Ivan Padovani, Bidnija.
Abortion and truth
Mark Azzopardi (Brain Birth, March 15) seems to be having a difficult time coming to terms with the fundamental issues of this debate. It is hard to imagine spelling them out any more thoroughly without repeating what has already been written, but it appears that three basic points, at least, need to be re-addressed, perhaps more simply.
First, the unborn child, from conception to birth, is both living and human, i.e. a living human being. The jury is in on this one. No-one, anywhere (with the exception of Dr Azzopardi) questions this any longer. Abortionists, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, did their best to confuse this issue. They failed. The debate ended and everyone went home, a long time ago.
Next, a human being is a person. Personhood, however, is not a scientific concept. It is a social one. There is no universally-valid scientific description that can be attached to it. The attempt to do so is a perfect example of abortionist sophistry. Sophistry and deceit, of course, are the cornerstones of abortionist thinking. The fact that Dr Azzopardi prefers the logic of one particular pseudo-scientific statement to the many others out there is not relevant to the truth of it.
Finally, there exists no such thing, anywhere, as a right to abortion. This is a false claim. Quite naturally, it has been freely propagated by abortionists the world over. Nonetheless, it remains no more than wishful thinking on their part.
Whither now?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Paul Vincenti
Mar 22nd 2008, 10:58
Mr Vassallo became very upset once because he claimed that he was wrongly accused of being pro-abortion.
The right to choose is not absolute. This is a certainty. If that where so, then we would urgently need to eliminate all current laws designed to protect other people from the wrong choices they may make, thus allowing for unimpeded choice, something that I am sure that nobody in his right mind could agree to. Of course, this is not the case because there are some things that are clearly wrong. This include killing a defenceless human being in the sanctuary of her womb. Shifting the debate to rights is simply a non starter. Raphael would have us believe that the matter is only about the right to choose. If he were correct, then we should be concerned that different countries discriminate against women’s right to choose to varying degrees. No two countries seem to agree on the time limit that women should have the so called right to abort. Some counties allow for abortion up to ten weeks gestation, others to twelve, some to 20, other places up to 24 weeks and then for a cluster of different reasons ranging from convenience to marital infidelity. Just because abortion is legal in other countries, does not mean that the entire population of those countries agree with it. In fact, in almost all countries where abortion is legal, the population is divided right down the middle. Finally, Raphael would do well to consider that like all of us, he was born pro-life and it is indoctrination, similar to that propagated by past totalitarian states, that turns people into becoming pro-choice for abortion. One should keep in mind that pro-aborts are not actually interested in truth and often, if they cannot convince, they will try to confuse.
Gerry Cowie
Mar 20th 2008, 19:26
Mr Vassallo should note that with freedom comes responsiblity! Indeed at the end of the day the woman has a decision to make due to the freedom she has. Indeed nobody denies that a person has such a right to decide. But that decision comes with responsiblities and consequences involving another human being.
The fact that something is legal does not make it right! It was legal for Adolf Hitler to exterminate millions of Jews and others who did not fit in with his perfect master race. That did not make it right!
Let's steer clear of simply trying to make one another look silly!
Gerry Cowie
Mar 19th 2008, 19:30
You may remember Mr Azzopardi's letter of last week, and no doubt you have read the comments made by myself and others. I wish to congratulate you, since in the letter you have written here, you do not descend to the level of deliberately trying to twist Mr Azzopardi's words, nor attempt to score points through sarcasm. It is a great pity that the accusation is so often levelled at anybody opposed to abortion that they are speaking from a merely religious standpoint and nothing else. That is of course a rediculous assertion, which directly attacks those with no religious outlook whatsoever who disagree strongly with abortion. This debate has run for years and it is likely to run on and on, of course. The words "whither now?" are of course a red rag to a bull here! By the way, I attach a link to an article from the Times of Malta late last year which all might find of interest in relation to the above-mentioned. http://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20071125/opinion/roamers-column
Raphael Vassallo
Mar 19th 2008, 13:41
If all three of Ivan Padovani's assertions were correct, abortion would be illegal all over the world. And yet it is legal in most countries. Explain, please. The issue is not whether abortion is a "right", but whether a woman has the right to make her own decisions and control her own destiny. To the best of my knowledge nobody in his right mind would deny that she does, except when she is pregnant. So the argument is really whether the unborn child's right to life outweighs the woman's right to her own freedom. Again, if Padovani is correct there is no argument. But he provides nothing except unsupported axioms to prove his point, I think it is not Mark Azzopardi who has "a difficult time coming to terms with the fundamental issues of this debate"
Kyle Pullicino
Mar 19th 2008, 10:34
Well done, Mr. Padovani! These are indeed wise words. And the best part of it is that there was no need to resort to some fanatical hypothetical situation which doesn't make any sense in the end.