Mr John Zammit (When I was young and curious, TMIS 25 August) again charges me with basing my arguments about the time and place when human life begins on myth and religious dogma. However, I have never used religion to justify my position, not that the Christian deposit of faith, which he conveniently ignores, does not itself have a strongly witnessed and historical body of law on this issue. He is dying to have me base my conclusions on religion rather than science and philosophy, so then he can ask me to keep my religious opinions to myself and not impose them on others!

He goes back to when he thought life began when he was still a young child in the 1940s and 50s, when children in Gudja were told that babies came out of the “well at the Church of our Lady of Loretu”. Well now, there’s a myth if ever there was one, as it has no historical or witnessed significance and one can believe it only if one wishes to. However, the world of embryology has come a long way since then and can show the time and place when a human being begins his or her organismic existence. This is not a myth, but pure solid science and witnessed content. If Mr Zammit wishes to hang on to his myth of the “well at Loretu”, then he is welcome to do so, but the fact remains that we now know when human life comes into existence in an objective way, and even if thousands continue to believe in the myth of the “well at Loretu”, that is simply a subjective opinion that does not tally with the truth of the laws of nature, no matter how nice, passionate and emotional the arguments may be. The law of nature imposes ethical sanctions, depending on the nature of the “is” of course, because of our rational human nature.

I have repeatedly brought concrete and persistent proof to scientific, philosophical and historical thought, with a trail of witnesses second to none, but Mr Zammit still insists on conjuring up sophist arguments, failing to mention even one person of a reputable solid scientific embryological background that refutes that human life starts at conception. It seems he would rather hang on to his subjectivist mythical beliefs.

Given that, in Articles 32 and 33, our Constitution protects the life of human persons and therefore the dignity of the human individual, one can really see no intended dichotomy between the terms human person and human being as referred to in our Constitution, even if the equivalence of these two phrases is not specifically mentioned in the words used. The fact that no distinction in our Constitution is ever mentioned at all, proves the point that the legal originators never meant for a distinction to be made in the first place! One must look at the intention of the lawmakers who wished to enshrine the principle of justice and virtue in the law in order to achieve what is fair and good. What is fair and good is to always protect the life of the innocent human being. That is the spirit of our Constitution.

Considering that when our Constitution was enshrined, these linguistic dichotomies between human person and human being were not yet extant philosophical orders of the day, one has to distinguish between the letter of the law and the intended spirit of the law written at that particular time, in order to achieve justice for all. This is called equity. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas refer to equity using the Greek word epieikeia. It is important that, in creating justice and fairness for all, our judges and present lawmakers have to look at what was at the basis of the intention of the lawmaker then, not necessarily the words that were used, or in this case not used. They are obliged to look into the depth of the intention of the lawmaker at the time when the law was being framed and to uphold the principles of equality and justice that the lawmaker had in mind then. Failing to do this would not reflect well on their legal capabilities or obligations.

No matter what the opposing view of some people is, the main thrust of the law is that the State ought not to allow innocent human life to be destroyed. This is especially so when most excuses for destroying such life is because of the narrow functionalist interpretation of personhood and human worth, such as some actual or perceived physical or mental disability. This is an insult to the human beings involved themselves and to all those parents and other individuals who so lovingly and with great sacrifice look after these children who are no less human and persons than all the others.

Michael Asciak MD

BIRKIRKARA