The Ghaqda Studenti tal-Ligi has come out strongly in favour of abortion. I have been fortunate to teach bioethics in several faculties for over 20 years now and the law students are always an enthusiastic group. But over the years you notice that ideas and values change within the age group you teach.

It is interesting therefore that over these two decades I have seen the shift of students’ position on abortion change from one extreme to the other. Twenty years ago it was very rare to hear Maltese students pronounce themselves as pro-choice. It was only the visiting students (very few at the time) who would argue in favour of abortion. They would often make statements about our “closed mentality” or our “religious community”. The situation changed slowly but steadily. The last few years have seen a dramatic shift with less than a handful of Maltese students being against abortion in debates.

The problem is we are speaking about the morality of abortion as an isolated issue. The reality is that values in society have fluxed over time. Having had three children born during the imminent rise of the internet and growing with smart phones, I put this local change to the strong influence of social networks, media and the more accessible and cheaper ability to travel. From fashion to values involving divorce, gender and indeed bioethical issues such as abortion, euthanasia, surrogate motherhood, etc., there is conformity with a more liberal world – mostly for the good, but with some issues creating moral and cultural clashes. Moreover, healthy projects like the Erasmus exchange and participation in European projects also bring us close to thinking like our closer neighbours. While this helps for Malta’s advancement, it also brings about change. Before you could tell that a singer was Maltese. Nowadays, unless you know them, you could probably not – their accents are perfect.

The message which one should get from the papers by Ghaqda Studenti tal-Ligi is that this generation is in conformity with the same generations in many other countries. If the rest of the world is doing it, it must be right. The message is that in 10 to 20 years’ time, when this generation replaces the current parliamentarians, they will introduce the legislation they deem fit (unless current politicians decide to accommodate them before).

Now, while everyone in general agrees with women’s rights, not all agree about the particulars. Abortion has become about the right of the woman over her body. Who can argue with that? It is not any more about the status of the embryo only. The question is whether I (or anyone, for that matter) have a right to tell a woman that she has to remain pregnant – in a way ordering her. Fundamental rights are those which many states agree upon – to put it simply and in lay terms. Quite frankly, it took time for humanity to understand and accept these rights. Now rights are given to us by the state, which is an elected group of people who we vote for. It reflects normative values of the times. Even if one expresses his or her opposition to abortion through a referendum, it would be like hiding behind the crowd. Morality should not be about statistics and majorities.

The answer is therefore more long term. In the short term we can appeal to women; in the long term we need to focus on how we want the youth of the world to be educated in the future – what values are we giving them. The fact is that the world is still dealing with wars between cultures, sexes and ideologies. Crusades cause damage and it takes even more time to recover.

The antidote to not having morality the subject of statistics is a holistic approach. The “wrong” cannot be approached only by moralising. This only appeals to the converted. The law cannot order us to love one another. Neither should morality. Morality has to come from the principles one is brought up with. They have to come from inside, just like choosing to love someone.

We cannot order a woman to remain pregnant. What we can do is appeal to society. I would strongly support that women have a right to participate in the choice of options when medical reasons exist, even if they do not satisfy the doctrine of double effect directly. The alternative is paternalism by which people feel oppressed. History has shown that when laws (or regimes) are deemed oppressive by the majority, people will strive to change them. I say this as a pro-life person and as someone who sees the “good” society as the way to convert people to moral values. Conversely, just because the rest of the world is doing it, does not mean we should do it too. After all the rest of the world has caused climate change, consumerism, poverty, pollution and so many other bad things along with the good.

The argument on abortion is partially philosophical and partially religious. Philosophy may put a moral value at various stages, for example, when there is a primitive nervous system or a beating heart (having to do with sentience and circulation). Religion tends to choose the first cell. So what to do when confronted by a shunning of the religious argument. I find solace in the words of Pope Francis when confronted with questions about God: “See that the last thing that you must do is to say something. Begin to do something. Then he or she will ask you questions on how you line and why.” Only then, he says, “you must direct, direct with truth”. This takes time but where arguments have literally failed over the past decades, I am confident this will work. What use is it to defend life using aggression which not only antagonises but falls short of that which it stands for?

This article is the writer’s personal opinion and does not represent the opinion of any committee or Board he serves on.

Pierre Mallia is Professor of Family Medicine and Patients’ Rights and teaches at the University of Malta. He chairs the Bioethics Research Programme of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery. He also chairs the Bioethics Consultative Committee. [email protected]