Drawing the life line. : Is a sweeping prohibition provision against abortion better than a cluster of enactments regulating abortion?

Abstract

Abortion is one of the most hotly debated issues plaguing our society and although subject to a plethora of different views and sentiments, it is incumbent on the law to provide an objective standpoint, binding on all persons. This study aims to discover whether having a single prohibition provision is better than having an entire set of laws to regulate abortion under Maltese law. In order to arrive at such conclusion, the study discusses the various components relative to the abortion debate. The research touches upon various facets ranging from the historical development of abortion to its religious and philosophical background. It also discusses the concept of the beginning of life and the attribution of personhood in addition to exploring the antenatal development of the foetus and the methods used in the procurement of an abortion. In order to provide a sociological element to the study, the research delves into the different scenarios which may be conducive towards an abortion, such as rape and incest. The research expounds upon the rights conferred to the unborn child and the pregnant woman under various international legal instruments. Furthermore, it discusses the legal positions obtaining in the UK, Ireland and the USA paying attention to the historical development and to landmark decisions delivered by the respective courts. The Maltese stance on abortion and the status of the unborn child are discussed in the context of Maltese culture, law and jurisprudence. A comparative analysis is conducted in order to review the aforementioned positions with the aim of establishing whether Malta ought to change its position or to maintain it.