Two Sundays ago marked a first in my chosen career as a professional human being. For the first time in my life, I read an article by Gift of Life CEO Paul Vincenti without feeling the need to pinch myself to establish whether I was awake, and still residing on that wonderfully dotty little blue planet called “Earth”. The reason being that, unlike any of his previous contributions on the well-worn subject of abortion, this one presented a mildly interesting and rather well-written argument, which for a change did not rely exclusively on fake plastic foetuses, unwieldy forceps, or great, passionate appeals to unbridled mass hysteria. That said, I disagree entirely with Vincenti’s conclusions. The way I see it, rape can only seriously aggravate the human rights dilemma which already lies at the heart of the entire abortion debate, swinging the balance firmly in favour of the mother. But this is beside the point. The point is that we are finally having a discussion about the actual ins and outs of the issue… and what do you know? Different viewpoints are slowly swimming to the surface. Last Sunday, a letter appeared in The Malta Independent, exposing with chilling precision the inherent danger of Constitutional entrenchment as a political weapon: “As things stand, the party in government does not represent my democratic values anymore. I urge readers to see the dangers ahead for our country before it is too late. Unfortunately, so far there is no other way to defend our Constitution’s integrity but to advocate change both in the political climate, and also the type of politicians that we elect.” (Hear, hear! Never a truer word spoken, etc.) And a few days later, the inevitable occurred. Another letter, this one in The Times, made the following observation: “The debate on abortion seems to be a one-way streak. Everyone seems to be holding the ‘pro-life’ bumper sticker on his/her forehead. Yet, very few are speaking about the individual right to abort.” Something is clearly afoot. Alright, it’s not exactly a case of Ruzar Briffa’s celebrated “kotra” shuffling to its feet and shouting: “Bugger off, all of you” with one, hegemonic voice. But it nonetheless marks a clear and unequivocal departure from the previous “I’m pro-life, canonise me instantly” mantra favoured by the likes of Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg. This, you see, is what tends to happen when a government forces a hitherto ignored issue onto the national agenda, as Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi so unwisely did in May 2005. It is about as predictable as the daily news on One TV: and yet, unaccountably, it proved beyond the capabilities of both Gonzi and his partner in piety to actually see this inevitable consequence coming. (Though not their closest advisors, who I am told practically begged them not to make the mistake of confronting the country with its own jaundiced views on the subject.) But enough about the actual reasons why we’re having this long overdue discussion. The fact is we’re having it, and there is a small contribution I would like to make before shutting up forever. The letter I quoted above posits a concept which many of us, even self-avowed liberals like myself, find very difficult to deal with. Is there such a thing as an “individual right to abort”? Surveys estimate (though I doubt their accuracy) that 94 per cent of this country vehemently, passionately and even violently disagrees. By way of contrast, tens of millions of Europeans would consider it a self-evident fact. As for me, I had never even given the matter a passing thought, until Tonio Borg grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and rubbed my nose in his precious entrenchment campaign. Ever since then I have thought about the subject a very great deal… and what can I say? My mind is still light years away from being made up. Whenever I look at the abortion issue, what I actually see with perfect clarity are two conflicting human rights: the right of every human person to life, and a woman’s right over her own body and to make her own individual choices. These two rights exist independently of one another, and broadly speaking only come into conflict in one general context: unwanted pregnancy, which by its own nature will always continue to happen (although I am consistently amazed by the sheer amount of people who seem incapable of understanding this very simple fact of life). I myself would have no difficulty acknowledging that these two rights are equally inviolable – but with the following proviso. For the first to even exist, it must be established that the living entity we are dealing with is actually a human person in its own right, and not just a human cell and/or conglomeration of the same. (Otherwise, we would find ourselves extending human rights to a surgically removed appendix, and possibly even to individual toenail cuttings.) Still, I can perfectly understand that the ongoing conflict must be resolved one way or another… and like many men, I find myself instinctively gravitating towards the view that in all but the most extreme circumstances, the human person’s right to life should automatically outweigh the woman’s right to decide her own destiny. But that is obviously a very easy conclusion for any man to reach. Besides, I am allergic to absolutism. It makes me come up in spots (I kid you not). So I cannot just accept the view that all debate on the issue is pointless, because some self-anointed high priest of the foetus has drawn a line at the precise moment of conception – which, incidentally, is not a “precise moment” at all, but a process which takes around 20 hours – and in his infinite wisdom has named it the Alpha and the Omega of Human Life. My scepticism multiplies exponentially when you also consider that scientific opinion is hugely divided on the issue of when the embryo becomes a human person. To my mind, the “penetration” argument is the least satisfactory, for it simply reduces the notion of human identity to gametes, chromosomes and purely mathematical genetic information… (thus, ironically, playing into the hands of certain extremist molecular biologists, who argue that the sole purpose of human existence is to transmit the all-important DNA to the subsequent generation.) Personally, I am far more convinced by the argument that the “human person” actually traces its earliest origins to the first appearance of the primitive streak… which occurs 14 days after fecundation. Then again, I would hesitate to draw the line myself. So as far as I am concerned the dilemma remains unresolved, because we lack the scientific knowledge to take a truly informed decision. On a less purely microscopic level, I must add it is a source of endless fascination to me that the same people who go positively ga-ga over a single fertilized human egg, seem to consistently overlook the entire existence of another human being who likewise possesses, not just its own unique DNA, but also its own unique consciousness – that elusive concept which, no matter what the pro-life campaigners may say, simply does not exist in the first hours, days or even weeks of a foetus’ life. That’s right: in all this so-called “debate” about the origins and meaning of human life, we have somehow managed to argue another human being – the mother – out of existence altogether. Seen from this angle, I am afraid I cannot subscribe to dogmatic notions such as “life begins at conception”; especially when used as a justification for the absurd pressure this campaign places on individual women... who, last I looked, were also eligible for human rights under the terms of the Human Rights Convention. Granted, a point must come when the embryo does develop into a human being, and from that point on you could argue that it is entitled to the same legal protection as anyone else. (There are counter-arguments, but to be honest these would be better made by genuine pro-choice people, not by an undecided like myself). But this doesn’t automatically annihilate the mother’s rights to take decisions over her own life and destiny. It merely complicates the issue. Considering the enormity of the divergence in world opinion, I find it inconceivable and intolerable that such an arbitrary (and scientifically unproven) definition of the beginning of human life can be simply carted off into the Constitution, lock stock and two smokin’ barrels, without so much as a serious debate. So while I shall have to reserve judgment on the question of the individual right to abort, I can safely say that there are a number of ancillary issues in which judgment cannot be reserved. One of these is the Constitutional amendment itself, which represents a gross affront to liberal thinking, and which must be resisted at all costs. Another is the recent, unjustified decision to ban the morning after pill, which would limit the means for protection at a woman’s disposal, only to afterwards hold her criminally responsible when the inevitable occurs. There are others, too: as it stands, Maltese law stipulates a prison sentence for women found guilty of aborting. It matters little that this law is never enforced: its very existence serves as a permanent symbol of threat to the many thousands of Maltese women who have already had abortions (either legally abroad, or illegally at home). These latter in particular, who tend overwhelmingly to come from the most underprivileged socio-economic groups, also have to go through life knowing that if the current hysteria gains momentum, they could conceivably be prosecuted and imprisoned for having taken a pretty grim decision under pretty awful circumstances. Honestly: how can anyone justify a law like that? rvassallo@mediatoday.com.mt