltà, u mbagħad, lill-omm li tinqabad, tħalliha għal riħha, tistigmattizzaha jew toffrilha l-abort, rimedju bla kompassjoni.

B’xorti tajba ġa għandna min qed jgħin b’servizzi li jgħannqu l-omm, u jgħannqu t-tarbija. Dawn nirringrazzjawhom mill-qalb, bħalma nirringrazzjaw lil kull min jaħdem f’dan il-qasam. Imma kulħadd għandu d-dmir li jgħin u jsaħħaħ kull servizzi u protezzjoni favur l-omm u t-tarbija, kemm min hu Nisrani, kemm min mhuwiex. Għax il-kompassjoni, bilanċjata, bla diskriminazzjoni u ġenwina, hi marka ta’ ċiviltà umana, ċiviltà li lkoll huwa dmirna li nħarsuha u nsaħħuha.

Prof. George G. Buttigieg, Dr Teresa Galea Testa, Dr Josie Muscat, Jean Pierre Fava

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/inciting-murder-unborn

The Times of Malta 6th October 2023

It is shocking, to say the least, to see a medical professional blatantly admitting to advising people to break the law, and to publicly advise them how, when and where to do it, and have this backed by the liberal media that willingly give them exposure.

The absolute majority of the people of Malta are pro-life. Both political parties acknowledge this and know that any proposal to legalise abortion will create a backlash at the polls.

Generally, when their political survival is on the line, politicians prefer not to challenge public opinion. The recent campaign to introduce an abortion clause, which was in the end rejected to become a lifesaving clause, testifies to the current status quo.

In spite of the pressure, blackmail, savage media campaign and arm-twisting, the laws protecting life from conception in Malta have remained intact. Nothing has changed. The criminal code is clear. In spite of this, we see people acting publicly and advertising on social media in blatant disregard of the law.

Abortion, the intentional killing of the child in the womb, is a crime in Malta. Why doesn’t the State take a proactive stance in defending our unborn? Why do those who disregard our pro-life laws go on unreprimanded? It seems that what is sauce for the goose is not also sauce for the gander when it comes to abortion.

“It is the foremost duty of the forces of law and order to defend the State from the actions of citizens who advise, assist and guide other citizens how to break the law. And this can only be done if those who encourage others to break the law be arraigned for their criminal behaviour” [US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr].

The bane of local politics, and public affairs in general, is that the so-called ‘independent’ media has become crushingly strong and dominates almost all our institutions. It has conditioned psychologically these institutions to the extent that almost all their decisions are lop-sided towards its views and agenda.

This psychological conditioning is most evident in institutions such as the police and the law courts. While the police are always too ready to investigate and arraign critics of the media’s agenda on any trifle, they always turn the Nelson’s blind eye on the media’s and the liberals’ defiance of our laws.

One would do well to ask the question: Do we really have the rule of law here? Or do we have only the rule of the liberal law?

Do the police investigate people who are encouraging, aiding and abetting abortion? Should we resign ourselves to wait ad infinitum to see the vulnerable protected? Why do the police consider liberal journalists and pro-abortion activists immune from prosecution? Shouldn’t the voiceless child in the womb also be free to choose life? Are they the Privilegium Fori members of our times?

Nobody has the right to defy the law of the land.

Yet, we find doctors who write: “So let me be perfectly clear what motivates me to assist before, during and after abortion; I want what’s best for those who are pregnant and only they can decide what that is. I think, I feel, I decide.”

No, dear doctors, nobody has the right to terminate another human being’s life. At least, that’s what the law says in our country. Consider the same dangerous way of reasoning applied to other ‘unwanted lives’ like already born toddlers and children caught in separation cases.

Facing a situation where maternal mortality is negligible as in Malta, the pro-abortion lobby seeks to move the goalposts by making us doubt the parameters of statistics recording, even though medicine-wise we are not exactly Bonga Bonga Island.

It is shocking, to say the least, to see a medical professional blatantly admitting to advising people to break the law, and to publicly advise them how, when and where to do it, and have this backed by the liberal media that willingly give them exposure.

The absolute majority of the people of Malta are pro-life. Both political parties acknowledge this and know that any proposal to legalise abortion will create a backlash at the polls.

Generally, when their political survival is on the line, politicians prefer not to challenge public opinion. The recent campaign to introduce an abortion clause, which was in the end rejected to become a lifesaving clause, testifies to the current status quo.

In spite of the pressure, blackmail, savage media campaign and arm-twisting, the laws protecting life from conception in Malta have remained intact. Nothing has changed. The criminal code is clear. In spite of this, we see people acting publicly and advertising on social media in blatant disregard of the law.

Abortion, the intentional killing of the child in the womb, is a crime in Malta. Why doesn’t the State take a proactive stance in defending our unborn? Why do those who disregard our pro-life laws go on unreprimanded? It seems that what is sauce for the goose is not also sauce for the gander when it comes to abortion.

“It is the foremost duty of the forces of law and order to defend the State from the actions of citizens who advise, assist and guide other citizens how to break the law. And this can only be done if those who encourage others to break the law be arraigned for their criminal behaviour” [US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr].

The bane of local politics, and public affairs in general, is that the so-called ‘independent’ media has become crushingly strong and dominates almost all our institutions. It has conditioned psychologically these institutions to the extent that almost all their decisions are lop-sided towards its views and agenda.

This psychological conditioning is most evident in institutions such as the police and the law courts. While the police are always too ready to investigate and arraign critics of the media’s agenda on any trifle, they always turn the Nelson’s blind eye on the media’s and the liberals’ defiance of our laws.

One would do well to ask the question: Do we really have the rule of law here? Or do we have only the rule of the liberal law?

Do the police investigate people who are encouraging, aiding and abetting abortion? Should we resign ourselves to wait ad infinitum to see the vulnerable protected? Why do the police consider liberal journalists and pro-abortion activists immune from prosecution? Shouldn’t the voiceless child in the womb also be free to choose life? Are they the Privilegium Fori members of our times?

Nobody has the right to defy the law of the land.

Yet, we find doctors who write: “So let me be perfectly clear what motivates me to assist before, during and after abortion; I want what’s best for those who are pregnant and only they can decide what that is. I think, I feel, I decide.”

No, dear doctors, nobody has the right to terminate another human being’s life. At least, that’s what the law says in our country. Consider the same dangerous way of reasoning applied to other ‘unwanted lives’ like already born toddlers and children caught in separation cases.

Facing a situation where maternal mortality is negligible as in Malta, the pro-abortion lobby seeks to move the goalposts by making us doubt the parameters of statistics recording, even though medicine-wise we are not exactly Bonga Bonga Island.

Now twisting and turning arguments to new targets, our families and friends and relatives – people do not die from maternity-related problems in Malta. Period. Maltese obstetricians have always done what was necessary when a pregnant woman’s life is in true jeo­pardy. Even in situations where a mother’s life is threatened by a pregnancy, it is a heart-breaking decision to proceed to termination of the pregnancy and all efforts are done to save the child when this is possible.

Pro-abortion advisors speak of a selective kind of kindness and compassion to daughters and granddaughters. Commendable. A love and compassion that excludes the unborn child completely unless the child is a wanted child. So much for fighting for women’s rights, when the most aborted child is the female child in the womb.

Another delusion frequently touted is the need to eliminate the unborn child to save the mother. In a 2023 publication by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, it is categorically stated that 0.2 per cent of terminations are done to save maternal life endangered by pregnancy. Only 0.2 per cent. This is corroborated by the statistics from Florida, one of the most rigorous in maintaining and publishing abortion statistics, (82,581 abortions reported in Florida in 2022). So, in 99.8 per cent of pregnancies, the baby is aborted for other reasons and, this, classified as healthcare. Perhaps convenience care would be more accurate.

Misleading the young and the public about the safety of abortion pills, downplaying the loss of a human life during an abortion and justifying abortion, even surgical abortions that involve the tearing apart of a foetus limb by limb, is an atrocity we cannot accept.

The pro-abortion campaign now reaches new lows as it uses love to justify death. Respecting, accepting and loving someone does not mean that you necessarily endorse what they have done or do.

The great majority of the Maltese psyche rebuts as an abomination the wilful killing of the unborn child. Killing a defenceless unborn child is a direct affront both to natural law and, above all, to the Creator. Yes, though we are sinners, some of us still believe in the laws of God and we make no apologies for shouting it with pride.

Prof. George Buttigieg has practised obstetrics and gynaecology since 1980 in various countries. He currently teaches at the University of Malta, the Rome University of Tor Vergata and Plovdiv Medical University. He is also sub-specialised in Medico-Legal Studies.

Dr Teresa Galea Testa is a gynaecologist and obstetrician.

Dr Josie Muscat is a medical doctor with special interest in obstetrics, gynaecology and infertility since 1971.

Jean Pierre Fava is a health scientist and environmental scientist.

From the Times (of Malta) 12th August 2023

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/obstetricians-abortion.1048804

An obstetrician is a medical doctor who specialises in pregnancy, childbirth and a woman’s reproductive system.

In 2011, a group of researchers conducted a study about abortion provision  among practising obstetricians and gynaecologists in the US.

They published their findings in The Obstetrics & Gynaecology Journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.  

They said “… they conducted a national probability sample mail survey of 1,800 practising obstetrician–gynaecologists. The key variables in the study included whether respondents ever encountered patients seeking abortion in their practice and whether they provided abortion services”.

The result was: “Among practising obstetrician–gynaecologists 97% encountered patients seeking abortions while 14% performed them”. The proportion of US obstetrician–gynaecologists who provided abortion was lower than estimated in previous research. Access to abortion had remained limited by the willingness of physicians to provide abortion services, particularly in rural communities. Young female physicians were the most likely to provide abortions.

In late 2017, researchers of the Guttmacher Institute, in the US published their findings of a 2013 – 2014 study  of US obstetrician-gynaecologists who work in private practice settings in the US and  provided abortions.  Only 7% were doing so. They established that the number of abortion providers in the  US was declining.

The Guttmacher Institute was founded as part of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the US but became independent from Planned Parenthood in 2007.

The researchers reported that most US obstetrician-gynaecologists in private practice also failed  to provide referrals for abortion.

The most common reasons that obstetrician-gynaecologists gave for not offering abortion referrals included provision of indirect referrals (to another information source, rather than directly to a provider), an office policy against abortion referrals, a moral or ethical objection to abortion and a lack of patients seeking abortions.

Among obstetrician-gynaecologists who provided abortions, 42% offered only surgical abortions and a smaller proportion, 25%, offered only medication abortions with the abortions pills mifepristone and misoprostol. 

The researchers had expected that medication abortion would be more common because it was non-invasive and required fewer resources than surgical abortions. However, they thought that it was possible that the US Food and Drug Administration restrictions on stocking and administering medication abortion pills, and certification requirements for providers, discouraged some physicians in private practice from offering this option.

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, the legislation that made access to an abortion a federal right in the US. The decision dismantled 50 years of legal protection and paved the way for individual states to curtail or outright ban abortion rights. 

Abortion deeply impacts multiple parties: the unborn child, the mother, the father, the siblings, other family members and society– Tony Mifsud

In January 2023, the Guttmacher Institute reported that 24 US states, half the number of states, had banned abortion or were likely to do so. The US had started moving away from abortion.

In Malta, on the other hand,  one particular Maltese obstetrician,  who came to Malta from the US, not only is seen  on the social media crusading for  medical abortions, with the abortions pills mifepristone and misoprostol in her hands, but still appears showing women, Maltese and foreigners alike, how to take these abortion pills. This, in a population of 535,064 people.

Not only, but the Maltese obstetrician had the gall, recently, to admonish the Maltese prime minister for declaring, some time ago,  that he will contest anyone who promoted abortion in Malta. Brazenly, he was told:  “You must surely realise that our country is at a crossroads. It can either go down the path of protecting women or it can cave in to conservatives and continue to criminalise women for taking decisions that are in their best interest.”

This particular obstetrician speaks about “protecting women” when, in fact, she is constantly talking about and promoting abortion, which means women being prodded to deliberately kill their own unborn children for any reason. This, in a country where maternal mortality ratio fell gradually from nine deaths per 100,000 live births in 2001 to three deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020.

The Maltese obstetrician probably came to Malta from the US and brought with her the abortion mentality prevalent there at that time.

Apparently, she has not followed what happened and is still happening there about abortion since she left. While the US is now gradually distancing itself from abortion, she is assiduously going in the opposite direction in Malta, advancing abortion for all at any cost. What exactly is her main motive for doing so is not really clear.

What a contrast with the large majority of US obstetricians in a population of 340 million people!

In reality, abortion deeply impacts multiple parties: the unborn child, the mother, the father, the siblings, other family members and society.

For many women, pregnancy is not for deliberately killing unborn children but a great opportunity for the mother’s love to grow along with her unborn child. Many mothers say that life as a mum is so much more than caregiving and nurturing a beautiful little soul.

Tony Mifsud studied politics and social affairs in Oxford.

Times of Malta 28th June 2023

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/opinion-the-dishonest-abortion-lobby.1039590

From 1973 to 2022, the US Supreme Court rulings in Roe v Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) created and maintained federal protection for a pregnant woman’s right to get an abortion. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court explicitly overturned Roe v Wade.

After the passage of Roe v Wade in 1973, Bernard Nathanson, a US obstetrician and gynaecologist, became director of obstetrics for a large hospital in New York. He was personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. 

In 1984, he confessed he had been wrong. It was in that hospital that he had witnessed the form of a child on the ultrasound screen and the scientific mechanics of life that come with it. 

He is often quoted as saying that abortion is “the most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States”. He also wrote the book Aborting America in which he discussed what he called “the dishonest beginnings of the abortion movement”.

“We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures. We succeeded because the time was right and the news media cooperated. We sensationalised the effects of illegal abortions and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 per cent of the public favoured unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only five per cent. We unashamedly lied and, yet, our statements were quoted as though they had been written in law.”

In 1984, Nathanson directed and narrated the film titled The Silent Scream, which contained the ultrasound video of a mid-term (12 weeks) abortion.

His second documentary, Eclipse of Reason dealt with late-term abortions. He stated that the numbers he once cited for NARAL (the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws in the US) concerning the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions were “false figures”.

Referring to his previous work as an abortion provider and abortion rights activist, in his 1996 autobiography, Hand of God he wrote: “I am one of those who helped usher in this barbaric age.” Nathanson developed what he called the “vector theory of life”, which states that, from the moment of conception, there exists “a self-directed force of life that, if not interrupted, will lead to the birth of a human baby”. 

In Malta, Isabel Stabile, an obstetrician and gynaecologist who spent many years in the US, seems not to have discovered, yet, decades after Nathanson’s discovery, that human life begins at conception. She promotes, talks and writes on abortion as if she is simply clamouring for the removal of warts and cancerous growths on women.

In a recent open letter to Prime Minister Robert Abela, entitled ‘Abortion: Your discomfort, her pain’, Stabile focused only on women and did not mention the unborn child once. And she happens to be an obstetrician who, by definition, is supposed “..to deliver babies and looks after the health of the mother and the baby during, before and after childbirth”.

Stabile also wrote: “It is the responsibility and duty of all elected officials to ensure that NO woman is ever prosecuted for being a woman!” Clearly this appears as “a false statement” because any prosecution in court, when it happens, is normally for the deliberate killing of a very small, innocent and indefensible human being. 

This seems to be like “the dishonest beginnings of the abortion movement” referred to by Nathanson, only this time it is not in the US but in Malta. In fact, there is a very wide perception in Malta that the Andrea Prudente case and the latest court case, both related to abortion in Malta, were fabricated.

And, to enhance the perception further, now we also have the Malta National Commission for the Promotion of Equality, no less, “a government-funded organisation”, joining the abortion movement and calling for the decriminalisation of abortion in Malta.

No, we don’t want our prime minister to renege on his promise to the Maltese nation, given when he took office three years ago, that he will contest whoever promotes the abortion of unborn children in Maltese society. 

Tony Mifsud studied politics and social affairs in Oxford.

Dr. Charles Pace

Allowing life to be cut short to save the mother seems to be a reasonable balance of rights but any lighter excuse would invite a deluge

TIMES OF MALTA  13th June 2023 

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/we-prevent-deaths.1037225

Horror and anger, pain and compassion erupted across our islands at the news of yet another road death: a youngster unnecessarily deprived of life, her loved ones devastated. What can be done to prevent such tragedies?

It was encouraging to hear so many voices clamouring to prevent deaths whenever possible.

We had experts telling us how roads could be planned to discourage dangerous speeding as well as how speeding drivers could be caught. We have also had people in government calling for stiffer punishment by the courts.

And who knows how many other people, often in private conversations, have been doing their bit to persuade individuals to be more sensible while driving.

The promoters of life may appear in the form of friends who help create an atmosphere where the ‘harmless’ lure of alcohol before driving home is not allowed to slip in and court disaster; where any rebellious spirit against restriction is reserved to where it is just and safe; where the responsibility towards self and others acts as a wise brake.

Groups of friends can make a world of difference as to whether they choose to promote safety and life, or invite danger and death. The same applies to members of the public, voters, experts, public authorities: they can exercise wisdom and foresight, responsibility and truthfulness, to achieve results in preventing carnage and death on the road.

The same applies to any efforts to ensure a society marked by the insight, truthfulness and foresight needed to save from hurt, harm and death.

There were societies in the past that had a way of life that was thought to be unsustainable without slavery. It took very determined collective effort for this abuse to be abolished and for us to have a way of life that does not rest on such harm to others. We are, however, now witnessing efforts to reverse this progress in various ways.

The efforts to remove the legal protection of the life of unborn people is such a case. Allowing such life to be cut short to save the life of the mother seems to be a reasonable balance of rights. Any lighter excuse would bring in the injustice, imbalance of rights and lack of foresight that would be inviting in death, first in a trickle, later in full deluge.

Those who are on the side of allowing child death for weaker reasons should look at what happened in various countries, such as UK and US.

We can prevent womb deaths by promoting sexual practices that show reproductive responsibility – Charles Pace

In 1967, it was hoped that the introduction of abortion would flush out a few dangerous backstreet abortions. Then, after that backlog had been cleared up, people would be well-enough served by contraception, making abortion unnecessary.

Now, half a century later, a quarter of babies conceived in Britain, totalling 200,000 a year, are legally aborted. Besides, abortion has been imposed by London on an unwilling Northern Ireland, and Scottish politicians want to legalise abortion till birth. And some states in the US even want to prolong this right to end a baby’s life even into the first month after birth.

Creating a climate where harm to the unborn, and depriving them of the right to have a life, is seen as if it were a harmless and right-less matter, can addict us to insensitivity and blind us to truth in our reasoning.

The very people who said legal protection does not reduce abortions are now up in arms because some US state laws against abortion have done just that, saving thousands. We can’t build a future on elastic truth nor on disappearing rights.

Much better to invest in foresight, integrity, inclusiveness, and consistent ethical principles.

By taking action and demanding the same from our political leaders, we can prevent not only road deaths.

We can equally prevent womb deaths, such as by promoting, in every way, sexual practices that show reproductive responsibility; by defending the legal protection of the life of the unborn; and by offering heaps of understanding and help, practical, psychological and moral, to mothers and families with challenging pregnancies, supporting them in allowing their children to keep their life.

Charles Pace is a policy specialist.

From The Times of Malta of the 3rd May 2023

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/paediatric-care-unborn-tony-mifsud.1028978

In an article ‘Who speaks for the foetus’ published online on May 21, 2019, a doctor in a medical journal stated that “To speak for the foetus and to be his advocate is an appropriate assignment for a paediatrician. In keeping with the modern trend in the relationship between the obstetrician and the paediatrician, the obstetrician now recognises that he is responsible for two patients, the mother and her unborn child.”

This is what many believe many paediatricians and obstetricians in Malta profess at present.

The preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in 1989 in paragraph nine states: “… 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’.”

Maltese legislation similarly protects the rights of the unborn child. According to the Commissioner for Children Act, act VII of 2003, one of the functions of the commissioner is precisely “to promote special care and protection, including adequate legal protection, for children both before and after birth”.

The genetic material of a separate human foetus is unique, determinative and complete. It can be distinguished from any other nonhuman species. Once implanted, it requires only time and nutrition. Only two possible futures are open to it.  It can become a live human being or a dead human foetus. 

According to the National Cancer Institute in the US, a paediatrician is a doctor who has special training in preventing, diagnosing and treating diseases and injuries in children. Paediatricians also help manage other problems that affect children, such as developmental disorders and behavioural, emotional and social problems.

A paediatrician’s mission is to protect the physical, mental and social well-being of their patients. It is widely understood that a child’s well-being is intimately linked to that of his/her parents.

Medical studies have found out that when a mother feels happy and calm, it allows her baby to develop in a happy, calm environment. However, emotions, such as stress, anxiety and depression, can increase particular hormones in her body, which can affect her baby’s developing body and brain.

The genetic material of a separate human foetus is unique, determinative and complete– Tony Mifsud

Animal studies show that babies exposed to more stress hormones while they are in the womb are more likely to have higher anxiety levels in the brain.

On August 20, 2022 Lovin Malta reported that a pregnant Maltese paediatrician spoke out against abortion arguing that “she has no right to end the life of her unborn daughter”.

Veronica Bartolo’s plea was published by Malta’s Doctors for Life. She said that “while the popular pro-choice battle cry ‘My body, my choice’ can be empowering to women, it shouldn’t apply to abortion. The phrase captures the idea of bodily autonomy, whereby I do what I want with my own body. I believe it to be a heartfelt feminist cry in response to centuries of discrimination and oppression of women in societies dominated by men.

“To a certain extent, the phrase isn’t only understandable and liberating but necessary and just. But then there is a fine line that we should not cross, whereby I get lost in fighting for my rights instead of fighting for what is right. Violent choices are not OK.

“Within me for the past nine months, my daughter has been growing and living, inside me her heart is beating and that heart isn’t going to stop. Her life is not mine to take and her body is not my choice.” 

Many ex-abortion doctors during the last decades, especially in the US, have testified before institutions in their own land that unborn children are certainly alive since they possess the hallmark of life – the ability to reproduce dying cells.

The Prenatal Paediatrics Institute at the Children’s Hospital, in Washington DC provides the most advanced and comprehensive prenatal care for unborn babies. It offers pregnant families state-of-the-art prenatal diagnostics and treatment in a compassionate and supportive environment.

Tony Mifsud studied politics and social affairs in Oxford.

Il-Professur George Gregory Buttigieg, ginekologu.

Diskors waqt ċelebrazzjoni favur il-ħajja umana mill-konċepiment li saret fil-Konkatidral ta’ San Ġwann, Valletta,  fl-okkażjoni ta’ Jum il-Ħajja, il-Ħadd, 5 ta’ Frar 2023, organiżżat, mill-Malta Unborn Child Platform fil-Movimentt ta’ Kana.  

Nirringrazzja lill-Malta Unborn Child Platform ta’ din l-istedina, u nifirħilhom tax-xogħol kbir ta’ fejda li jagħmlu biex iħarsu lit-trabi mhux imwielda.

Ħamsa u erbgħin sena ilu fi Glasgow, l-Iskozja, pajjiż tant għal qalbi, bdejt it-traġitt tiegħi biex nispeċjalizza fil-maternità u l-ġinekoloġija. Suġġett sabiħ li jien kont u għadni, nirringrazzja ’l Alla, li nipprattikah għax jagħtini ċ-ċans  nipparteċipa fil-pjan divin tal-ħolqien. Madankollu, l-istess suġġett fetaħli bieb ta’ biża għax esponieni għall-abort.

Mhuwiex hawnhekk il-waqt u lanqas il-ħin li nfiehem il-kruhat li rajt f’dak iż-żmien. Però, iva, nista’ ngħid li jekk it-twelid jgħaxxqek, l-abort ikexkxek! Kien żmien ta’ kriżi għalija anki jekk ma nipparteċipax u nara biss dawn il-ħwejjeġ u kien hemm żmien li ridt nitlaq mill-ispeċjalità. Kienet marti li ġabitni f’sensija u għamiltli l-kuraġġ biex inkompli.

Żammejt ukoll f’qalbi l-kliem tas-Sinjur tagħna Ġesù Kristu, “Kunu makakki daqs is-sriep, imma safja daqs il-ħamiem!”. Bdejt niġbor tagħrif u nlesti għal meta jiġi ż-żmien li forsi rrid niġġieled din is-saħta f’pajjiżi. Però, dak iż-żmien kelli moħħi mistrieħ li meta nerġa’ lura Malta, stajt naħdem bil-kwiet mingħajr ma mmiss mal-abort.

 Hawnhekk tiġi f’moħħi Ruma tal-qedem, meta l-ommijiet kienu jwerwru lit-tfal imqarbin bil-kliem “Annibale ad portas” b’riferenza għall-ġeneral Kartaġiniż li kin qasam l-alpi bl-iljunfanti u ma seta’ jitwaqqaf minn ħadd. Illum f’Malta mhumiex it-tfal Rumani li qed jibżġħu imma kull raġel u mara ta’ rieda tajba li huma mwerwrin mill-waħx tal-abort li jinsab wara bieb Malta. L-abort li qiegħed jinbiegħ lilna bħala parti minn healthcare li ma teżistix. Fiż-żmien tat-taħriġ tiegħi fi Glasgow, bħal kull sptar ieħor fil-Gran Brittanja u fil-biċċa l-kbira tal-Ewropa, kont rari nsib raġuni serja waħda f’eluf ta’ aborti li kollha jsiru għal xi tip ta’ konvenjenza.

Wasal sew iż-żmien li kull mara u raġel, kull żagħżugħ u żagħżugħa jifhmu sew xi jfisser l-abort. U huwa d-dmir ta’ kull bniedem, li jiġġieled id-dħul ta’ din is-saħta f’pajjiżna. M’hemmx ħtieġa li tkun tabib jew professur, kull bniedem, hi x’inhi s-sejħa tiegħu jew tagħha, jekk hu ta’ rieda tajba, għandu jiddefendi l-ħajja fil-ġuf.

Dejjem qed nirreferi għall-mezzi għal kollox legali. U fost dawn il-mezzi hemm it-talb, li jiena ma nistħix nipproponi ukoll lil dinja li iktar ma jmur, aktar qed issir ma temminx. Nitolbu, speċjalment lil Ommna Imqaddsa, il-verġni eterna u omm għażiża. Fl-aħħar nagħlaq bil-kliem li għalaqt bih taħdita pubblika dan l-aħħar: Ma nħallux li l-abjad tal-bandiera Maltija jittebba’ bid-demm tat-trabi innoċenti.

Are foetuses potential human beings or human beings with potential?
CHARLES PACE

(From the Times of Malta 4th February 2023)

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/rubbish-foetus-charles-pace.1011060?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2CQFLPf6tpAmPyWPXvtrpbxNTX7q8FyKmFhjtj5MD0pdw8PC0-7nWnnE4#Echobox=1675497552

Kenneth Cassar (January 16) disagrees with Carmen Zammit (January 13) about early human foetuses. Zammit argues that they are “human beings with potential”. He holds the opposite view: they are “potential human beings” and, as such, have no human rights.

Kenneth Cassar (January 16) disagrees with Carmen Zammit (January 13) about early human foetuses. Zammit argues that they are “human beings with potential”. He holds the opposite view: they are “potential human beings” and, as such, have no human rights.

Zammit claims science supports her. A foetus is “an individual with her/his own unique genetic make-up, who has the basic human right to life”. Cassar fires two shots at this claim.

First: DNA is not necessarily unique because twins have the same DNA. Second: as DNA does its work, there is no brain before the 24th week of pregnancy, so there cannot be consciousness. An unconscious organism, he argues, cannot be harmed because it cannot experience hardship and is beyond caring and, therefore, cannot have any rights for protection.

I agree that DNA is not necessarily unique. If they were to clone me (please don’t), each version of me would have human rights as much as I do. So it is not uniqueness that gives us rights.

But Zammit is correct in claiming that DNA is part of the argument that foetuses have human dignity. Are foetuses potential human beings or human beings with potential?

What is this “potential” we are talking about? In my room, I have an empty drawer. Does it have great potential? Ima­gine if I were to put in it the Koh-i-Noor diamond or de Valette’s dagger or the Mona Lisa. What potential!

Can I say that this drawer is of great worth because it has this marvellous potential? No, because this potential means emptiness. Greatness, here, comes from the greatness of the objects I put in it.

Does this mean that all potential is just emptiness? If so, should we shut down all football nurseries and ballet schools because they hold nothing but emptiness? No: it is not the achieved greatness that is the basis for human caring and rights. Every human right, starting from the right to free expression to the right to life, is about permitting opportunity, not for rewarding achievement.

Yes, some potential means emptiness. But potential can also be capability, what ancient philosophers very observantly called potency. Like it or not, acknowledge it or not, many things around us change, not because they are empty and something ready-made comes from outside and fills their emptiness, but because they have in themselves a capability to become better, richer, more developed, more fully expressive of what they are – if given a chance.

A seed becomes a tree because it possesses the capability of becoming that grand thing in which birds shelter and that humans admire.

Cassar would surely retort: can’t we say the same about sperms, that also have the capability of becoming a person? Should we then give human rights to sperms? No, because DNA shows that sperms are a different organism from the born human, even while the latter is the same organism as the embryo and foetus.

In truth, this ‘continuous but changing human being’ is a little like the frog of the story, waiting to become a dashing prince when touched by a kiss. But it is not a sub-human frog waiting for outside magic to make it what it is not. It is a human organism with the capability, that it already has, to achieve rational and spiritual consciousness.

It is their possessing – already and really, in their dignified selves and not in fairy-tale imagination – the capability of rational and spiri­tual consciousness that gives unborn people human rights, which are always a matter of allowing opportunity, not a reward after succeeding.

Charles Pace is a social studies academic.

BERNARD CARUANA

Mis-Sunday Times tal-Ħadd 8 ta’ Jannar 2023

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/society-love-solidarity-bernard-caruana.1005706

We started 2022 with the sad news of the tragic death of Victor Calvagna, a doctor who dedicated his life to save the lives of children.  The invasion of Ukraine ran all through 2022 and is yet to be resolved. This contrasted sharply with the international effort to save lives and manage the COVID pandemic.

The Malta election was overshadowed by the global situation and did not have the bang characterising previous electoral campaigns. There was, however, a tiny virus which, for many, was not expected to grow so quickly.

The topic of abortion was raised, with persons from both sides not objecting to have a debate about abortion. What do we mean when we encourage a debate? We mean that the scenario is not out of question – it is possible and may be acceptable. For example, it would be abhorrible to discuss the decriminalisation of domestic violence or abuse. Why? Because the scenario is out of question – unthinkable.

That tiny virus grew quickly and, even before the so-called national debate, we are faced with proposed legislation to decriminalise abortion, albeit in certain circumstances. This is causing shivers in people of goodwill.

To speak about ‘health’ rather than ‘life at risk’ is dangerous and opens the doors wide open, more so when including mental health in the equation.

I am aware of the suffering and distress brought about by mental health difficulties. I am a defender of the rights of the mentally distressed. However, it does not make any sense to justify abortion on the basis of mental health.

Do persons whose husbands, wives, neighbours, work colleagues etc. are causing them mental health difficulties have a right to kill them? Definitely not. Killing is only decriminalised in self-defence, that is, when the life of the individual concerned is in imminent danger.

A pregnant woman needs to be offered treatment for whatever ailment, whether physical, psychiatric or psychological. There is no question about that but to directly kill the unborn child is abominable.

Furthermore, a person passing through emotional or mental health difficulties is not in an ideal state to take important decisions, let alone a decision to kill. Pregnancy itself brings about emotional changes which, at times, may cause distress.

What about the psychological scars on the person who has committed an abortion? Such person may suffer from the multifaceted symptoms of guilt which may emerge later. Alternatively, the person may become emotionally numb. This will have an effect on those around and, in turn, boomerang to the same person.

A chilling experience I heard was that of a young lady who had no empathy towards her mother who was terminally ill, telling me: “My mum wanted a career and aborted an elder sibling I might have had, why should I risk to sacrifice my career and social life to care for her?”

This is not an amendment to protect doctors, it was not asked for by the Medical Association of Malta. It is not an amendment to protect mothers either. It is an amendment pushed by persons who call themselves ‘pro-choice’ even if that choice is to terminate a life of another.

Such persons are then fuelled by individuals who believe that morals are old-fashioned and society must lessen the influence of such life-tested morals and the institutions which promote them. Fuelling freedom from such institutions, regulations and morals without highlighting a sense of responsibility (morality) will lead nowhere except to the law of the jungle where might is right and the most vulnerable will suffer.

A society which does away with morals is paving the way for its decay. History has shown us this. We have a society speaking about rights without emphasising responsibility.

It was reported that abortion pills are purchased in Malta and that abortions are carried out. Because something is happening should we endorse it or decriminalise it? We all know that corruption is a reality around the globe but it never occurred to anyone to decriminalise it. We hear talk about exceptional cases. If I overspeed and is caught by a speed camera, I am fined.

There are, however, exceptional cases, for example a person taking a relative in a critical situation to the hospital emergency.

Should we do away with speed cameras and speeding regulations because of such exceptional cases? Definitely not. The individual may get his penalty waived by a tribunal but this does not lead to the decriminalisation of traffic offences.

We are speaking about the right over one’s body. First of all, a pregnant woman has got her body and the life of another within her womb. But even here do we allow anybody wanting to commit suicide to do so, or open painless suicide clinics, on the premise that one has a right over one’s body? Definitely not, even though this concerns only the person and not others.

We do not argue that if a person has mental health difficulties that person has a right to take his life. On the contrary, we acknowledge that the person may be in a crisis and then regret what he/she tried to do. Persons passing through metal health issues or other difficulties need help, support and care not to opt for an apparent easy way out.

Let us dedicate our efforts to build a society of love and solidarity. Let us work together to understand and help each other more. Let us get out of an egocentric mentality – change a society with a sense of ownership to a society which is altruistic.

After all, we all appreciate the taste of such a society when we have such marathons as L-Istrina. Can we dedicate our intellectual and other resources to try to bring about that atmosphere all year round?

Bernard Caruana is a clinical psychologist. He has served as president of the Malta Union and Professional Body of Psychologists for nine years.