Mark Azzopardi, Birguma.
Brain birth
Ivan Padovani (March 10) avers that the foetus, from conception to birth, is a person for three main reasons: firstly, it is alive, secondly, it is human and, thirdly, it is a member of the human species.
I certainly agree that the fertilised egg is biologically alive and that it is human. So are blood cells, hair follicles, cancer cells. The list is endless, although one would not choose to confer the status of personhood on any of these cells.
As to his claim that a fertilised egg is a member of the human species, this is as true as saying that an acorn is a member of the oak family. Like many leading bioethicists, I believe that a fertilised egg is a potential human being, just as an acorn is a potential oak tree. But potential does not mean actual.
The notion that personhood is related to mental capacity may be arbitrary, but it remains the most appealingly logical concept of all, simply because the brain epitomises the essence of every human being. Without a brain, there can be no person.
For several years, brain death has been the accepted legal definition of death and the end of personhood. The whole field of human organ transplantation depends on this arbitrary concept, wherein brain-dead individuals are kept on ventilator support until all their other still fully-functional organs - heart, lungs, kidneys, liver - are removed and used to save other people's lives.
If brain death indicates the end of personhood, then brain birth must logically indicate its beginning; and it is known that the hard wiring of the cerebral cortex and the processes of memory and learning do not begin until about the end of the fifth month of gestation.
The importance of the brain in the personhood debate can be further demonstrated in a hypothetical situation. Suppose it were possible for Dr Padovani and me to have our brains surgically removed and exchanged, so that I ended up with his brain in my body and he ended up with my brain in his. Which individual would Dr Padovani now consider himself to be?
The one which consists of his body, but which now has my thoughts, memories and experiences, or my body which now contains his brain? The answer is obvious because, although every part of the body may be replaced without altering one's personhood, as soon as the brain is replaced, that person is no more.
The rest of Dr Padovani's wordy discourse is nothing more than the inflammatory drivel one has come to expect from the anti-choice lobby. Likened to Nazis and white supremacists, adherents of the individual's right to choose are depicted as the purveyors of genocide. What Dr Padovani appears to overlook is that, in modern rights-based societies, to coerce a woman to resort to abortion is a crime and just about as permissible as forcing her to chop off one of her arms!
The caption accompanying Dr Padovani's article reads, "When we can loftily decide... that we can summarily deprive others of their rights, we are oppressing them." How true. The countless women who have lost their lives because, in their desperation, they had no option but to resort to using the services of a back-street quack, operating in unsanitary conditions, are a testament to the tyranny that claims to represent the voice of the unborn, but which pigheadedly ignores the voice of those who are very much born and whose grievances deserve to be taken into consideration - if anything, for what they consider to be their best interests on a matter in which opinion is so evidently divided.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
15 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mark Azzopardi
Mar 17th 2008, 00:04
Sorry to disappoint you Gerry, but the points raised in Claire Bonello's letter were tackled by me a long time ago. They're old hat.
Anyway, it's refreshing to see that you've run out of any ideas of your own and now feel you have to scour old newspapers for some sort of rebuttal.
I think my point's been made. Enough said. Let our readers be the judges.
gerry cowie
Mar 16th 2008, 20:28
I am indebted to Roamer for the following article:- http://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20071125/opinion/roamers-column
Mark Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2008, 20:09
Kyle, it is a well-documented fact that, before abortion was legalised in both the US and the UK, illegal abortion was rampant.
The abortion of unwanted pregnancies have been a feature of all societies since at least the ancient Greeks, who recommended a range of abortifacients, such as silphium.
The only problem is that illegal abortion is hundreds of times more dangerous for the woman than medically-controlled legal abortion. However, this has never stopped women from resorting to it, in the absence of legal abortion.
Money simply doesn't come into the equation and a woman who wants to abort will do so by hook or by crook. Just look at our own situation in Malta. Women who wish to abort are prepared to go abroad to have the operation done in professional clinics, whatever the cost.
You may be unable to justify abortion and I would agree with you that, ideally, abortion would be totally unnecessary. But nobody knows exactly what is going on in these women's minds, only that their views and reasons need to be respected by a humane society, especially since the morality of abortion is still the subject of debate and certainly not a matter of black or white.
Gerry, there is really no point in continuing with this debate. I do not have to rubbish your arguments, since you do a pretty good job of it on your own. After all, it was you who came up with the absurdity that a fertilised egg is a human being WITH POTENTIAL. Potential for what, may I ask? To turn into a super human being? I just don't see the point you are trying to make.
Like many other ethicists and philosophers, I do not believe that a person can exist without the presence of a brain. A fertilised egg may have the potential to develop a brain, but having the potential is not the same thing as actually having a brain.
Anyway, let us just agree to differ. And, regarding your understanding that I believe abortion to be iniquitous, you are wrong. I was only referring to your opinion about it. You have to read between the lines on this one.
I do not believe that abortion is morally neutral, only that a fully grown woman's life is more valuable and deserves far better protection.
As to murder, all rights-based societies consider it to be totally unacceptable and it is not the subject of any debate. Abortion is.
Ave atque vale.
gerry cowie
Mar 16th 2008, 18:30
I am quite used to being treated as dumb for voicing my opinions.
I shall leave other readers to judge as to Mr Azzopardi's attempts to rubbish those who believe in the sanctity of human life. He has attempted to twist what I have said and put his own spin on it, looking at his comments on acorns and oaks etc.
At least he admits that the killing of an unborn child stops it developing to full term.
Why should it simply be an argument from a religious angle which cries out against abortion?
Mr Azzopard is naive to say the least if he thinks that everybody who does not favour abortion is some kind of religious fanatic! That is quite insulting!
I expect Mr Azzopardi is against the idea of murder (AND I AM NOT PLAYING THE ABORTION - MURDER CARD HERE) which is, in fact, condemnded in the Bible. But even those who are totally without religion mostly agree that murder is not right!
So please do not label all those who are against abortion as religious freaks! Surely you should be "more respectful" to me by not playing the religious card!!!
Surely what would be a "nice to have" is that nobody ever needed abortions at all.
Anyway, I have no doubt that Mr Azzopardi will come back and "counter" my arguments.
No doubt this one will run and run.
Thankyou for your suggestion that I speak against abortion in my own country. I understand from that comment that in fact Mr Azzopardi is NOT in favour of abortion, which he has in his own words described as "An Iniquity". Just what side of the fence is he actually on?
Kyle Pullicino
Mar 16th 2008, 16:51
Dear Mr. Azzopardi,
I do respect you as a dignified human being but your arguments are totally inconsistent. Do you honestly believe that societies found in countries like the United States and England are thriving with legalised divorce and abortion?
Yes, I do have the same opinion about abortion (and its dire consequences) as those presented by my religion but, using your same argument, you approve of abortion because you are the one to gain from it (not the woman who performs abortion and neither the murdered embryo but the abortionist gaining the money).
I still am searching for a good reason for abortion when there are ample alternatives that shine of kindness and generosity instead of killing people who could potentially become one of the greatest people that ever lived on the planet. Oh! Excuse me. I forgot "kindness" and "generosity" counted as swear words in these "modern" days where killing someone else could become something acceptable soon.
Mark Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2008, 12:41
Ne'er a truer word spoken, James! Nice to see an old head on what I believe are very young shoulders. Keep it up.
Mark Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2008, 12:24
Sorry Gerry, but I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, only applying your form of logic to this debate.
It is you yourself that seems to be desperately lost for argument. According to you, crushing an acorn is tantamount to destroying an oak tree. Like many others, environmentalists included, I feel that this is nonsensical.
I would be inclined to be more than respectful if you came out with it and admitted that you are against abortion simply because it goes against your religion.
However, slamming my letter on the grounds that it is "fierce" (which, coming from you, I take as meaning "difficult to counter") is a compliment.
I would suggest that you devoted more of your time and energy in trying to convince your own people in the UK about the iniquity of abortion. I feel certain that your arguments would have a huge impact on public perception there.
As to Malta, you are merely preaching to the converted, as all recent polls suggest.
gerry cowie
Mar 16th 2008, 11:22
Mr Azzopardi has simply responded with sarcasm and attempts to be clever by trying to make those who criticize him seem stupid. Point-scoring in desperation without actually reading what has been said.
An acorn cannot become a full oak tree if crushed, as a baby cannot be born if aborted at any stage.
Whilst most of us will not be conversant with the science involved, our beliefs on what is right and what is wrong cannot be said to be ill-informed just because we do not agree with pro-abortionists.
The way Mr Azzopardi has reponded to his critics, with an acerbic tongue hardly dignifies his profession.
Sarcasm, Mr Azzopardi, is indeed the lowest form of wit!
James Cauchi
Mar 16th 2008, 10:43
I merely approach issues with a moral consideration of all stakeholders concerned. It was only logical that sooner or later one would seek to quantify the moral implications from both sides of this question.
It is not so much about "catching up" with the rest of the world - as I feel that some of the pro-choicers have neglected this particular and essential fact - as it is about upholding the maximum degree of ethical soundness and consistency possible.
However know that in spite of the words of individuals like ourselves there will be those who will persist in peddling the religious texts within which morality too often is much akin to a shopping list and therefore unsupported by ethical or even philosophical foundation.
In order for the voice of reason and 'true' ethics to be heard, individuals need to unite. Otherwise we shall persist with a situation where it is power, not ethics, that determines what is socially acceptable or not.
Mark Azzopardi
Mar 16th 2008, 10:12
Thanks for your support, James.
Malta may now be a member of the EU, with all the benefits this implies in economic and environmental terms, but our record, when it comes to addressing the social realities of our age, is poor even by third world country criteria.
Staunch Catholic ways of life are imposed on all and sundry by both major political parties, ever fearful of crossing swords with what they perceive as an all-powerful local Curia.
So, we still have no cohabitation rights, no divorce, no abortion and no legal recognition of gay partnerships.
It's about time we realised that this is the 21st century!
James Cauchi
Mar 16th 2008, 03:49
Dear Mr. Azzopardi,
It seems that we share a common perspective regarding personhood, or rather the pre-requisite of a brain in order to obtain the potential to be an individual.
Surely even the naysayers realize that without a brain there can be no way for an embryo to have thoughts, memories, feelings, and (most importantly) a will.
To Mr Cowie,
I feel that I should point out that the human brain begins to form 17-20 days into a pregnancy.
Is it not ironic that pro-lifers choose to pressure women into continuing pregnancies prior to an embryo forming the capability of forming a will to live (thereby amplifying the moral implications while also making the woman concerned feel unduly guilty)? Who is disrespectful of whom?
Dear Mr. Pullicino,
You have said a lot but I feel that you have made no point. Do you truly think that all those who choose not to take on the very unreasonable, inflexible and unforgiving notion that conception is the moral point of no return are in fact money-grubbing abortionists?
I would suggest otherwise.
Oh... and Mr. Azzopardi, feel free to contact me via www.pathforger.com.
Mark Azzopardi
Mar 15th 2008, 23:55
I respect your views, Kyle. Fortunately, Malta isn't too much of a problem when it comes to abortion. Although not legal within our shores, it is perfectly legal in Sicily, which is just a short, inexpensive, catamaran ride away. Many pregnant Maltese women are said to visit Sicily for this purpose with the more Anglophylic ones preferring the UK instead.
So much for the damage and disruption to our society! Why don't we Maltese stop being such hypocrites and start admitting the basic fact that, although publicly opposed to it for "religious" reasons, we resort to abortion privately when we feel we have no other alternative, precisely as our European cousins do?
Mark Azzopardi
Mar 15th 2008, 20:48
Since the unborn are human beings WITH POTENTIAL, you would agree that acorns are oak trees WITH POTENTIAL, Gerry. Never thought about them that way! Interesting concept.
Kyle Pullicino
Mar 15th 2008, 15:21
Dear Mr. Azzopardi,
Your pathetic attempt at swaying the Maltese people fails once again. "The countless women who have lost their lives because, in their desperation," where about to pay an overwhelming sum of money (a fundamental right that's expensive?) to satisfy the greed of abortionists who have decided that they are persons enough to judge who is a person or not.
Also, without a human being there would be no brain and therefore you cannot justify the countless homicides that occur against these "human beings with potential" (as Mr. Cowie correctly stated).
No, I do not think my hair follicles and blood cells count as persons but they all belong to my person and it will not bode well to anyone who tries to harm them.
I'm proud to belong to a country that knows that legalised abortion will simply disrupt and damage our society very badly.
Gerry Cowie
Mar 15th 2008, 11:53
Another fierce attack upon those who have a wholehearted and genuine respect for human life from conception to natural death.
Science tries to set limits in order to add weight to its arguments. But the unborn seem to lie "outside the box" as set by such as bioethicists and where they do not fit within the parameters set, the arguments of those who respect life are rubbished.
The unborn are not simply "potential" human beings but in fact human beings WITH POTENTIAL.
If one crushes an acorn, one destroys it. Thus abortion destroys the human foetus.
As for the "tyrrany" Mr Azzopardi uses to describe the actions of those who wish to preserve life, what about the tyrrany of those who do not respect the unborn? To put that sort of spin on those who respect life is only the action of one who is himself tyrannical!
It is a great irony here that Mr Azzopardi then speaks of transplanting brains in a long-winded attempt to further rubbish Dr Padovani. Would Mr Azzopardi welcome Dr Frankenstein's techniques were he a real person and alive and practising today?