The right to bodily autonomy and choice were unsurprisingly common reasons that backed respondents’s pro-choice beliefs.

Many argued that it should not be up to governments, nor voters to decide what a person can or can’t do with their body, and subsequently, their life.

“Women [and child bearers] deserve bodily autonomy,” a Maltese woman in her 20s said.

“The woman or child bearer should be able to make decisions about their body and their future self, no one else,” said a woman in her 30s.

“Abortion is a woman’s free will,” said a man in his 50s.

“The fact that bodily autonomy is a human right, is enough reason to be pro-choice,” another respondent said.

“There should be free will and the ability for a woman to choose. Her body, her choice,” said a man in his late 20s.

“It is a basic human right for people of child bearing age. Malta is too behind on sexual health and reproductive rights,” a woman in her 40s explained.

People use rights and freedoms to defend their pro-choice opinions because to deny abortion is to discriminate against those seeking this healthcare and thus, to jeopardise a range of human rights.

It is a country’s obligation to respect, protect, and satisfy human rights – including those concerning sexual and reproductive health and autonomy. Therefore, when a country has unreasonably harsh rules that restrict the accessibility to safe abortions, it threatens other internationally protected human rights.

More specifically, rights to nondiscrimination and equality; to life, health, and information; to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; to privacy and bodily autonomy and integrity; to decide the number and spacing of children; to liberty; to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress; and to freedom of conscience and religion are all put at risk due to strict abortion limitations.

These rights and freedoms are either set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and/or protected by a number of international and regional treaties that European member states are bound to.

2. Abortion is healthcare

The idea that abortion is healthcare that protects women and child-bearers from potentially fatal complications was a common explanation used to defend pro-choicers’ sentiments.

In fact, over 500 respondents said that abortion should be allowed in the case of health risks (apart from those who agreed it should be allowed in all cases).

“It’s not a crime, it’s healthcare,” said a respondent in her 30s.

“When the foetus is life-threatening (heartbeat or no heartbeat), priority should be given to the woman’s life. You can have another baby, you can’t ‘replace’ your wife,” a man in his late 20s expressed.

“The Maltese law is backwards. Abortion is basic healthcare in most of the world and especially in the EU. Expecting a woman to have to be facing life-threatening medical complications before an abortion can even be considered is cruel and dangerous,” said a man in his late 30s.

“Sometimes, giving birth can be life-threatening for the mother,” said a woman in her early 20s.

A recent incident in Malta that fuelled the abortion debate and left thousands of people all around the world furious at our government’s lack of flexibility or remorse.

Andrea Prudente travelled to Malta with her partner while she was 16 weeks pregnant and during her stay she encountered complications with her pregnancy.

She was told by doctors that there was “zero chance” her pregnancy would be a success and her only options were to wait for the foetus’s heartbeat to stop or for her to develop an infection, after which they could terminate the pregnancy.

Fortunately, she was flown to Spain to terminate the pregnancy.

However, until then, she was in constant emotional distress having to hear the heartbeat of the foetus that would never become her child, while also worrying about all the risks posed to her health.

3. Banning abortion opens the door to unsafe procedures

Another common and important argument was the inefficacy and downright danger that a complete abortion blanked-ban imposes on people seeking the procedure.

“Abortion should be legalised because it will reduce unsafe procedures,” said a woman in her early 20s.

“I am in favour of women’s rights. Criminalising abortion puts women at risk for unsafe illegal abortion. This is putting women in medical danger where an unborn foetus is given more importance than the person bearing it.”

“There will always be abortions happening, regardless of the law. Decriminalising the act would ensure that people who don’t wish to be pregnant would have access to safe medical practices, rather than trying to perform it themselves in unsanitary and unsafe manners,” another woman explained.

“Because it is simply not a crime. And also because through criminalisation, you are putting more women at risk of having unsafe abortions,” said a man in his late 30s.

Abortion will not stop unless unwanted pregnancies stop, and considering the myriad factors that make millions of women and child-bearers deem their pregnancies unwanted, it is unlikely that they will cease to exist.

Of course, there are means to prevent and decrease unwanted pregnancies – means which Malta’s government neglects to implement – but the fact of the matter is that there will always be people who need abortions.

Therefore, when a country completely prohibits this service to be carried out in a safe and legal manner, the complete opposite will ensue. People will seek abortions that can, and have, ended lives.

4. The quality of a child’s life is more important than the existence of a foetus

Some respondents decided to take a different approach and look at the effects of an unwanted pregnancy on the quality of life of the child that would be born – whether this quality is affected by negligence or extremely severe disabilities.

“What is the aim of going through a pregnancy when you know that the baby will die or suffer? At the moment the law is dictated by the ‘moral high’ where they believe that choices are black and white and look at women as incubators. People are pro-birth not pro-life. The child’s quality of life is very important and often not given much thought,” said a woman in her 40s.

“Children are pushed further into lives of misery and abuse by forced pregnancies. Forced birthers don’t want to accept that denying science and human rights costs *them* money. Once the unwanted pregnancy results in birth (and/or disability and grieving for the mother), all social service costs come out of their pockets, in the form of tax. They don’t care about other people’s rights or quality of life,” said another woman in her 40s.

“Freedom of choice as long as it’s early in the first 14 weeks or due to a genetic illness or severe disability.”

“Abortion should be within 14 weeks for unwanted pregnancies and even after that for severe disabilities.”

The quality of life of a child is something that’s overlooked too often when discussing abortion. Generally, when a pregnancy is unwanted it’s because the parent/s does not have the right mental or financial means to support a child.

And what does this result in?

According to psychology professor, researcher and author Nancy Felipe Russo, prospective studies – like Refused abortion: A follow-up study of 249 women whose applications were refused by the National Board of Health in Sweden – have found that if a woman identifies her pregnancy as unwanted, her subsequent child will be at risk for a wide range of negative outcomes, including deficits in cognitive, emotional, and social processes.

She also highlighted that being unwanted is linked to a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour, being on welfare, having an unstable marriage and experiencing psychiatric struggles as an adult.

Meanwhile, it can also send already struggling families below the poverty line, a huge burden that no well-intentioned family should have to carry.

5. Banning abortion discriminates against the poor

Similarly to point number three, banning abortions does not stop the need or occurrence of abortions. Rather, it isolates and discriminates against poor families who cannot travel to another country to get the procedure done.

“Current laws force young poor girls to have children that traps them in a cycle of poverty.”

“I’m pro-choice because of the wealth gap – the poorer women do not have the choice to abort. The wealthier ones can travel and get an abortion,” said a woman in her 40s.

“Blanket bans affect the poorest members of society and are classist.”

“Criminalization of abortion disproportionately impacts poor and young women.”

Without proper policies, unwanted pregnancies will continue to run rampant. And with the government’s current disregard for all things sexual health, numbers will only rise.

However, these restrictions will only seriously affect those in vulnerable situations who can’t afford to travel for an abortion, get the medication they desperately need (which often faces shortages), or have no idea about certain NGOs that would help them terminate their pregnancy.

With that being said, there were several respondents who were pro-life and gave their own justifications. However, the number of pro-choice replies were overwhelming and may indicate a shift in cultural mentality.

While we understand that a sample size of 3,000 individuals does not speak for the country as a whole, it does provide Lovin Malta with some interesting insight on what the public thinks about abortion, insight that the government should consider when conducting their own research.

Abortion is not a taboo subject, discussion is healthy and important – so if you’re unhappy with the current state of things, don’t shy away from making your opinion known (respectfully, of course).

It’s time for the government to adapt to reason.

Stay tuned for more insight into what pro-life people think about the issue.

Are you pro-choice?