No to Abortion in the Constitution

I think all of you know of the current process to amend the Maltese Constitution and include a clause which would consider abortion as a criminal offence. I bet you all know that the Government is willing to discuss this issue with civil society representatives (NGOs etc).

First of all I am pro-life, this means I am against abortion.

After some two weeks of thinking I came up with the conclusion that this proposal should be rejected for the following reasons:

1. No party currently in Parliament was given the mandate in the 2003 elections to include abortion in the Constitution
2. A Constitution is the highest form of law in a country which determines national identity. I saw how the current debate in Malta on whether abortion shall be legalised or not is divided as follows:
2.1 85% of Maltese are against abortion (http://www.timesofmalta.com/core/article.php?id=184159&hilite=abortion). On the other hand 11% of Maltese are in favour of abortion and 3% did not commit themselves to give an answer in The Times’ survey
2.2 Therefore there is the possibility that if abortion were to be entrenched in the Constitution then 11% of Maltese, who are in favour of abortion would not be considered Maltese anymore.
3. Truly a democracy is respecting the will of the majority but also means respecting minority and diversity. If abortion were to be entrenched in the Constitution then the minority’s ideas would be discarded
4. The philosophical (ethical) debate regarding the issue has not yet come to a conclusion. Therefore to take a firm stand in favour or against such an issue would be unwise.
5. Currently abortion in Malta is a criminal offence. This means that a majority of Maltese Citizens (not all Maltese) consider abortion to be a murder. Therefore it makes sense to include abortion in the criminal code as it respects the will of the majority at a given point in time.
6. Questions for (4) and (5) flow naturally. What if the situation were to change, i.e. the philosophical debate come to a conclusion and the current Maltese minority change to a majority in favour of abortion over time. This is highly hypothetical, yes, but even such a proposal to include abortion in the Constitution is, as it is saying that future Maltese society will remain unchanged regarding this issue. Now doesn’t history, and personal experience, show us that change is a reality?
7. Even though abortion is a criminal offence, it is still being practised by Maltese. In one year alone there were 190 abortions of Maltese unborn babies in the UK. These are families who have the resources and opportunities to commit an abortion abroad. The question is: are there such possibilities in Malta? Therefore there needs to be a greater enforcement of the current law and not a new law.
8. The Government is not giving ample time to discuss the issue. A month (Minister Tonio Borg allotted a month to discuss the issue) is too short a period to discuss an amendment to the Constitution.
9. If proper changes to the Constitution were truly to be carried out then there are topics which are more important than this. These include but are not limited to: a re-definition of the president’s role, a more just electoral system.
10. Time. Debate consumes time. Especially time in Parliament. Time, like money in Malta’s coffers, is lacking. Therefore debate on such an entrenchment of abortion in the Constitution will steal time from possible new methods of current legislation enforcement and other topics such as but not limited to:
10.1 Implementation of the Lisbon Process
10.2 A Better Economy
10.3 The setting up of an anti-discrimination agency (a proposal which is in EU Law [2000/43/EC] that was also implemented in Malta but which never materialised.

These 10 points and more are, in a nutshell, what I thought. I am sure that you thought some, all, or more points. This is why I am proposing we, as friends, raise our opinion about the issue. The government said it needs our opinion and that is what we shall do.

I suggest we set up a Yahoo group to discuss this issue. Moreover I need your support in order to show what a mistake it is to impose personal opinions (even if I totally agree with such opinions such as that abortion is a criminal offence) in the Constitution thus on national identity. National identity shall always be a whole – never fragmented.

What am I proposing? Send letters on The Times and show such our position to Where’s Everybody.

Please reply: agreement or disagreement. We need to discuss such an issue as it deals with our future.

Remember: I am not speaking in favour of abortion (I am firmly against it). I am against tampering proper democracy