Firstly, we would like to congratulate the National Youth Council for representing young people in Malta for 25 years. It is crucial that the voice of young people is heard in society, and it is this young but brave voice which the Council has been promoting over the years.

We wholeheartedly commend the National Youth Council on yet again organising what seems to have been a successful edition of the National Youth Parliament in September which generated much vigorous debate. This yearly event gives young people valuable insight into the legislative process of a parliamentary democracy.

One of the groups participating in the event was a group whose task was to draft a document dealing with sexual and reproductive health in Malta. Before anything else, we would like to congratulate the authors of this resolution on proposing that Malta should deal with prostitution as the Nordic countries have done. Principally, the Nordic model involves inverting the traditional legal approach to prostitution to the effect that instead of criminalising the provision of sexual services by women involved in prostitution, the law would criminalise the buying of sex. The group also recommended that such legislation should be accompanied by an information campaign which would bring the harsh and unforgiving realities of prostitution to light, and thus discourage the buying of sex and hence, the perpetuation of the exploitation of women. In our view, such proposals in this particular regard showed remarkable maturity.

With regard to the substance of the resolution in question, it noted that Malta's national sexual health policy is based on abstinence, faithfulness to one's current sexual partner and contraception. Even from the wording of the policy, one can tell that contraception is a method of last resort which is proposed only when one would have failed to abstain or failed to be faithful to one's current sexual partner. However, contraception is being discussed to the exclusion of all else. For some reason, it has been years since abstinence and faithfulness were ever mentioned in national discussions on sexual health. Of course, when the best practices for maintaining sexual health - abstinence and faithfulness - are not taken up and actively encouraged, it is no surprise that all manner of contraceptives and abortifacients masquerading as contraceptives are introduced.

The group also recommended more research on sexual activity among young people and the effects of pornography on society. Such research regarding the situation in Malta would be very welcome, particularly in view of the fact that research conducted in the United States has resulted in scientists describing pornography and addiction thereto as a public health crisis.

With reference to the morning-after pill, the authors of the resolution recommended that schools and pharmacies should be obliged to provide information on such substances. They agree that information should be provided, but only insofar as such information is truthful and as long as the freedom of conscience of no teacher, pharmacist or other professional is trampled on. In this respect, they support the clear statement of the president of the Malta Chamber of Pharmacists who earlier this year, said that pharmacists enjoy the right to conscientious objection. They also encourage similar associations of professionals to uphold their members' unassailable freedom of conscience.

The group also proposed that the film The Silent Scream should be censored because of its graphic nature and alleged false content. It is rather difficult to claim that this film contains falsehoods given that it is narrated by Bernard Nathanson, an American obstetrician who used to carry out abortions himself. Nathanson described the film as the photographing of the process of an abortion from beginning to end.

Another subject touched on was that of sperm banks. The term itself clearly shows the sheer inappropriateness of treating one half of the human genetic equation - the man's genetic contribution, like money in a bank to be deposited, withdrawn and used at will. Neither men nor women should be exploited for their sperm or ova as cows are milked. Sperm banks were portrayed as a way for women to have children without having to be in a relationship. The authors state that this method of reproduction reduces the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately, this method of reproduction violates the inherent human dignity of men, women and children.

Sadly, the rights of the child resulting from impregnation via sperm donation (actually sale, not donation) were nowhere to be found in the resolution. The child's right to know and be raised by his or her biological parents, which is enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, was somehow forgotten. The notion of anonymous donation was also raised in the resolution. This is vastly detrimental to the rights of the child as well as to the child's psychological wellbeing. As human beings, we all ask where we came from at one point or other during our lives. Most people answer this question by looking at their parents, grandparents and other ancestors. However, children conceived through anonymous donation would be forever deprived of at least one half of their identity. Why should a child be deliberately deprived of knowledge as to their parents' identity?

On abortion, the group called for this subject to no longer be considered a taboo subject in society. It agreed that this subject should not be taboo. The crux of public debate should bring about the cathartic realisation of one simple truth: abortion kills children and greatly harms the mother. This fundamental truth cannot be hidden, twisted or otherwise disguised unless through deliberate falsehood. Women who face crisis pregnancies should be able to find proper, effective and compassionate assistance. They need material and psychological assistance to overcome their crisis. Abortion does not unmake a mother. It makes her the mother of a dead child. It is absurd to speak of safe abortion when only one of the two persons involved survives the procedure and the mother's fertility can be seriously harmed through abortion. Our society can only claim to be a compassionate society if it truly cares for mothers and fathers as well as their children.

With regard to the IVF process, we called for the introduction of embryo freezing. Embryo freezing is contrary to human rights, particularly the right to life. The placing of the child's life in clear and manifest danger is made even more obvious when one considers the extremely low number of children who survive the thawing process. The resolution also proposes that it should be possible for couples to decide whether to kill excess embryos or give them to other couples. At this point, the human rights violations involved become uncountable.

In their resolution, the authors claim that surrogacy should be regulated to avoid any sort of exploitation of women and children. However, the reality is that the only way to avoid this kind of exploitation is to ban surrogacy outright. Firstly, all forms of surrogacy disrespect women's dignity. In surrogacy, women are only valued insofar as their wombs are concerned. However, a woman is a complete human being, not a mere incubator! Secondly, surrogacy (much like gamete donation in this regard) leads to violation of the child's right to know and to be cared for by his or her biological parents. Feminist organisations, such as the Italian organisation Se Non Ora Quando, which is a staunchly pro-abortion organisation, called on the United Nations to ban surrogacy outright, describing it as "incompatible with human rights and with the dignity of women". This took place as recently as March 2017. In December 2015, the European Parliament held that surrogacy "undermines the human dignity of the woman since her body and its reproductive functions are used as a commodity". The European Parliament also clearly stated in this resolution that gestational surrogacy "involves reproductive exploitation and use of the human body for financial or other gain" and should therefore not be allowed.

Human procreation should not be a matter of contracts. Contracts where the subject is a human being are unenforceable in most civilised countries on the basis that they are contra bonos mores - contrary to public good. In the United Kingdom, the law recognises the woman who gives birth to the child as the mother (in accordance with the maxim mater semper certa est), hence making surrogacy contracts unenforceable. In view of this, all contracts in which the subject is a human being, including contracts of surrogacy, should be considered contrary to public policy.

It is also worth noting that the authors' own survey appears to show that two thirds of those surveyed are against abortion. As a result, any claim that this resolution and its content are truly representative of the views of Maltese and Gozitan young seem to be rather baseless.

In this age of information and vastly increased access to education, Maltese and Gozitan young people are choosing to turn to independent and impartial sources of information which are committed to the truth. Most of the proposals made in the resolution in question are not only contrary to human rights and biological truth, but also appallingly unrepresentative of and unresponsive to the real needs of Maltese and Gozitan youth.

Maria Aquilina; Michelle Attard; Ann Bugeja; Christopher Bugeja; Noel Bugeja; Chantelle Camilleri; Christian Darmanin; Deborah Debono; Mark Debono; Kenneth Fenech; Martina Laferla; Marilyn Mintoff; Gavin Muscat