Mark Azzopardi, Birguma.
The personhood issue
I am delighted that Ivan Padovani (March 19) feels he has fathomed the "truth" regarding the "fundamental issues" of the abortion debate but, understandably, disappointed that he appears convinced that I am unable to see the light.
According to him, a living fertilised human egg, which is produced at conception, is "both living and human" - a correct but, ultimately, tautological observation, if ever there was one. This leads him to conclude that a fertilised egg is a human being and, therefore, fully deserving of the "social" status of personhood.
While declaring, correctly, that the concept of personhood is non-scientific and, therefore, arbitrary, he summarily dismisses the opinion of several leading bioethicists, that personhood cannot exist without a measure of conscious capacity, preferring instead his own arbitrary opinion that personhood begins at conception.
Now, this is muddled thinking at its worst! In one breath, Dr Padovani uses the science of conception to make his point, in the next, states that personhood is non-scientific, then he dismisses as pseudo-scientific the relationship between the scientific development of the human brain and the onset of personhood and, finally, declares that the non-scientific status of personhood is dependent, exclusively, on the scientific reality of conception!
Naturally, he makes no attempt to counter my claim that, in all advanced societies, the end of personhood is taken to occur at brain death, which would signify that the beginning of personhood must, logically, occur at "brain birth" and that a fertilised egg is not a person at all, only that it has the potential to become one, if allowed to develop fully.
This distinction between a potential and actual person is evident even in the laws of Malta, arguably the sole-remaining bastion of anti-choice philosophy in the western world. The maximum prison sentence that a woman could incur for aborting her pregnancy is three years. Significantly, the maximum sentence that she could incur for infanticide (murder of a child during its first year) is 20 years. It would appear that, even here in Malta, the difference in status between two beings, separated only by the length of a birth-canal and to which reference is made with regular flippancy by the anti-choice lobby, could not be any starker.
In practically all other countries, a keener perception of social history prevails. Having realised several years ago that abortion is as old as civilisation itself (in fact, it is known that the ancient Greeks used abortifacients, such as silphium) and that its criminalisation just drove it underground, with serious consequences for the women involved (abortion statisticians have concluded that illegal abortion figures were as high in the pre-Roe vs. Wade era as legal abortion figures in later years), they decided it was infinitely more humane to decriminalise it.
Although, as Dr Padovani states, abortion is not a human or civil right, as it appears in no act or convention, its legal status is secure and unlikely to change in the medium- to long-term.
"Whither now," Dr Padovani ponders. I should suggest that he used his "rigorous analysis of the exact biological and social status of the unborn" to petition, firstly, the government that a foetus has the same moral and legal status as a person and, later on, devote his energies to the rest of the world.
As for the Maltese woman with an unwanted pregnancy, who feels desolate in her moment of difficult decision-making, a legal abortion is available, should she so desire, just a short, one-off, inexpensive catamaran ride away. It could have been far worse.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
6 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Gerry Cowie
Mar 30th 2008, 17:36
http://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20071125/opinion/roamers-column
Mr Azzopardi's arguments have been challenged in the past.!
Gerry Cowie
Mar 29th 2008, 19:40
Kyle,
Sometimes I wonder which side of the fence Mr Azzopardi is on. He makes statements which would suggest he is in fact not in favour of abortion, whilst being in favour at the same time.
Pro choice is all very well. In fact we must rely on the fact that everybody should act according to his or her conscience, so who are we to judge?
I for one would never judge a person who had gone for an abortion or was simply considering one. But that would not stop me fighting for the right to life.
Fortunately there are organisations in the UK at least where people can find out the truths about abortion - truths which people would rather not be made available - such as LIFE and SPUC. Many people have gone on to have their children as a result.
Any arguments put in favour of life are usually dismissed as being solely religiously orientated, thus more or less denying those of a non-religious attitude a say, which is rather an insult to them!
What I would like to see in this whole debate is an end to the sarcasm, spin and twisting of words used to try to discredit those who are seeking to uphold the dignity of human life from conception to natural death. And that does apply to all sides in this debate.
Never confuse the desire to preserve life with the imposition of one's views on others! For if we all sat back and did nothing, like they did in Germany during the time of Hitler, what state would the world be in now? People's views may well be influenced by their personal beliefs. It is the art of persuasion that needs to be carefully honed here.
Nobody can
Kyle Pullicino
Mar 29th 2008, 18:43
If you think that "It would really be a wonderful world if abortion were never required." why are you trying to tell us about personhood (something subjective) and whatnot?
Wouldn't it make more sense, if you directed your efforts into helping these women who are in need of society's support (if you truly believe in what you said)?
Just like the Maltese are taught not to take drugs because it can kill, we should teach that illegal abortion can also kill (and that society can help).
As people here have said, I cannot impose my opinions on others... but then again; I cannot impose death on others, am I right?
Mark Azzopardi
Mar 29th 2008, 15:41
Chris, both your points are valid. It would really be a wonderful world if abortion were never required. However, there have always been women who, for reasons best known to them, have adamantly refused to take their pregnancy to term.
These have not been discouraged by any law and there have been times when they have risked life and limb to achieve their goal.
It is incumbent on humane societies to do their utmost to save these women from themselves, by providing them with adequate facilities and services.
However, as you correctly intimate, an abortion can never be morally neutral like, for example, having an appendectomy or a face-lift.
As regards divorce, I agree with you too, although there have never been attempts made to amend the Maltese Constitution to prohibit divorce for future generations, as are presently being made with regard to abortion.
Gerry, your inability to comprehend plain English appears to be getting worse with each passing week! My only point about brain death is that since it indicates the end of personhood in all western societies, then "brain birth" should, logically, indicate its beginning. In other words, before the brain has formed, there can be no person. Clear enough?
The rest of your contribution revolves around destroying a potential being as opposed to an actual one. Surely you, undoubtedly possessing the highest form of wit, are able to understand that there is a huge difference between the two!
Gerry Cowie
Mar 29th 2008, 11:57
Here we go again!
The attempts to twist what another has said and to use sarcasm - the lowest form of wit - is evident here!
If an unborn child - ie a child which is not yet born - is aborted, of course, if its brain has not been allowed to develop by having its life terminated, then the concept of brain death Mr Azzopardi is clinging to has no place in this argument.
When one considers life to commence at conception, any termination of that life prevents development to the point of birth. How can there be "brain birth" if the brain is not even allowed to develop?
"Leading bioethicists" being summarily dismissed? Mr Azzopardi is summarily dismissing the opinions of all those who do not agree with his view of things.
We can argue for ever and a day on what we all consider to be a human being. Whether or not you are of the opinion that life begins at conception it is an undeniable fact that by aborting a developing human person in the womb you are depriving that individual of its chance of life, of its chance to develop a brain, of its chance to become able to be born and to survive outside of the womb.
This is not about brain function! It is about the destruction of life and even more concerning, the proposed legalisation of the destruction of life.
I do not think that the decriminalisation of abortion is going to make it go away. Life is already cheapened by society today. Euthenasia is creeping in across europe and genocide continues around the world. Nobody learned from what Hitler did, clearly!
No doubt I shall be answered with a dose of sarcasm and accusations of being some kind of religious bigot, but here goes!
Chris Barbara
Mar 29th 2008, 11:04
I feel that an important distiction needs to be made. Many people are anti-abortion, but not all people against abortion are anti-choice. There are people, like me, who disagree with the act of abortion yet do not feel qualified to impose their beliefs on others.
Secondly, I feel that once again we have got our priorities all wrong (we tend to do this a lot in this country). It would be much easier to first lobby for the right to divorce. It is, after all, easier to argue in favour of removal of a marriage (a bond with no scientific basis whatsoever), than removal of a living foetus. Once the right to divorce is obtained, there will undoubtedly be a general shift in the ideology of the population towards freedom of choice, and then, and only then, would there be a chance of loosening the laws on abortion.