Does pro-life depend on whose life?

Oh dear, he’s back with his bid for the limelight; I refer to the Bishop of Gozo Mario Grech. It has been a while since he regaled us with his wisdom. When Malta was preparing for the referendum on divorce in February 2010, he had linked divorce with abortion, telling a pro-life event that research showed that there was a link between unstable families and abortion.

He of course used “unstable” for his own agenda. There are all kinds of unstable families, so why choose divorce as the culprit. If that were the case, we would not have had any unstable families at all before divorce was introduced and we all know that’s not right. Gambling, drink, drugs and lack of respect are all contributors to unstable families.

“Where the family is united, pregnancy is likely to be accepted and celebrated, but where the family is broken, such as in the case of divorced parents, there is a higher probability that life is refused and threatened,” the Bishop had stated then. Had he thought this through at all? Or was he convinced that his followers are that dense not to realise the discrepancy in that statement?

The truth is that pregnancy is most likely to be accepted and celebrated where there is love, respect and financial and emotional stability, in or out of marriage. I had commented in my column “Fundamentalists using babaw tactics” in February 2010. The bishop knows which issues are bound to attract the most attention. He is now at it again.

In a homily dedicated to women, he spoke of “women’s pseudo rights”, particularly with regard to abortion. Labelling some women’s rights as pseudo is hardly going to endear him to the thinking female population. He was reacting to observations made by the International Court of justice (ICJ). Out of the 13 judges, who the bishop is claiming are promoting women’s pseudo rights, only three are women.

In its submission to the United Nations’ (UN) periodic review on the human rights record of all member states, the ICJ claimed that the prohibition of abortion without medical exceptions meant, “Malta was failing to ensure women’s right to life and the highest attainable standard of health were met.” This proposal repeated the concerns expressed in 2010 by the UN Committee, on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, when Malta was urged to remove the provisions criminalizing women who undergo abortion and to enact exceptions allowing abortion for medical purposes and in cases of rape or incest.

Malta’s abortion ban undermined its compliance with numerous UN conventions and covenants, said the ICJ and it is the only EU country that bans the termination of pregnancies in all circumstances, even when the woman’s life is in danger. I could understand the bishop’s reaction if abortion, or women’s rights, were being promoted willy-nilly. Please note that it is “the prohibition of abortion without medical exceptions and in cases of rape and incest” (i.e. it is the blanket ban) that is being challenged”.

Maltese politicians will not touch this subject with a barge pole and the main political parties have consistently supported the ban. The bishop actually thanked the Labour and Nationalist parties for consistently opposing abortion and for being pro-life. The word pro-life also intrigued me here, because there must be a dilemma if we are talking about whether to save a mother’s life or the baby’s life she is carrying.

Is it OK in the pro-life argument to let a mother die but not a baby? Not surprisingly, the Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations responded, “We believe that the life of the mother is at the very least as valuable as the life of the unborn child,” said its spokesperson Kate Bonello Sullivan. Why are the women in the political parties silent on such a crucial issue concerning their own gender? At the very least they should be pointing out that pro-life should also include the life of a woman.

No one in his or her right mind would promote irresponsible abortion. So is it really necessary to use such emotive words as “Abortion is murder” and “direct killing of children in order to save the mother is never acceptable”. Even here the Bishop gives out confusing messages. He also claimed, “A seriously ill pregnant woman is ethically justified to take pills that ‘indirectly’ puts her baby’s life at risk” and “Human beings, whether aged or still a foetus, have a right to live”.

Now what on earth does he mean by indirectly putting the baby’s life at risk? And, “Any such decision was ‘ethically permitted’ if every effort was made to try and save the life of mother and child and as long as all options to protect the mother and the child are explored.” How does that tie in with, “Abortion to save a mother’s life is never acceptable” and how does that tally with “Human beings, whether aged or still a foetus, have a right to live”?

Abortion is an extremely serious issue and one of the most traumatic life decisions a woman, or a couple, can make; they do not deserve to be termed murderers at worst and criminals at best. Sometimes, it is a husband who has to take the decision, since the mother will not be in a fit state, for example on an operating table. It was refreshing to see so many men disagreeing with the bishop online, at least it proved that we can discuss the subject and it is no longer taboo, except with our politicians!

Published in the Malta Independent on Sunday 19/05/2013