Monday, 8th February 2010
Care order proposal for unborn children
'Great majority of the Maltese oppose abortion'
Malta needs to fight the "culture of death" prevalent in today's society - Tonio Borg. Photo: Jason Borg.
The government would be able to issue care orders for children yet to be born under a proposal by Parliament's Social Affairs Committee.
Speaking at a pro-life manifestation at the St John's Co-Cathedral Oratory yesterday, Social Affairs Committee chairman Edwin Vassallo said the government was intent on safeguarding human life starting from conception.
"We must introduce legislation to protect unborn children, not just from abortion but even from behaviour such as drug abuse," Mr Vassallo said.
In cases where this sort of behaviour was detected, the proposed law would enable authorities to take better care of unborn children by providing treatment to mothers.
In extreme cases they would even issue a care order over the unborn child as happened nowadays with infants, children and teenagers at risk, he said.
This would not require the right to life of the unborn child to be entrenched into the Constitution, as the current one would allow for such a law to be enacted.
Maria Vella, a doctor working with pregnant women with a drug addiction, hailed this as a step in the right direction.
Contacted by The Times, Dr Vella said: "Currently, there are no laws which make treatment compulsory for pregnant women who are dependent on drugs.
"In this way, we will be taking care of mothers and their children, while giving a voice to the unborn child."
It has been shown that babies born to mothers addicted to drugs such as cocaine, heroin and amphetamines are themselves born addicted to the drug, having received it through the placenta.
Speaking with Caravaggio's Beheading of St John in the backdrop, Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg reiterated his stance that Malta should join Ireland in entrenching the unborn child's right to life in its Constitution, and that this should be something members of both parties should work for.
Dr Borg said that while the great majority of the Maltese opposed abortion, more needed to be done to help pregnant women and their children, including strengthening the family unit which he understood primarily as monogam-ous, heterosexual marriages, without excluding other forms of family.
"When protecting life at conception, it's not just abortion that is an issue but you should be able to ensure care for the unborn child," Dr Borg said. Speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, Tony Agius Decelis said the party was fully in favour of protecting the miracle of life and it was totally against abortion under any circumstance.
RSS
Comments
a fetus is a human being?? honestly? fine that's your opinion. i'm alive cos my parents chose life - well if i was aborted i wouldn't know the difference..
P muscat - i cant agree with you more. us women are being treated as 'incubators', just a link to reproduction. we are not being treated as human beings, our rights are disappearing and i will NOT accept that.
as i said.. if someday i want an abortion.. i WILL get an abortion.. n i don't care what peppu or peppi think - its MY body!
Why all this fuss about abortion? Is this a ploy by the [locally] almighty priests to deviate attention from the more pressing issue of divorce? Are the priests feeling they are losing power on this backward society?
Life does not start at conception. That idea is abdurd and shows how ignorant most people are on biology and life. Life started much earlier than that! A fertilised egg is not a child: it is just a cell. A hundred cells later it is still not a human being, even though it has the full genetic information. Nearly all cells of the adult body have the same genetic information but that does not make them a human being, let alone a person.
There are however whole and complete persons in this issue who are being ignored and those are the women, who incidentally happen to be half of society. But what does an organisation made up of single and [outwardly] celibate men in black care about women?
No matter what stage the foetus has reached it is still a human being with potential - not a potential human being. Life is cheapened to a commodity by those who feel a child has no value until it is outside of the womb, safe from abortionists. The value of human life is not just a religious issue. You are alive because your parents chose life - don't forget that!
@Adrian Aquilina - rights come with responsiblities. You also are alive as your parents chose life for you.
@W Flynn of Australia - your sarcasm is evidence of a lack of anything constructive to say here! You also are alive because your parents chose life for you.
I think the minister has been taken out of context - and the ones shouting loudest are the pro abortionists.
Animals get treated better in our society than human beings. I'll bet people would shout louder to protect animals. Ghandi was so right!
im embarrassed to be in a country wer woman are treated like dogs. so the order is - man, fetus, family pet and then women. we are seen as incubators, we are NOT incubators. this is OUR body.
.. but dnt wry.. just because it isnt legal here.. it does NOT mean maltese women dnt have abortions.
its causing women here to get abortions much later in their pregnancy, when the baby is almost formed. they, not only, have to save up for the actual abortion - but also for the transport n accomodation
May I suggest to Tonio Borg to castrate the unknown fathers of the unwanted children too!!!!!
It would be sex discrimination to persecute only the mothers and not also the fathers in attempted abortions.......
Richard Galea.
You said that "Women who have miscarriages will have the additional trauma of being investigated by the police to see if they've broken the law by 'behaving inappropriately' whilst being pregnant."
This already happens. When my wife suffered a miscarriage some years ago, a doctor at St Luke's subjected her (while still under shock) to a third-degree grilling worthy of any Gestapo thug.
He also tried to grill me separately - probably to see if our "stories" matched.
My case:
Should humans give way to this, wether its an "unwanted child" , a "handicaped child" or other reasons that may seem "reasonably valid", I ask : Ok then, why not have children genetically engineered as one wishes ? This may pave the way for children which are "ordered" via the "counter". Options like Skin complexion, eye colour, blonde or not......etc etc.....may all be items one can tick off the list !! What does come to mind here ? Maybe somekind of "Supremacy" , based upon what ? Maybe financial means ? Will these children be "patented company property" ?
Abortion is not an option. It paves the way for other "concepts and/or misconcepts" we humans devise in order to sustain our hunger for "control and power" !!
Are you saying you are in favour of people smoking next to infants? Because if you are not then I cannot understand how you can agree that a woman smokes when pregnant. You can read the following in case you do not know how smoke harms babies;
http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/t105800.asp
How does the Right Honourable Minister propose to include other forms of family if he understands the family unit to be exclusively monogomous, heterosexual and 'married'? Cognitive dissonance par excellence! He should refrain from insulting the electorate's intelligence and stop using the hackneyed term inclusion. Inclusion and exclusion aren't synonymous and doublespeak is odious.
"We must introduce legislation to protect unborn children, not just from abortion but even from behaviour such as drug abuse," Mr Vassallo said
Furthermore does he plan to issue care orders and introduce legislation for the unborn in the inner Harbour and Delimara areas should their mothers be observed surviving on black dust, comprised and polluted air?
I believe you are the one putting things out of proportion. Just because the law is there it does not mean the government will start monitoring every pregnant woman 24/7 just in case one of them does something wrong! However with such a law the government will have another legal tool to help protect better the rights of the unborn child.
As for freedom of choice so much shouted on these forums; everyone has freedom of choice (yes even in this country) as long as that freedom does not danger the rights of other - now isn't the birth NATURAL RIGHT of the unborn-child? Additionally, it is not as if an unborn child does not feel anything. There are documentaries that prove the contrary but still people prefer to look the other side, as long as they get rid of the "problem".
Fact is that some people should start thinking about their freedom of choice before doing it and not after. Mind you, there is nothing wrong in doing it, however two people should do it baring the responsibility of what can come out of it, rather then ALWAYS choosing the easy way out.
When a woman misses her period ? Immediately after sexual intercourse ? Or what ?
Illuminana ftit, Edwin !
And why not go the whole hog and castrate anyone who shows a propensity towards abortion?
No wonder the present administration is getting more cut off from its grassroots. They have become experts in theophysics. They are turning Malta into a theocracy !
Smoking is also damaging, so any women buying cigarettes will have to produce a certificate that she is not pregnant. And any woman seen smoking may be asked to show her midriff, just in case there is a "bump”.
The same goes for alcohol – the barman will have to ask any woman ordering a drink to produce proof of non-pregnancy.
And what about overeating? Will any woman ordering a whopper with extra fries be expected to furnish a urine sample which will be swiftly tested in the kitchen?
Lack of exercise is also a big no-no, so the police pregnancy patrol will have to check whether the woman has taken her daily walk. In fact, it may be more practical to organise group walks, with a traffic policeman (flashing lights and all) in front and a couple of drill-sergeants bringing up the rear going “left, right, left right, left right....)
Issuing care orders over another person's body? Are we going mad?
One word springs to mind and that is "proportionality" - the principle that government action ought to be proportional to the ends achieved. This is way over any reasonable proportional action to protect a foetus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
the government and the religious have no right to control peoples lives..malta is sinking and these religious fanatics are taking it down
Madness.
Does freedom to choose also give you freedom to decide for others? Why is it ok for the government to intervene if a mother tries to harm an already born baby but not when a mother is harming the unborn child? Do you believe that the unborn child does not have any feelings or cannot feel any pain??
...and we will all truly benefit from the gift of life!
It is a pity that he does not show the same fervour when it comes to the rights of those already born, such as the elderly who are often deprived of their free medication as none is available.
Surely, as a senior Cabinet figure, he should be consistent in everything and care for everyone, and not just to Opus Dei.
Doesn't anyone think that this type of legislation could be dangerous and impinge on the woman's right to her own body and her freedom to choose?
Will we end up having Womb Police going around bars and restuarants checking up on pregnant women? Will pregnant women have to prove that the father of their yet unborn child allows them to travel?
This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the rights of the unborn child. Has Hon. Dr. Borg forgotten the texts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the EU Charter on Fundamental Freedoms, granting women the right to freedom and the right to respect for her physical and mental integrity?
What about including a supervision order on any woman found or suspected of being pregnant.