Three years ago, the Embryo Protection Act was enacted. As the name implies, this law was specifically drawn up to safeguard the rights of a new human being at its most vulnerable stage. Bringing a child into the world is not a right, either to a man or a woman who wishes to become a parent, because in so doing they might be ignoring the rights of the third person in this equation – the child.
The National Council of Women feels that the law should not be revised and should remain as it is and serve the scope for which it was enacted in the first place. Through the introduction of oocyte freezing, as opposed to embryo freezing, the embryo – the beginning of life – is protected from being unwanted and aborted, not to mention the legal aspect of ownership if the natural parents separate, or worse still, being left in a frozen state, limbo, where this new life cannot decide for himself/herself the right to be born, since someone else has decided their fate for them
Many prefer to assume that this law is a discriminatory law, because it allows only the assistance in procreation for couples: a male and a female in a stable relationship. It does not allow this assistance for single males or females or same-sex couples, for whom surrogacy or sperm donation is the only possibility of becoming a parent: purchasing a commodity from a flourishing market where the person gets what he/she desires, where one can pay a woman who ‘loans’ her body for the baby to grow in and develop until it is born.
When a woman is pregnant, she is encouraged to bond with the child in her womb, talk to it, caress and sing to it, and for the baby to grow in the love of the mother. But what bonding will this child receive if the mother has no interest in the child, except the financial aspect? This child will be abandoned at birth by the person who brought her/him into this world. And what about the father of the child, what measures will he take to make it possible for him to bond? The baby, on the other hand, is growing in the absence of this sensitive human contact, growing in a body that is just serving as an incubator for nine months. Would the child know who her/his father is, if there was a sperm donor? Would he/she know who the mother was and shall we also revert to importing surrogate mothers? In these circumstances, it is the woman’s body that is used against remuneration for a service.
Would a birth from sperm donorship be registered as “father unknown”? Would there be the risk of siblings marrying each other, if there is anonymity – something that is very possible on this small island? What will the rights of the surrogate mother be?
The Human Fertilisation Embryology Authority of the UK website starts its page on surrogacy with:
“Seek legal advice
Surrogacy involves complicated legal issues and we recommend that you seek your own legal advice before making any decisions. It is also advisable to receive counselling before starting the surrogacy process, to help you think about all the questions involved.”
One understands the pain of those who wish to become parents and are unable to achieve this aspiration, but must someone’s desires be constructed on egoism without a thought for the basic needs of the unborn child who will start life already missing out on the most essential formation for the personal development in life as a human being? Malta is already witnessing the difficult legal problems involving children and young people who want to know either or both their natural parents, which is their fundamental right, often as a result of other circumstances such as a ravished relationship. Why add more? Hopefully, the protection of the embryo will remain paramount also in the coming years.
Mary Gaerty
President
National Council of Women