Alfred Mangion, Kappara
Murder by any name
A worried woman went to her gynaecologist and said: "Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even one year old and I am pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together."
So the doctor said: "Ok, and what do you want me to do?"
She said: "I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this."
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: "I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too."
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
Then he continued: "You see, in order for you not to have to take care of two babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms."
The lady was horrified and said: "No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child!
"I agree", the doctor replied. "But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution."
The doctor smiled, realising that he had made his point. He convinced the mother that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!
49 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2008, 12:35
@ Miriam Maria Micallef:
"BTW, you avoided the argument about the ape?"
I assume you meant rape. I have not avoided it at all. It is implied in my lenghty posts. If the "abortion" is done in the first few days, it would not pose any moral problem since it would only be the destruction of one or a few cells. Later, I would definitely discourage it, even though I would not judge rape victims.
Regarding you being married, I certainly did not mean that if you knew me you would wish to marry me. I only meant that if you knew me at all, you wouldn't "hate to be married to someone like (me)", which in effect means that you find me repulsive. I choose not to be so prejudiced about anyone.
As for "help(ing your) daughter if she ever got into a situation that (you) know well (yourself)" and not "pop(ping) down to the pharmacy to rid a life to remove the problem", I would do the same. You will perhaps note that it is not very kind of you to suggest that I might not be a real man without even knowing me, but I forgive you.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 19th 2008, 11:40
@Kenneth
BTW, you avoided the argument about the ape? Re your wife etc, luckily, I am happily married to a man who I can say is just as pro-life as I am. We are not religious people but convinced all the same of our arguments that are based on sound reasoning.
I am happy yo know that the man I am married to will help my daughter if she ever got into a situation that i know well myself. He won't pop down to the pharmacy to rid a life to remove the problem. He will face it with me and my daughter like the real man he is.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 19th 2008, 11:37
@Kenneth
Here is my opinion. Human life is an ongoing process. Taking a strong stand on the protection of human life in all its moments of development is the most important duty of all humanity. It is true that one must never judge, I do not judge women who turned to abortion in their predicament. Most women however do not want to have a baby just because the baby would be inconvenient. I am not ashamed to call a spade a spade and have no qualms saying that abortion is wrong no matter how small or underdeveloped a human life is. The morning after pill can cause an abortion in many cases. What is aborted is not a bunch of cells as you claim. It is the full potential, DNA and all of a person that if left to continue developing becomes an embryo, then a foetus, later a newborn foetus, an infant and toddler etc etc. Abortion is the termination of a human life. Just because that life is small and does not have limbs which may be pulled off at a later stage abortion, does not make that human life any less dignified and worthy of life.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2008, 10:10
@ Miriam Maria Micallef:
Here's my stand:
I would not campaign for abortion to be a quick method of birth-control. Since embryology involves an incremental process of acquiring sentience/consciousness, abortion is a moral issue (abortion done after several weeks or months is definitely not like removing a cancer, as some pro-abortionists claim). Before that, I would err on the side of caution, and would wish that abortion is not resorted to. However, I would understand that certain situations would seem to justify early abortions. As for the "morning-after pill", this is not a morally problematic at all. A "morning-after pill" is not destroying a person...it is destroying one or a few cells.
I would strongly discourage abortion and if I were a woman, I probably would not have an abortion myself. However, every case should be treated on its merits, and I'm not at all judgemental about people I know nothing about.
Regarding "I would hate to be married to someone like you", thankfully my wife does not share your sentiments about me (and she certainly knows me better than you do), and I dare say you'd change your mind if you knew me at all.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 19th 2008, 09:58
@ Chris Fenech
It was obvious that your argument is made up. The fact is that most pro abortion argument are fabricated in the very same way. If you have to make up arguments of fictional people in extreme situations that do not exist to back your argument for abortion, then it is no wonder that you are failing in your attempts to convert people to believing that killing babies is OK.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 19th 2008, 09:55
@Ronnie,
In case you forgot Ronnie, abortion is NEVER safe for the baby that dies. Abortions do not end with the mother leaving the clinic. The tragedy that you choose to ignore is the ongoing suffering after the mother realizes what she has done because of the pro-abortion contributions people make to the argument. She is lead to believe that it is a real choice and soon finds out that it was a lie. Of course, you will be long gone by then.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 19th 2008, 09:52
@ Kenneth.
Kenneth take a stand. You want to be neutral and probably imagine yourself you be an enlightened misunderstood innocent party in this discussion but you fail to see that your arguments are hardly pro-life and typically pro-abortion ones. Just saying you did not claim to be in favor of abortion does not make you untouchable. In the real world, real men and women have an opinion. I would hate to be married to someone like you. I am sure I would spend all my life trying to get to know you.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 19th 2008, 09:48
@ Erin.
Sorry to make you jaw drop because I called abortion murder. It just goes to show how far you are from reality. Wake up young Erin, why not have a look at an abortion video or don't you have teh stomach for it? By the way, yould you be equally shocked if I said that the killing a rare bird is nothing at all but a pass time? Would your jaw drop again? Probably.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2008, 09:12
@ K Pullicino:
Cont...
Regarding human beings being unique and indiviuals, this is not unique to humans. All living beings are unique. Genetics make sure of that.
So yes, I would agree with you that "whether you're killing a zygote, fetus, baby, child or adult, you're essentially destroying a never-to-be-seen-again 'configuration' of a human being: you would be terminating an individual (or a potential one, if by individual you mean a conscious person)".
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2008, 09:12
@ K Pullicino:
I am no expert on self-consciousness, but I am knowledged on the topic (I read a lot). A one-year-old baby is definitely self-conscious to some degree. One clear indication is that a baby cries when he/she needs something. If he/she were not self-conscious at all, he/she woudn't bother, since to know what one needs and to do something about it (even if just by crying), one would have to know that it is the person himself who requires something. The only other explanation to crying would be the mechanistic one (a baby cries just like a car engine makes noises), which has long been discredited.
As for sentience, this is acquired incrementally through the development of the nervous system. While a one-day cell is definitely not sentient, a born baby definitely is.
Therefore, all babies definitely have a right to life.
Of course, sentience and consciousness (including self-consciousness) are not magically acquired at birth. Sentience and consciousness are incrementally developed even while the foetus-baby is still in the womb.
Cont...
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 19th 2008, 09:00
@ John Grima:
"I would like to point out somewthing that a foetus and a baby have in common. They are both alive and it is wrong to kill either one of them".
Sperm is very much alive too. With every sexual act (including for procreation), millions of living sperm are "killed". Simply being alive cannot be the determining factor here, otherwise we'd all have to be celibate. It is personhood that makes all the difference.
___________________________________________
@ lgalea:
"Call it what you want, but you will be destroying a living potential human being in the making".
Agreed.
K. Pullicino
Nov 18th 2008, 23:01
Can the experts on self-consciousness please elaborate on the self-consciousness of a one-year old baby, please? Since he/she doesn't possess this consciousness than he/she would be ineligible for a right to live.
Also, what makes human beings so awesome (in simple words) is that they are individual and unique from every other human being. This uniqueness and individuality is obtained at syngamy (since no zygote is like any other zygote or human being) while a sperm cell is like those of the father (and also half of what's needed for a human being, anyway).
Therefore, whether you're killing a zygote, fetus, baby, child or adult, you're essentially destroying a never-to-be-seen-again "configuration" of a human being: you would be terminating an individual.
lgalea
Nov 18th 2008, 22:48
Kenneth Cassar
Call it what you want, but you will be destroying a living potential human being in the making.
John Grima
Nov 18th 2008, 20:44
Everybody seems to have spent a lot of time pointing out the differences between a baby and a foetus. I would like to point out somewthing that a foetus and a baby have in common. They are both alive and it is wrong to kill either one of them.
@ Erin.
Definition of Murder: the premeditated termination of a human life .
Definition of Abortion : the induced (so premeditated) termination of a human pregnancy.
Can you see any difference between the definition of Murder and Abortion as I cannot
monica muscat
Nov 18th 2008, 20:36
I do not know from where this story came. I think it is something that hits to the core. Abortion is murder and there is no going against it. A real woman with normal maternal instinct should be able to love a baby in the womb just as much as one in her arms.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 17:36
@ Miriam Maria Micallef: Clarification -
My point 2: "There is no such thing as a 'baby of one day of age'. At 'one day of age', it is not yet even a foetus." was in response to your assertion that "If that was not the case then a baby of one day of age would also be a good candidate for abortion".
This is where the importance of proper definitions is evident. You say that by my (supposed) reasoning, a baby of one day of age would be a good candidate for abortion.
Now, if we think of "baby of one day of age" by its proper definition, a baby cannot be aborted, not even if we wanted to, since for a baby to be one-day old, he/she has to be already born.
ray schembri
Nov 18th 2008, 17:14
miriam, you seem to be a real fighter for other human lifes, i admire you, i suggest you go to the middle east and help all those woman and children in need or perhaps go fight for the rights of the victims of Daifor, these mentioned individuals all are being ill threated and i am sure someone like you will be of good deed to them.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 17:09
@ Chris Galea:
Where have I said I am pro-abortion? In any case, you could only make a case against me if I ever said that there is no difference between non-human foetuses and adult non-human animals while maintaining that there is a difference between human foetuses and human adults (or infants).
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 17:04
@ Miriam Maria Micallef:
Cont...
9. "Good old Kenneth" does not have all the answers to the origins of the Universe. Then again, this topic has nothing to do with the origins of the Universe.
10. Regarding "uttering rubbish", the feeling is mutual.
11. I am not trivialising the issue. In fact, I have not even pronounced myself in favour or against abortion. I only give facts, and leave the reader make up his/her mind.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 17:04
@ Miriam Maria Micallef:
Cont...
4. I never suggested that comatose people may be killed (although the truth is that most cases the life-support system is legally switched off after all hope is lost). I only suggested that there is a difference between switching off the life-support system of a comatose person and killing a conscious child.
5. The reason why I believe the obvious fact that human life is enriched by consciousness is because it is consciousness that makes one a person with subjective experience.
6. The only reason why definitions are important in moral debate is for people to understand each other. That is why it is important to properly define "baby" and "foetus", which have different definitions.
7. The most significant difference between early-term foetus and fully-grown babies is in what matters most: personhood, which is acquired through sentience and consciousness (including self-consciousness). Without these, one does not have a subjective experience, an "I" to speak of.
8. No woman will believe my lies, because I don't tell lies.
Cont...
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 16:49
@ Miriam Maria Micallef:
1. A person suffering from dementia is still sentient and conscious, so no, he would not be a perfect candidate for euthanasia. I already said that no sentient and conscious person should be killed for other people's benefit.
2. There is no such thing as a "baby of one day of age". At "one day of age", it is not yet even a foetus. This is fact not hype. Read some books on embryology.
3. I never said that just because life is developing it means it can be killed. Regarding having laws for incremental stages of development, that would be the ideal, but it is not possible. That is why we usually draw the line somewhere, for instance in matters such as voting age. Of course, I'm not suggesting where we should draw the line in the case of abortion. I'm only pointing out that there is a difference between, for instance, "killing" a one-day-old cell/s and killing an infant.
Cont...
Ronnie Gauci
Nov 18th 2008, 16:35
Maria, all those who want to abort will do so, one way or the other.
A) The question is, will we provide a safer place locally where we can keep trying to the last to talk them out of it or it's better to leave them all alone in such difficult time? Plus providing them with psychological help afterwards if they decide to still carry on aborting.
B) Abortion is never safe OK but if it was me I would ask; I prefer it to be done by a qualified medical team rather then falling into the hands of some Sicilians in some illegal clinic?
Rest assured that nobody agrees with abortion, those who want to legalise it are people who want to provide women with option A while those who do not agree with legalising it want to keep sending them abroad risking their lives as in option B, the usual egoists like where divorce is concerned, I am happily married so I don't care about anybody else. We're not living a fairy tale, today's world can present us with many circumstances we never planned for and sometimes we can be put through things we never expected.
Erin Ciantar
Nov 18th 2008, 16:14
@ Miriam
Your comment and answers to everybody who disagrees with you, are a perfect example of the right wing christians I was talking about.
The complete unwillingness to have a debate and listen to other peoples opinions are exactly what the problem is here in Malta. It's about time a little more tolerance was practised.
And please stop comparing abortion to murder. In your answer to my comment, my jaw literally dropped when I read that comparison.
M.Bezzina
Nov 18th 2008, 16:09
Its a good joke as well from another aspect!!
Chris Galea
Nov 18th 2008, 15:14
@Kenneth Cassar & Chris Finch
You two really make me wonder,you're so anti-hunting but at the same time pro- abortion !!!! You make such a fuss when a bird is shot ,but for an unborn child to be killed........that's ok !!!!!!!!!
Chris Finch
Nov 18th 2008, 15:11
@ Miriam,
Yes I am in favour of abortion for certain cases, (not the one in the original letter by the way) and I am not going in to them here because frankly I can't be bothered. You like all pro-lifers obviously will not change your opinion whatever anyone says so its pointless.
Also, just like the original letter, the case study I wrote about was entirely fictional. It was the other side of the coin so to speak. Because it was fictional and a character of my design, I can say the mother had been raped and therefore no proof was needed in a court of law. I can also say she was suicidal as I am sure some (and I never claimed all) women would be if they were to find themselves in this situation. i.e. pregnant by a rapist.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 14:21
Kenneth
"the untruth that there is no difference at all between an early-term foetus and a fully-grown baby."
What is the difference may I ask? Is it in number of cells, appearance, what exactly? You base your entire argument on the baby, what about the woman who believes your lies? She goes off thinking that good old Kenneth has the answers to the origins of the Universe and then discovers that she has wrecked her life believing the rubbish that some people utter. Her entire nature begins to show her that she has done something wrong, not her religion or personal beliefs. But of course, apart form the reality of a baby having just died at her allowance; she now has to live with what she allowed to happen, something that people in this space think is allowable. All this while Kenneth and Co are sitting comfortably somewhere by a warm fireplace calmly pondering the next cause to champion. It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. These are serious issues and trivializing it to differences between stages of development is not the right way to give a trustworthy opinion dear Kenneth. .
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 14:12
I had a friend who was in a coma for two months, In that time they suggested turning off her life support. She was not conscious. Today she runs a woman’s accessories shop in a major shopping mall in the greater Washington area. The same arguments you used for and consciousness where debated by a doctor at St Lukes in Maryland. Her husband hung on an she came out of her coma. Do you see how your argument is pitted?
Also, why is it that you think that the value of a human being is enriched just because of consciousness etc? Human life is not just about that. A failed argument that you persist in fighting it seems just to win an argument at the expense of truth.
Despite your declaration that the do not, definitions do have a prime place in matters of moral Kenneth. They are after all they are the compass of reason and what helps us makes sense of what is being discussed. Being correct about meaning and semantics is essential if we are to truly comprehend the implications. Definitions are essential, though obviously not welcome when they threaten another’s argument.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 14:00
@Kenneth
Human life is incremental not just development in the womb. Just because life is developing does not mean it can be killed. That would mean that we should have various levels of laws for the incremental stages of human development with the harshest laws for the killing the oldest people. Insane right, but that is exactly what you are saying in the end. An Embryo become a Foetus, a Foetus a born baby, then an infant , then a young child, then an adolescent with puberty and all its stresses an so on. These are all stages that commenced at conception. Your opinion is pitted with inconsistencies yet I am certain you will try to defend it no matter how hopeless it is.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 13:55
@Kenneth
So an older person with dementia in your book ought to be a perfect candidate for euthanasia due to the arguments of continuousness and sentience?
Human life is more than consciousness. If that was not the case then a baby of one day of age would also be a good candidate for abortion. I feel that maybe you have begun to believe the hype and stopped bothering with the facts.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 13:53
@Adrain Cardona
I suppose your remarks are meant to contribute something substantial to the argument then? Could it be that you have nothing to say and say it all the same?
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 13:51
@Ronnie
You reasoning for legal abortion is baffling. As if abortion is ever"safe"!
Legalising abortion makes it easier not harder dear Ronnie. Next you will be calling for the removal of cocaine as an illegal hard drug in the hope that the dealers will go out of business. Get real.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 13:49
Cont...
Also, it is not the "pro aborts" who want people to believe that what is in the womb does not start as a baby...he/she incrementally becomes so. Since you are fond of definitions, you might wish to look for the definition of "baby".
It does not serve anyone's interests to disseminate untruths, such as the untruth that there is no difference at all between an early-term foetus and a fully-grown baby.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 13:49
@ Miriam Maria Micallef:
I'll ignore the label of "pro-aborts". After all, I have also been called "anti-abortion" elsewhere.
My point is not that human development stops - of course it doesn't. My point is that sentience and consciousness start from zero at the moment of conception, and incrementally result (after 9 months) in a sentient and conscious infant. This effectively means that although it could be argued that killing a foetus is wrong, the reason could not be that there is no morally relevant difference between killing a foetus and a child. See my other post for further clarification.
Definitions (like the definition of "foetus" in Greek and Latin) are irrelevant in moral issues. After all, definitions can change in time.
As for your writing that "If we say that a human being at any stage of development may be killed, the we are opening Pandora’s box and the pro-aborts know it", my only reply will be that it's a red herring. Nobody is saying that.
Regarding age, it is a fact that old people are both sentient and conscious. Therefore, killing old people for our own interests is unquestioningly immoral. Abortion does not necessarily lead to euthanasia.
Cont...
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 13:47
@Erin
You therefore are pro-choice for abortion dear Erin. You may be surprised to here this but this is exactly what you become if you say you are personally against abortion but not against the choice of others doing it. To live in society fully, we must recognize that we all have a collective social responsibility towards the larger common good.
Just because you would personally not agree with the act of abortion is nothing to blow your trumpet about Erin. Anyone can say that to appease their conscience.
You might as well say that you are personally against murder but not against anyone who may choose that path.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 13:42
@Chris Finch
You are in favour of abortion for rape. You are assuming that it takes two minutes to prove a case of rape in a court of law. It sometimes takes months or years. By then the child is also moving or could even be born. Not to say that it is more of a human but this shows just how insane your opinion is. What if, after the abortion, it transpires that there was no rape after all? Then what? No answer right? Who cares, the baby is gone now. right? Or should we imprison the mother for lying and leading her baby to a so called unjust abortion and death. And by the way, what exactly makes rape a legitimate reason to kill the baby anyway? Have you ever been raped? Do you know what a raped woman is thinking and how an abortion would affect her after being raped? It is easy for you to fire these statements without thinking about what you are saying. This is typical pro-abort style shoot first, ask later.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 13:36
@Ian Galea
Over 80% of abortions WORLDWIDE are for do just for convenience. Before firing off your absurd statements, do a little research my friend. It is typical of the pro-aborts to resort to emotional arguments to portray pro-lifers as being inconsiderate bunch of loonies. What they fail to recognize is how incredibly weak their arguments to kill babies always are.
Miriam Maria Micallef
Nov 18th 2008, 13:32
The entire history of human development is continuous. We do not suddenly stop developing as the pro-aborts are suggesting. We go on developing. Foetus means “little one” in Greek and Latin. Using the term foetus in the way the pro- aborts do is incorrect. If we say that a human being at any stage of development may be killed, the we are opening Pandora’s box and the pro-aborts know it.
Old age is just another stage of human development. This is how abortion leads to euthanasia. So, the pro aborts want people to believe that a baby in the womb is not actually a baby at all. This serves their purposes. Abortion is wrong no matter by what name you call it. Embryo, foetus, newborn, infant, child, teenager, adolescent, adult, middle aged, old age, they are all stages. Human life cannot be interrupted at any of these stages without it implicating on other stages.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 13:21
@ Anthony Formosa:
Since you mention eggs and birds, the difference between a foetus and a child is the same difference between a chick and a fertilised egg. The problem in the case of eggs is only in the treatment of the hens.
Like I said, embryonic development is incremental, and so sentience and consciousness start from zero and develop in time into fully sentient and conscious infants (or chicks).
There is of course a grading between zero sentience/consciousness and full sentience/consciousness - hence the difference between killing a foetus and a child.
Of course this is not to justify the killing of foetuses. It is only to show that there is an obvious difference between an early foetus and a child, and so this "gynaecologist"s argument is not valid in and by itself. Killing a fully grown child is worse than killing a foetus, although it could be argued that killing either is wrong.
After all, in a similar vein, you will perhaps agree that killing a conscious human is worse than killing a comatose one, although the unnecessary killing of both could in most cases be wrong.
Ray Gatt
Nov 18th 2008, 12:51
I agree with Chris Finch. The story was wrongly put to the gynaecologist. Otherwise I would be totally against aborting a pregnancy, reason being having two babies in succession.
Ian Galea
Nov 18th 2008, 12:51
Dear Mr.Mangion, before reproducing this email, did you stop for just one second and put yourself in this (hypothetical) woman's place? Did you stop to think what the real reason was for wanting to abort? Do you really believe a real mother would choose to kill her offspring just for her convenience? Judge not a person lest you walk a mile in his/her shoes!
Maria Ferstl
Nov 18th 2008, 11:57
And besides that... a pregnancy supposedly is recreation ("you could rest") and poses "no risk for your body"??? Well, male paternalism...
Ronnie Gauci
Nov 18th 2008, 11:48
That's why abortion should be legalised, this letter is the proof. By having abortion clinics in Malta, doctors and NGO's like Caritas can work on those who want to have an abortion and talk them out of it. Doing so many abortions could be avoided each year.
The picture at the moment is very different, abortion is illegal so the vast majority of women who want to abort are seeking help online and travel to places like Sicily to have it, obviously one can imagine the standard of these clinics and how safe they are.
Erin Ciantar
Nov 18th 2008, 11:36
Although I am not in favour of abortion and would never let my fiancee' abort our child I fail to see how emails like the one above help the discussion.
They are way too simplistic and to state that there is no difference between a born child and an early foetus is ridiculous to say the least.
Even though I would not abort my child, I don't refuse anyone the right to make their own choices, and think that the right wing christians attacking everything they disagree with are doing a lot more harm than good in this discussion and the one on divorce.
Anthony Formosa
Nov 18th 2008, 11:30
@ Kenneth Cassar,
I don't see your point, In your opinion there's a difference between a child and a fetus, but certainly as you fight for animal rights you would see no difference between an egg and a bird.
@ Chris Finch, the case was not a rape; even so, the child can be brought into an orphanage or perhaps given for adoption but never killed.
Adrian Cardona
Nov 18th 2008, 11:28
How wonderfully original of you Mr. Mangion. Have you recently discovered internet by any chance?
Chris Finch
Nov 18th 2008, 10:38
Suppose Alfred, you were a woman who had been raped. You then became pregnant by this person. You have this monster's seed growing inside you. You will have this thing for the next 9 months and then will hate the thing once it comes out.
It is 1 month since you realised you are pregnant. The thought of this thing inside you is a constant reminder of the horror you went through when you were attacked. You are in a fragile mental state and having this for 9 months will most likely drive you to suicide. Now there will be the loss of this poor woman who through no fault of her own became pregnant.
Will the same doctor still be smiling in the patronising manner you describe?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2008, 09:29
Plagiarism. This letter has been doing the rounds via email for ages.
Without going into the merits or demerits of abortion, this letter is too simplistic. Of course there is a difference between a child and an early foetus. The embrionic process (which produces sentience and consciousness) is an incremental process. The question is, should this obvious difference matter?
This letter certainly does not resolve the pro- vs anti-abortion question.
mario aquilina
Nov 18th 2008, 09:23
Right Said Fred