From Dr P. Schembri Wismayer

Following an interesting discussion with Dr Emmy Bezzina on Bondiplus, last Monday, I decided it might well be worth bringing up another few points from the scientific and lay viewpoint regarding the right to life for the unborn child.

Firstly, the issue of personhood brought up by Mr Bondi in the closing stages of the programme.

Personhood is a philosophical issue rather than a scientific one, and using the stage of 14 days, as a cutting point to decide that before this a person does not exist is a dodgy argument. The great majority of us do not split into two individuals during the continuum of development at some point before 14 days, therefore the X amount of cells we are at that point all play a role in making us (and our supporting placental structures) – a single person. If in some rare cases, those X cells, split into two sets of 0.5 X cells, each of which replicates to X and becomes another single person, this in no way reduces the personhood of the X cells.

As I suggested in the programme, it is only egoism-induced convenience that uses this argument as a lowest threshold of respect for the intra-uterine human life instead of the highest possible threshold of respect and care normally applied to other vulnerable states of human life. It is similar to saying that if one person out of five dies in a car-crash, then the safety level of that car is adequate.

I also think that all families of twins as well as twins themselves abhor the attitude that they may be somewhat inferior to others who are not genetically identical to someone else.

Also, in an age when clones will soon be a feasible option, having a genetic clone of a person does not make their life any less human and dispensable or does not make them any less of a person.

Another practical issue is that in the first 14 days of life, most women will not even know they are pregnant since they will not have missed a period.

Another major point made by the pro-abortion-choice lobby was that Malta is a minority with regard to not wanting abortion. I was glad that Dr Bezzina himself confirmed the importance of minority rights mid-way through the programme. How this is somehow excluded when it comes to looking at the European population as a whole – namely that Malta, Ireland and Poland as a minority do not want to legalise abortion – is confusing. It was the few dissenters rather than the many who allowed themselves to go with the flow, who many times were eventually judged by history to be correct.

The third major issue brought up is that of brain activity. Dr Gomperts regularly declares that medical science defines a human life as one with detectable brain activity. This is true – and is used as a definition in terms of adults to decide whether they are alive or not. It means little however at point Y in the unborn child, whose brain activity starts as soon as its brain begins developing (again part of a seamless indivisible process). This child may eventually have brain capability (not only activity) potentially greater than mine, hers and Dr Bezzina’s put together.

Evidence of this developing brain is becoming more available using new techniques such as optical projection tomography used by S. Lindsay and colleagues at Newcastle upon Tyne University in the UK.

The lesser capability of a neonate’s brain – which will eventually develop into a more capable one, is not a valid (or legal reason for killing that neonate). Nor is it the case that Mensa International suggests - that the rest of us should be dislodged and washed out of our homes into oblivion for not reaching their own heady standards.

Those I think are the major points

A number of minor points should also be tackled.

• I cannot understand how abortion is painted as a religious and primarily Catholic issue. All major world religions are strongly against abortion, including Islam, Buddhism and various Protestant denominations. I know the latter from personal experience having heard this from many when studying in Glasgow. Therefore it is not only Christians who are against abortion but also people from other religions, as well as atheists, so this should not be presented as a Catholic issue.

• The only issue which I think relates to our Catholicism or more specifically to our Christianity is that our gossiping and finger pointing and intolerance unfortunately helps push many younger (especially unmarried) mothers to have an abortion. I think this is something, as a country, we can improve in a lot. I also think that correlating abortion with other Catholic issues such as divorce only muddies the waters between what is essentially a moral choice (albeit with clear-cut societal effects) and the snuffing out of a human life. Should the country continue in its direction of sliding away from traditional Catholicism, I hope our people will recognise the difference in these issues and not block vote on them as one and the same.

• The above helps pressurise women so it is not really much of a choice (as in the pro-“choice” movement). The lack of support to women in this area should also be an area to tackle for those of us who wish to reduce this murder from our shores. Also, like other forms of murder, those responsible include the trigger man (abortion clinic personnel), the employer (whoever pays for the abortion) and also those who aid and abet crime by not reporting or preventing it. I think the father who either pays for an abortion or clearly indicates to the mother his lack of support should also be included in this latter category.

• I think another important point is the issue of children being a commodity. It is bizarre and similarly sad that those who suffer infertility wish so much to have an embryo/child to call their own, to experience its development and those who want get rid of one, to feel totally the opposite. The fact that these two services are carried out, overseas, by the same medical specialists, obstetricians make children seem like some kind of commodity one can choose or discard at will.

• Another point is the issue of women being allowed an abortion in case of issues such as incest or rape. This is often used as a door-opening argument. Of course, women who have suffered rape are by no means the ordinary case. Adult human life is protected in the Maltese Constitution, but courts are lenient in their punishment, if any, is in fact meted out in the case of murder in self-defence. I believe that courts should similarly treat such cases with extenuating circumstances on a case-by case basis. Without trying to reduce the pain and enormous difficulty in these cases, I think that we may benefit from comparison to another very painful case. Sexually abused children who grow up and sexually abuse others are not absolved of their crimes because of the pain they have suffered. Similarly, despite the excruciating and mind-numbing pain suffered by the rape victim should not lead to a relaxing of respect for the victims of a crime being perpetrated as a consequence of a previous crime to the perpetrator.

Lastly, talking about constitutions, I personally cannot understand how with the great majority of Maltese being against abortion, none of our Members of Parliament have yet tabled a private Members Bill to see the Constitution modified towards protecting life from conception.

My only ideas is that in a pre-election period they are being pressurised by their party whips to avoid this, so as to avoid losing any floating voters who can help swing an election. Despite this, anomalous political advantage, often at the expense of Alternattiva Demokratika, is regularly sought using this issue, despite the fact that Alternattiva is as anti-abortion as the other political parties.

The only other issue I can imagine is a fear of handcuffing ourselves to the use of certain benefits using embryonic stem cells. And possibly EU-pressure on the subject.

Regarding embryonic stem cells, I think the issue will not be one much longer. Pioneering work by S Yamanaka in Kyoto, Japan, which has since been confirmed by other research groups, has resulted in the production of pluripotent stem cells in mice (as good as embryonic stem cells) without passing through an early embryo stage. This is akin to therapeutic cloning without producing a cloned embryo. While limited to mice at present, I have no doubt it will soon be similarly possible in human cells.

With the present deadlock on the entrenching of this respect for the most vulnerable of human life in the Constitution, I have often thought of standing for election myself on a one issue ticket to table such a private Members Bill in Parliament and then stepping down or, (if feasible), transferring my seat to an Alternattiva Demokratika candidate so as to help support another under-represented population also sidelined by both political parties.

Pierre Schembri Wismayer