Roamer's column
Like life, let's start at the beginning
Louise Brown was conceived three decades ago, not in a womb where, since the creation of man and woman and the immortal words "Flesh of my flesh" were uttered, it has been natural for conception to take place. Brown started life in a laboratory. The French geneticist Prof. Jerome Lejeune remarked at the time that we had moved "from sex without babies to babies without sex".
Writing in The Tablet, Mary Kenny observed that the technology that made Brown possible may put abortion in another perspective. For the first test-tube baby proves one thing categorically: here from conception is a separate being.
"This embryo, which can be put back into the mother's womb, or put into another woman's womb, or kept in a deep freeze, or will quite soon perhaps be developed in a laboratory - this embryo can hardly be called, anymore, merely a part of a woman's body, like an appendix, or a piece of liver tissue... Here is categorical proof that the new life is a separate one. 'If the bottle which held the embryo argued that the embryo was part of its property, no one would believe the bottle', says Jerome Lejeune."
Science, in other words, had demonstrated, confirmed in a startling manner, what the Church maintains with such vigour. This has not persuaded sceptics from dithering over the evidence, still less from getting into nitty-gritty arguments that do nothing to disprove what Brown's conception demonstrated beyond a scintilla of doubt: an embryo is a separate, albeit dependent being; within it there is everything that makes it human.
Inside the womb, the moment conception takes place is the gift of life, a human embryo, not the embryo of a dog or the seed of a dandelion, which are qualitatively different gifts and are flown to their destination by other storks. Every relativistic argument to the contrary is by its very nature, banal.
For all this, it is clear that the attempt to remove ethics and religion as inputs for the guidance of medical science has led to a situation where the direct taking of human life became in the US, for example, and as a result of the Supreme Court's infamous ruling on Roe vs Wade, not merely a civil but a constitutional right. The US Supreme Court, not the elected Congress and Senate, so decreed.
I have yet to read anybody in Malta saying how anti-democratic that imposition was - the judiciary acting as legislator. Issuing from that decision, the once sacred duty of the physician to do no harm has regressed into an anti-life ideology paralleled in many academic environments by anti-religious ideologies.
Church and rights
In the divorce debate that is going on at the moment, divorce is being referred to as a civil right. In the case of abortion, nobody of any consequence in Malta has claimed that status for it - yet. This has not prevented the argument being made that what is in the woman's womb during pregnancy is something a woman has a right to remove if that is her choice.
We may assume it is a matter of time before there will be those who will agitate to make abortion a civil right in Malta, too, the progressive thing to do; which is why it is not "extremely unfair" as Prof. Kenneth Wain was quoted as saying, for Archbishop Paul Cremona and Gozo Bishop Mario Grech to place divorce, abortion and euthanasia "in the same category".
"It's as though the Church", he continued, "were trying to exploit a widespread phobia of abortion and euthanasia to make a case against divorce. This is not a fair and honest argument." Less fair, to my mind, is Wain's assumption that the Church was trying to exploit anything.
The bishops know full well that campaigns for divorce, abortion and euthanasia abroad followed one another in that sequence. For them to recognise that sequence of events regardless of whether there is any promotion for abortion, or euthanasia, to enter into our statute books was not a matter of fairness or unfairness. It was a matter of logic and common sense.
Wain seems to find difficulty with the idea that the Church has a right and a duty to oppose secularism whenever this ideology opposes her beliefs, to warn against relativism when this touches on her beliefs, to take on what it deems to be an anti-culture whenever this makes an assault on her beliefs.
In each case the Church ceases to be herself if she fails to defend and propagate the faith for which alone it exists, or to criticise what runs counter to the fulfilment of her mission. He "expected a less militant approach. The last thing I would have thought we needed" he remarked, "was a declaration of war... particularly since the bishops themselves had earlier pronounced themselves for rational discussion".
Where, I ask, was the declaration of war? In their recognition that secularism poses a threat and militant secularism a graver one? In their public profession of principles which the Constitution grants her "the duty and the right to teach"? A timely, intelligent and calmly written reminder of this was posted in last Wednesday's Talking Point in The Times by Austin Bencini, who also asked why 'there should be so much abuse levelled at the Gift of Life group... a group of decent civilised citizens who are proposing that our Constitution accepts and recognises what in fact all sectors of Maltese society accept unanimously, namely, that abortion is not acceptable and is not to become legal'?
Imposition
Wain has often had spats with proponents of this entrenchment business. Three years ago he called on parliamentarians to ask themselves how future generations will judge them should Parliament go for entrenchment, what these would think of such an action, "which is fundamentalist by definition"? He regards entrenchment as anti-democratic, an imposition of belief on others. He is not alone.
The former Chief Justice, Giuseppe Mifsud Bonnici, does not agree. He is not alone. Writing in The Times in April of last year, he wrote, inter alia, "I agree that the proposed constitutional amendment should be formulated in such language as would determine precisely and concisely what (it) is intended to protect. In my opinion, the phrase 'from conception to natural death' inserted after the word 'life' in article 33 (1) of the Constitution would be enough. The phrase would qualify what is meant by 'life'."
He went on to note that his proposed wording would leave the interpretation as to when conception (or hominisation) begins in the hands of judges. Yes, but is that not the case with the interpretation of so many clauses in many laws, be they civil, criminal or constitutional?
As to the matter of imposition, one must be careful. A priest who holds a doctorate in neuroscience was recently asked to testify at a legislative hearing in Virginia about embryonic stem cell research. When he had finished giving testimony, a senator asked whether by arguing against embryonic stem cell research he was not "trying to impose (his) beliefs on others, and shouldn't we as elected lawmakers avoid imposing a narrow religious view on the rest of society"? Pretty well what we sometimes hear in Malta.
Fr Tadeusz Pacholczyk had some very rational comments to make on this business of imposition, a word that has become a form of standard reproach for any view addressed by believers on matters their opponents incorrectly consider to be outside the domain of belief and faith. He argued that 'law is fundamentally about imposing somebody's views on somebody else' and that it was 'in the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don't want to have those views imposed on them' (drug laws against drug users; theft laws against thieves, etc.).
The question to ask is not whether we impose something on somebody but, rather, whether whatever is going to be imposed by the force of law is reasonable, just, and good for society and its members.
What should matter in the formation of public opinion and in drawing up legislation is the substance of an argument. Fr Tad. explained that what he had testified did not depend on religious dogma but on an important scientific dogma, specifically that all humans come from embryonic humans. "The statement that I was once an embryo is a statement about embryology, not theology."
He went on to observe that there were federal laws in America that protected the bald eagle, but not only. It protected the eagle's eggs. To destroy them was illegal. Society has reached a stage, he mused, where the embryonic eagle inside that egg was legally recognised as the bird it would become at hatching time. "What's so troublesome is how we are able to understand the importance of protecting the earliest stages of animal life but when it comes to our own human life, a kind of mental disconnect takes place."
Gift of Life in Malta is nobly trying to prevent such a disconnection. And pace its detractors, science is increasingly on its side.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
37 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mariella Schembri
Oct 7th 2008, 15:11
Gillian & Miriam
In a number of countries victims of violent rapes are 'cleaned out' within 72 hours where possible. This is why pregnancy rapes are low.
However the crux of the matter is 'when does human life' really begin? The truth depends on who you ask and what interpretation you are given.
Although I have 2 children of my own I always wonder what I would do with a rapist's child. Miriam and Gillain you both seem to simplify the issue.
Miriam - I know of one 18 year old French teenager who was raped in the late 1990's. After due consideration she aborted after being advised of all her options.I spoke to her last July and this was mentioned. For her it was a dual traumatic experience but she believes she did the right thing in the circumstances.
I would tend to agree - Can you imagine your rapist actually having some parental rights to your unwanted child after having violated your body???
Anyone wanting an abortion will do it irrespective of the laws of the land. Then what will happen to the poor raped woman (in Malta) - we put her in prison!!!!!
So much for justice......
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 7th 2008, 10:01
Gillian,
Few pregnancies does not make those few any less human and alive either
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 7th 2008, 10:00
Gillian,
You may have a right to pass judgment if you yourself would have been raped. I personally know 2 foreign women who kept their child after rape. They love that child and the child even helped them get over that horrible event. One was raped by her best friend who was male. The other was raped by a complete stranger whom the law never caught up with in the big apple back in the USA. I met a woman who got pregnant after incest with her father, he got her to have an abortion and she regrets the abortion more than the rape. Abortion after rape is just a double traumatic event that destroys women. Apart from hurting women more, that child is not JUST the rapist’s child. It would be half your and there is nothing you can do to change that . The child may even turn out looking more like you than the rapist. Also, what right do we have to kill a child because of its dad's crime against the mother? The crime was even committed before the child was even convinced. As Wayne would say, illogical, irrational
Gillian Azzopardi
Oct 6th 2008, 10:54
Miriam -You are the one who brought up the rape issue. Few pregnancies does not mean no pregnancies. Personally as a woman it is a circumstance where I might consider an abortion irrespective of the law or my personal safety. It is already traumatic enough getting raped let alone carrying a rapist's child......
As for your claim that life begins at fertilization according to science it depends which research you are referring to. About a year ago CNN had featured a 1 hour program on 'when life actually starts' This ended up pitting the American Medical Association against the American Association of family physicians. The result was inconclusive.
Carl Segan states that "Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg."
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 4th 2008, 01:09
Attacking people who are pro-life by claiming that they are motivated by religion is typical of the liberal movement. Life begins at fertilization according to science and not philosophical juggling of morality. Liberal minds are intent on turning the debate into something it is not as this serves their purposes. And I am still the only woman debating with a hornets nest of male liberals on this page who are mostly convinced women whould take leave of their maternal instincts to appease their lack of moral ability to take an absolute stand for life
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 3rd 2008, 14:23
When the whole abortion topic comes up, the liberal's in Malta only answer is to play the rape card. The USA are very good a keeping statistics so I wnet there to get some real facts
The American rape statistics show that the adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%.
Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, 5% by other relatives, and 32% by strangers.
I got these statistics are provided by Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice.
These statistics show that, although horrendous, there are few pregnancies associated with rape.
Paul Azzopardi
Oct 3rd 2008, 12:43
@Miriam Maria Micallef
Morality is a very subjective especially dogmatic leaning morality.
There seems to be a little misconception in your claim that "with even a liberalized law, prevents them having abortions at extreme dates of gestation, these same liberal minded people still turn to abortion illegally".
Any woman intent on having an abortion will obtain it with or without legal provisions. However the legal provisions for abortion ensure this need not be carried out illegally under conditions that could:
1. also kill the mother;
2. be subject to any financial demands/blackmail of the doctor;
3. Have no guidance/counselling before taking such a step
Edward Muscat
Oct 3rd 2008, 12:00
@MMM
Your assertion that proponents of divorce are the same people that would support abortion or euthanesia is a major league absurdity.
For example - I am pro-divorce and pro-life. However your assertion that "legislating for divorce is an attempt by the liberal movement to modernize morality for their own objectives" is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Unsing your same reasoning in reverse - prohibition of divorce is an attempt by the Catholic conservatives to prevent modernisation of morality for their own selfish objectives of power preservation.
As James Coleiro pointed out below there was a time when it was morally accepted for a Pope to order the death and torture of people and the inquisition is a historical testamony of this.
So far all divorce prohibition has done is hide the problems under the carpet and prevent people from broken marriages a second chance at happiness.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 3rd 2008, 11:10
It is not those who are in favour of divorce but agianst abortion that we ought to be concerend about. They know no better and are really qy\uite oblivious to the forces of liberalism.
It is those who motor the liberal trend, those who are bent on mordernising morality that will push for abortion as yet another civil right. Divorce leads to abortion. This is a step we must not take for the sake of marriages that will break down even more often and abortion that will eventually be legalised.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 2nd 2008, 18:58
I would imagine that Catholics may even consider legal reform for divorce if this contributed to more stable marriages. But mere liberalization is not going to cut it in Malta.
Lowering morality for the sake of so called civil liberties is the same argument always used then for abortion. This is how divorce is related to abortion. Not that a direct cause and effect exists, but that the same proponents of secularism cannot help but find themselves pushing for abortion liberalization, and then even euthanasia
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 2nd 2008, 18:52
Legislating for divorce is an attempt by the liberal movement to modernize morality for their own objectives. Eg. The example of some Scandinavian and Eastern European countries suggest that a liberal and rational attitude towards abortion convinces many people that they have a right to abortion. When even a liberalized law, prevents them having abortions at extreme dates of gestation, these same liberal minded people still turn to abortion illegally. This results in an increase in abortions overall and not a deduction as is sometimes argued by some in this area. One can conclude that with a completely rationalized and liberal approach to marriage and divorce, that the same will happen.
Raphael and co, note that I continue to use arguments that never mention faith or religion and the only ones brining religion into this are you guys.
Raphael Vassallo
Oct 2nd 2008, 16:52
Goodness. I turn my back for half a day and Miriam writes the equivalent of 25 papal encyclicals. Sorry, Miriam, but answering you point for point would be a full-time occupation, and I already have one of those. So I'll just save it for when you haul me to the law courts...
James Coleiro
Oct 2nd 2008, 15:09
Miriam-The only one freaking out is you - I am trying to have a sensible discussion although parts of you rationale leaves a lot to be desired.
Quote: "The facts show that wherever divorce was introduced, abortion came in soon after. You tell me why that happened then"
What facts?-the distorted chruch propaganda facts? Divorce in the UK for example was moved as a private member's motion some 150 years ago ..... Abortion in the US became legal only after Roe vs Wade in 1972...whilst divorce had been been around for donkey's years.
The truth is that sensible governments included laws that created societal changes. These occurred independently of each other. In a few years you may add cloning to the list.
The only organisation who still uses 'spins' that divorce leads to abortion etc is the Catholic Church. I state this because other Christian denominations tollerate divorce for example.
Abortion and Divorce have nothing to do with each other except in Catholic church related propaganda.
As for moral law, check out the time when a 'Papal bull' (that was effectively a law) sent thousands to torture and death.
It should dawn on you how subjective moral law could be.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 2nd 2008, 10:38
It seems that a desperate attempt by a few in this site to separate divorce from abortion is going on. Maybe, just maybe, the GOL should pay more attention to what is going on here and change their approach. By the way that you guys are all freaking out, it seems that you must be seeing a serious problem with this connection being made? Why are you all so adamant that the two are separate, yet all the same, still unable to produce solid reasons why they are and unable to demonstrate that they are indeed not associated? Yes, we all know that one is about a civil right and the other is about murder, but hasn’t the common argument been that the child is not a person so it cannot be murder? So what about the civil right to abortion which after all in your op9inion is not murder? Plausible maybe? It seems obvious to me that abortion is next judging by your arguments against personhood. These are preambles to the civil right to abortion after the civil right for divorce.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 2nd 2008, 10:30
Moral law is not only good, but in a strange way, it is FOR our good.
No amount of debating can change this. Hitler took control of moral law in his day, changing these laws by making a person a non person to legally allow for his deceitful ways. NO matter how legal this was, it was still wrong and the whole world new it. Look at what happened then, millions killed as they legally were not persons. Of course, I am talking Chinese to those who don’t want to hear. I wish that others would present clear examples on how morality and natural type of law are “bad” for humanity instead of attacking the Church. One loses all credibility and begins to look rather fundamentalist themselves. To know the difference between good and bad seems to be a luxury that some can’t stand. This is clear to all
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 2nd 2008, 10:24
Now, you prove to me that Divorce won't lead to abortion. The facts show that wherever divorce was introduced, abortion came in soon after. You tell me why that happened then. Of course, it is just my imagination. You see, the same forces of liberty who fight at all costs for Divorce, are generally the same ones who push for the liberty of choice for abortion. Already we read liberal arguments in favour of allowing a door of choice against an amendment to protect the unborn.
PS, went by yesterday and the poster was still up on that wall, albeit a little weathered. I wonder why a little poster like that worries you all so much? Bet it will be taken down in no time.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 2nd 2008, 10:24
Joseph and my dear Raphael
The fact that new DNA exist less than 10 hours after fusion, the fact that that new DNA is unique, the fact that as the embryo becomes a foetus, it is clear it has a heart beat at three weeks, its own blood type and begins to move, suck its thumb by 9 weeks, feel pain even at that age, are all scientific facts that that life is ALIVE. i think even Galileo, whom you keep on reminding you about can agree to that. These are not moral or philosophical arguments at all. Just plain scientific facts. Now if you still want to deny these facts, be my guest. It won't change a single thing.
Raphael Vassallo
Oct 1st 2008, 19:06
"Try that stunt one more time Raphael and I will not threaten you with legal action but take it. "
Go ahead, Miriam. Take it. I'll just give your lawyer a word of advice, and unlike a lawyer I won't even bill him for it. One poster on a rubble wall on the way to Siggiewi - even if it exists - does not constitute a countryside "dotted" with posters.
James Coleiro
Oct 1st 2008, 18:49
@Miriam Micallef
So one poster in all of malta....was it a poster? was it about divorce? abortion? or both perhaps? and it was there until 3 days ago???
And if it is there you will sue Raphael for lies.
Give us a break will you......it sounds so pathetic.
Furthermore your claim that divorce leads to abortion is a nonsense that the catholic church keeps repeating to try and distort the fact that these are two issues that have nothing to do with each other.
Joseph Vella
Oct 1st 2008, 16:13
@Miriam Maria Micallef.
It is not my lack of English that is at fault, thought I admit to favor using the more advanced American version, but your pre-set mindset on key moral issues, which challenge the inflexible position of the Catholic church, in a world where ants or no ants, secular values are the wave of the future.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 1st 2008, 12:52
Dear Raphael,
I am not part of the GOL movement so do not try to associate me and then call me a liar. I have an opinion , I share my name and do not expect anyone to compartementalize me or my opinion.
Re the posters I saw, for you info there is one still up (until three days ago)on a rubble wall on the way to Siggiewi from the main roundabout coming from Rabat. Calling me a liar will not be tolerated. Try that stunt one more time Raphael and I will not threaten you with legal action but take it.
Raphael Vassallo
Oct 1st 2008, 10:50
Still no reply from Miriam on the posters. This will have to go down as yet another lie from proponents of the Constitutional amendment, to add to the growing list... the dishonest press release about Joseph Muscat's position... the bogus list of pro-abortion journalists on Gift Of Life's website (which was withdrawn only after threat of legal action)... the constant attempts to impugn a pro-abortion agenda to anti- amendment arguments, etc. etc
James Coleiro
Oct 1st 2008, 10:06
@ Miriam Maria Micallef
Yes I really think that you are not allowed to think and actually I suggest you to go back to research starting with Galileo or Giordano Bruno. We can also move into more modern times if you like. Remember the 'mortal sin' or even Fr. Mark Montebello being ordered by the Archbishop not to speak what he thinks.
Believe me mam, I have no interest in spreading fear or alarmist attitudes against Catholics or anyone else for that matter. I simply call a spade a spade.
Incidentally please tell me where are all these pro divorce and pro abortion posters - I am still waiting for a reply.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Oct 1st 2008, 08:59
Mr Vella,
It seems that I keep on getting you all wrong. So sorry that I don’t get you. Do you think you could write in English? You see, I am used to understanding the person I am talking to the first time they say something.
Raphael
Your attempts to twist the argument to where it suits you are obvious. Good luck but you're not fooling anyone! This is all about giving the unborn the best possible protection. If you are content with less than I am not surprised that you fight to divert the argument.
Can't you think of anything better to say than "GOL get a life"? You are so obvious to everyone Raphael.
It seems that secularism is sensing that they may even lose the Divorce issue. Maybe this is why the ants came crawling out of the ground on this one. Divorce will lead to abortion.
Joseph Vella
Sep 30th 2008, 18:38
Clearly Ms Micallef has the issues confused. While I focus on the tyranny of the masses, she speaks in turn about the rights of the unborn, which I do not dispute, though I allow a connection.
Raphael Vassallo
Sep 30th 2008, 16:32
@Miriam.
Like James Coleiro I am waiting for an explanation regarding the pro-abortion posters which you claim are "dotting the countryside". Where are these posters? I have not seen a single one, and i suspect the reason is simple. There are no such posters, and the only reason you mention them at all is to create a false impression of some kind of ongoing pro-choice campaign.
As for your reply to Joseph Vella's very cogent remark, kindly note - for the umpteenth time - that the unborn child is already given more legal protection in Malta than any other country in the world. This is what I have never understood about Gift of Life. People like you should count your blessings, and be thankful that you live in such an overwhelmingly pro-life environment. But no. You have to first work yourselves up into a frenzy over a non-existent threat, then make unreasonable and unnecessary demands of the entire country... and when rational people simply fail to buy into your delusions, you turn of them with wild accusations that they are trying to murder innocent babies.
Gift of Life? Get A Life, more like it.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 30th 2008, 12:19
James Coleiro
You obvioulsy don't know anything about being Catholic. If you were correct, all the Jesuits, inlcuding Fr Saracino Inglott would have been ex-communicated for thinking for themselves. Generalisations based on fear are typical of those who are uniformed.Spreading fear and an alarmist attitude against Catholics is simply undemocratic and not pluraistic at all. God gave us minds to use them dear James, If you really think that we are not allowed to think, then you may need to go back to research.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 30th 2008, 12:15
Joseph Vella
Well done Joseph Vella. My point eactly. How undemoractic is it then tp ignore the right to life of the weakest minority, the unborn? I am always amazed how people manage express pro-life views so cleraly, yet deny being pro-life. With you argument, you just proved the case for the better protection of the unborn
Joseph Vella
Sep 29th 2008, 22:48
Words of caution for Ms. Miriam Maria Micallef, the champion of rights for the majority. First point is, that in any civilized country which promotes democracy, as opposed to advocating theocracy, the civil rights of the minority are protected against the tyranny and hysterics of a lynching crowd. The second rejoinder is, and here politeness takes a back seat to poetic license, it is said with due respect towards one and all, that the masses are the asses.
James Coleiro
Sep 29th 2008, 15:37
@Klaus Vella Bardon
The Catholic dogma is such where you are NOT allowed to think but only to follow and obey someone else's thinking without question. The church throughout the ages has fought free thinking - now being dubbed secularism - because it undermines its position.
@Maria Micallef - where are the pro-divorce and pro abortion posters you mention? I would love to see them.......are you sure we both live in Malta???
@Roamer - in this day and age (unlike the 1970's and early 80's) only cowards still see the need to write behind a nom de plume. Shame!!!
Klaus Vella Bardon
Sep 29th 2008, 08:13
Instead of labelling people conservative, fundamentalist, etc., it would be more constructive to debate the issues. Some people are logical or make sense and others are not.
It should be obvious that Roamer did not say that a bottle and a pregnant woman are the same thing.
Roamer underlined that an embryo, by its very nature is a being in its own right, independent of the parents and has its own inherent rights which society has an obligation to defend.
This should be common sense. Also, contrary to all the nonsense parade by most of our columnists from their privileged perch in the press, the principles upheld by the Catholic Church are based on reason. As the outstanding Catholic convert, G. K. Chesterton said from his own personal experience: - “To become a Catholic is not to leave off thinking, but to learn how to think.”
No doubt however, connected thought can be inconvenient for many, Catholics or otherwise.
William P Flynn
Sep 29th 2008, 01:24
Ms Micallef and the regiment of fathers, monsignors and their catholic holier-than-thou writing in this newspaper have clearly not grasped one simple fact: they live in a secular state and that the state bestows upon them a right to exercise their beliefs; and not the other way round.
They are so one eyed about their religion that they believe that a few circulars or sermons by celibate, unmarried men in strange hats, and the church's own belief in its own dogmatic infallibility, are all that matter to all people living their lives.
According to them there is only one benchmark of living life; and it's governed solely by catholic rules and dogma.
These off-putting, archaic, dead ideas (whose only future is an overdue decent burial) mixed in a cocktail of intellectually unpalatable torrent of intolerable religious missives in this secular publication, will not be buried by militant secularism; but by the dust collecting on the empty pews in churches.
Whatever happens in Malta, the world has moved on. Malta must choose whether to move with it or join the church and be left spluttering and coughing in the dust of the progressive secular real world.
Time for a reality check!
Colin Vassallo
Sep 28th 2008, 22:02
So for you Roamer, a test-tube and a pregnant woman are the same thing and have the same rights. This is further proof that the anti-abortion brigade are a bunch of misogynists of the worst kind.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 28th 2008, 20:02
Ramon Casha - Why don't you try and collect signatures for a petition for divorce and abortion? It may prove just how unpopular the local liberal ideal is. PS, I don't see you complaining about the pro-divorce and abortion posters dotting the countryside.
Franco, do you wonder why Ramon is not complaining about these also? IN case yuo did not notice, people have a right to express theri opinion in a democracy. Or are the editor and Roamer to to be imprisoned also as fundamentalists for speaking up in favour of what is morally correct.. The secularists are content attacking and defaming people they cannot argue with. Shameful. How dare they impose their beliefs on the majority
Miriam Maria Micallef
Sep 28th 2008, 19:57
Ramon Casha - aHow can you compare a skin cell to an embryo. You had better brush up on your biology Ramon.
Ramon Casha
Sep 28th 2008, 12:04
So this also proves that a skin graft, similarly grown in a laboratory, is also a new life, right?
Incidentally how does the US Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade impose anything on anyone? I have yet to hear about how any pregnant woman was unwillingly forced to have an abortion based on that decision.
I wonder what Roamer would say if people respected the laws as much as Gift of Life do when they vandalise private and public property with their +9 posters.
Franco Farrugia
Sep 28th 2008, 10:27
First the Editorial, complimenting the Archbishop's sermons, and then Roamer, as usual.
What a conservative approach. I wonder. I simply wonder.