Rachel Agius, Attard
The difference between pro choice and pro abortion
The article Call For Morning-After Pill For Rape Victims (September 17) was really the icing on the cake in the Maltese anti-abortion movement.
For one thing, I strongly disagree with the way this initiative operates, which insists on discussing the issue of abortion in tandem with issues such as divorce, gay marriage and euthanasia. Because in less than half a page, each and every one of those issues came up.
Perhaps this group should change their name to a more accurate one. How about Catholicism's Guilt Squad? Or The Self-Righteous Enforcers?
Besides the religious blockade that separates state from public opinion, is it not a little unbalanced that something so controversial is disputed somewhere like the Youth Parliament instead of public debate? For one thing, one can safely assume that the Right to Life groupies are Catholic, which is therefore not a representative sample of the population.
Yes, most people will "admit" to being Catholic but most of those will also tell you that they disagree with the Church on many counts, including its treatment of gay people, its views on contraception and its history of violence, cover-ups and hypocrisy.
For the sake of clarification, I am neither for nor against abortion. And, by abortion, I mean any form of it, including medical procedures or pharmacological means.
It seems that the Right to Life representatives, who so staunchly defend the idea that life begins from the moment of conception, have made the latter less ominous than the former. Both are abortive means with the same result, so let's not assume that there is any difference in outcome, only in cost and risk.
But I digress. I am neither pro-life nor pro-abortion. Personally, I would not have an abortion done for several reasons. I am still studying, do not have a stable income and still live with my parents.
All very good reasons not to get pregnant in the first place. Then again, I live with very supportive parents who, following some initial outburst, would probably let me and the child remain at home with financial and emotional support to boot.
This sets me apart from a number of young women. How many teenage mothers have faced eviction from the family home, exile from the family itself and no support whatsoever? How can I, raised in a stable environment that can continue to sustain me should an "accident" happen, comment and decide on the fate of those whose struggle I cannot even begin to fathom? Does a woman have to feign rape in order to avoid troubles and hardship that only she can foresee and understand? Will the Right to Life group see to it that her child is fed, clothed and safe should she find herself homeless?
Of course, one must not assume that all the women seeking abortion are in such dire straits. I'm certain that a high percentage of financially stable, educated and driven women would chose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. In this case, I assume two things. The first being that such an educated woman would not allow an unwanted pregnancy to happen to begin with. The other assumption is that a woman as described above would have no trouble travelling abroad for a procedure and, thus, local legislation on the matter has little to no impact on her or her decisions. It matters to those who have no means to travel and no alternative that doesn't involve a lifetime of hardship and missed opportunities.
I think the term "pro-choice" is often taken out of context to mean "for abortion". This is untrue: what I am defending is the right for women to make a choice, unhindered by the constraints imposed by a religion she may, or may not follow. What right have I, or anyone else, to decide for her?
The same really applies to the other issues discussed in that sitting of Youth Parliament. Do any of those present know what it's like to so desperately want to raise a child and require medical assistance to do so but will be denied this experience because their family does not fit in with the "married and heterosexual" category? Adoption you say? The procedure is rigorous, tiring and swamped in bureaucracy. Besides, show me one couple who would prefer adopting to raising their own flesh and blood and I will gladly eat my words.
Maybe this pressure group should be focusing on other issues more predominantly. Improve sex education to reduce the number of young, at-risk parents. Introduce an initiative for cheaper or free contraceptives, to make it easier to engage in safe sex. Make adoption easier so that couples who cannot have their own children are not disheartened by the process and simultaneously give more children in the care of the state a new chance at life.
Then again, one mustn't forget who is pulling the strings here. Only when the state stops hiding behind the cassock of the Catholic Church will every citizen, regardless of faith, be fully represented in this so-called democracy.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
28 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Sarah Micallef
Sep 22nd 2009, 20:56
Firstly, I need not prove anything to you or anyone else.
Secondly, I can also see that this is going nowhere (as with most discussions on such multifaceted issues). And now for your answer (albeit in all probability not the one you were after on your little quest, but no matter) --
Would I have an abortion myself? Given my current situation, were I to discover myself pregnant tomorrow, I can most probably guarantee that I wouldn't. I had in fact mentioned this in a previous post, should you wish to scroll down. As for my opinions on whether abortion is 'good' or 'bad' or whether a foetus is 'technically' a human or not... it DOES NOT MATTER. Know why? Because I'm not the potential mum. Therein lies the argument.
H Gatt
Sep 22nd 2009, 18:04
@Sarah Micallef
It seems to me like this conversation is going round in circles, so before I start concluding please allow me to remind you of the gist of my posts which were 2 very simple questions aimed at people like Rachel and yourself – the pro-choicers. These questions are: 1) is abortion good or bad? 2) Is the foetus simply a sub-human group of cells or a baby in it’s formative period from day 1?
All this goes beyond what my mother did and beyond what you consider to be my contradictions – actually I have been consistent to my ‘pro-life’ beliefs all along! But what about YOUR beliefs? What do YOU think about abortion? What do YOU think about the foetus? We already know about your beliefs – you call it leaving others choose for themselves and I call it sitting on a fence. But what about the final two questions. Come on, answer me and prove to me you are not pro-abortion!
Sarah Micallef
Sep 22nd 2009, 14:02
How lovely to put it that way now.. but need I remind you, your 'real story about ‘choice’' told the tale of your mother's religiously informed choice, and not your sister's. So forgive me here, but you are contradicting yourself.
Yes, it is the mother's choice whether to carry on with the pregnancy, because it is her life that will be ultimately affected by it. You really must consider the situation here - will a mother honestly look at her child the same way if they were a product of her defilement (i.e. rape)? Will that not psychologically affect the child in question? Had she(let's take the example of your mother) given birth to a heavily deformed/disabled and fully dependant child constantly in need of medical care, would it be fair on the child itself for it to carry on living/suffering and fair on your mother to dedicate the remainder of her life and finances to the care of that child? It isn't our place to say... thats what Rachel is saying.
H Gatt
Sep 22nd 2009, 12:58
@Sarah Micallef
I didn’t prove you right and actually it seems that it is you who didn't get it! Pro-choicers always speak about giving the mothers a choice whether to abort or not, which is all well and good, but you don’t for one second ask yourselves what the baby would choose to live or not! This is extremely unfortunate as it simply means that the foetus is a sub-human group of cells that are fully expendable. This way of thinking is warped! Since you declared not once, but twice that you are not pro-abortion I trust that you don’t agree with that way of thinking I mentioned earlier and that you’ll agree that a foetus and a baby are one and the same thing, just like any journey has a beginning and an end, but it’s still one and the same journey! It is with this in mind that I consider it very sad that the pro-choice mentality supports a situation where between the two parties involved (mother and baby) only one party (the mother) has the right to choose!
Sarah Micallef
Sep 22nd 2009, 11:15
@ H Gatt - You REALLY don't seem to get it do you? As touching and wonderful as that story is, what you fail to realise is that is EXACTLY what I am speaking of - your mother was allowed to make her own choice... which is what I agree with. (Yes, agree.) Had she been forced to terminate the pregnancy against her own will, THAT would have NOT been pro-choice. If she had WANTED to terminate the pregnancy, it was also HER choice to do so, but she didn't, and the doctors listened to HER, which is RIGHT. Are you following?
That is what pro-choice is my dears, the mother's right to do what she feels is just and right for her child, just like what H Gatt's mum was allowed to do. Good on her, and thank you for proving me right.
H Gatt
Sep 22nd 2009, 09:09
@Sarah Micallef:
Let me tell you a real story about ‘choice’. Years ago here in Malta a woman got sick in the early stages of pregnancy. Her sickness was such that some doctors (here in Malta!) even suggested ‘terminating’ the pregnancy as the chances where that the baby would be born disabled. That woman made a ‘choice’ and that choice was based on her religious feelings – she preferred to make all necessary sacrifices and raise a disabled child rather than compromise her beliefs and have an abortion done. Now, of course one may call that woman conservative, a sheep and many other titles that the so-called liberals regularly use on these internet posts to bully those who don’t agree with them. Well, that woman is my mother and that baby is my extremely healthy year old sister who is now in her 20s and with a joie-du-vivre like no one else I’ve ever met! You might like ask her how she feels about my mum’s choice! I know how I feel about my mum’s choice though Sarah…abortion would have robbed me of my beloved sister!
Raymond Bezzina
Sep 22nd 2009, 01:27
To make myself clear to my previous comment addressed to Wenzu Vella; since it may be interpreted in a way which I did not intend to convey.
Obviously, drugs - murder - burglary - enslavement to addictions( i.e. bad addictions) - sin - abortion, etc., are all wrong, and therefore should always be avoided in our lives. Both the people and the state should work together against all these evil things not to allow them.
Gerry Cowie
Sep 21st 2009, 20:20
Rachel Agius Attard is to be pitied for her "chip-on-the-shoulder" explanation of how she personally sees the difference between pro choice and pro abortion. It is highly insulting to those of no religious disposition to suggest that only those who are religious have a respect for human life. This is not a solely religious issue since it affects everybody, including the right who lives because her parents allowed her to be born. "Pro choice" is very much a politician's stance when they are sitting on the fence and do not wish to be firmly on the side of life. It is tantamount to being pro abortion because by clinging to the idea of personal choice, such a view allows abortion, not coming down either firmly against or for. Choice of abortion means the loss of a life. It is easier to opt out by going for choice and thereby sanctioning death. To suggest that, in a population which claims to be majority Catholic, that they do not represent the majority is somewhat naive. The writer has dismissed out of hand any alternatives, citing red tape in the case of adoption, for instance. Either one is pro life or pro death!
Alex Ellul
Sep 21st 2009, 19:13
Try this before anyone claims to be pro-choice: http://www.silentscream.org/video1.htm
Sarah Micallef
Sep 21st 2009, 18:22
@H Gatt - Being Pro Choice is ADMITTING that it is NOT your choice(hence the name). You do not have to be 'pro' or 'against' in this sense! Acknowledging that you have no say in the matter because it is not the situation you are in does not equal 'sitting on the fence'. I am Pro-Choice, NOT Pro-Abortion.. get your reasoning straight. @Raymond Bezzina - Freedom of Choice is not the freedom to partake in such matters as you mention.. drugs are illegal in Australia, last time I checked.. abortion is not. Learning how to live one's life in a way that is deemed good and expanding your knowledge in subjects outside of the Catholic Church and religion (there are many) does not require following any particular religion. I consider myself just as educated as my Catholic classmates, if not more, in some instances. One does not need Catholicism in order to learn good human values. I know not to take drugs not because Jesus said so. Also, with your obviously Catholic-based stance, you are invalidating the points brought up by Jean Pierre-Aquilina regarding the seperation of Church and State. Funny.
Raymond Bezzina
Sep 21st 2009, 17:37
@ Mr. Wenzu Vella You said that you are glad to live in a free country called Australia where you have freedom of choice. I ask you, free from what ? And freedom of choice in what ? drugs? murder? burglury? suicide? enslavement to addictions? sin? The list goes on.
mary borg
Sep 21st 2009, 16:48
@ Wenzu Vella
I am glad as well :-)
Dr Francis Saliba MD
Sep 21st 2009, 16:45
@TimRipard Certificates of death are not required for a stillborn baby because the baby acquires a LEGAL identity only after birth - but for months previously the baby had been having a separate existence with its own circulation and nervous system. From the medical point of view a baby just after delivery is no different from the baby in utero for the previous months, enjoying the right to be allowed to live and to have its life protected by a Caeserian section or other induced delivery method even after the death of its mother. The recognition of a baby as a separate human being is only a convenient civil law expediency, not a morally binding one.
wenzu vella
Sep 21st 2009, 16:05
I'm glad I live in a free country called Australia where we have freedom of choice.
mary borg
Sep 21st 2009, 15:50
@ Simone Spiteri
I would check that info regarding the morning after pill. No one knows exactly the moment of conception as far as I know....it could be within minutes, a couple of hours or many hours
H Gatt
Sep 21st 2009, 15:16
Basically what is being implied in Rachel Agius’s letter and Tim Ripard’s comment is that being ‘pro-choice’ gives you the benefit of sitting on a fence and never declaring your true opinion on the subject in question. The question that remains is one: do they personally (and any other pro-choicers) think that abortion is a good or a bad thing? If they believe that abortion is a good thing then they should have no fear of coming out and openly claim to be ‘pro-abortion’. On the other hand, if they believe that abortion is wrong, then I can safely assume that they wouldn’t be happy sitting on a fence while this murder of the innocents is taking place. The truth is that ‘pro-choice’ is simply a politically correct term to mean that you are in favour of abortion.
J.Cini
Sep 21st 2009, 14:45
@T.Ripard
A death certificate may not be applicable to a foetus, but killing one is certainly a crime: (However, not in some hospitals it seems!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1827437/posts
mary borg
Sep 21st 2009, 13:40
A person goes missing....no death certificate can be issued immediately cos until a number of years pass he is not presumed dead. If he is dead...does the unissued certificate make him alive?
The cells combine, start dividing...why? there is life...if something was dead it won't multiply...but when the ovum and sperm combine there is life as the cells continue to multiply, divide and differentiate to form a beautiful human body. The womb is just a vessel in which all of this takes place.
There will come a time in the future where there will be acknowlegement that there is life from conception...that at that the very early stage there is a baby...a living human.
Just a thought...basic science...once the sex cells combine there is all the information of that baby imprinted in that one cell...the height, the colour and texture of hair, the colour of the eyes and other characteristics and character traits are all imprinted in that first cell...so how can that first cell be dead?
Well said Dr Vella
Raymond Bezzina
Sep 21st 2009, 13:02
@ Mr. Tim Ripard.
Regarding your comment addressed to Dr. Sandro Vella.
Mr. Ripard, can a doctor issue a death certificate to a person who goes missing and remains missing? No. Therefore, does this for you mean that, that person never existed?
Raymond Bezzina
Sep 21st 2009, 12:48
After reading your letter, two questions came to my mind, for which I am taking the liberty to ask you.
At school, are you giving the importance which the subject of the Roman Catholic Religion deserves in your life?
From where are you seeking the education to form your principles?
May I also draw your attention to a reality which I believe in, hence:
While it is good to learn various subjects at school, these should always be taught in the light of the teaching of the Catholic Religion.
To strenghten this belief I will give you an example.
Mathematics alone will teach you only how to work with numbers.
Languages alone will teach you only how to read, write, and understand languages.
Science alone will teach you only matters of a science nature.
Therefore, while the knowledge of these subjects is very limited, the same cannot be said with regards to the teaching of the Catholic Religion, because this teaches us solidarity, respect, unity, charity, kindness, forgiveness, honesty, mercy, and other similar virtues.
Therefore, if one wants peace, one should always do his/her best to live according to these virtues, whether one is a Roman Catholic or not.
Alex Ellul
Sep 21st 2009, 12:31
@Tim Ripard: You are confusing science with politics. An unborn baby is considered not to be a person legally not medically. A lawyer would very easily convince a court of law that an unborn baby is not a person, but he would not be able to convince a scientist.
simone spiteri
Sep 21st 2009, 12:26
The morning after pill is not the same as abortion. When a women does an abortion she is already pregnant. The morning after pill can prevent conception and implantation. It basicly helps the woman NOT to get pregnant. The morning after pill does not work if implantation has taken place. For this reason I certainly would not say that she killed a child because she took this pill. This is pro-choice but not pro- abortion
adrian aquilina
Sep 21st 2009, 11:12
good letter......condoms should be free from clinics like in u.k. and the morning after pill should be freely available and abortion is someones personal choice and nothing to do with anyone else
Joe Zammit
Sep 21st 2009, 11:08
Either pro-life or pro-abortion. The tone of this letter is pro-abortion. If you don't want evil, fight evil with all your legitimate means. Thank God, the great majority of Maltese and Gozitans are Catholic and so they are in favour of life, against abortion and euthanasia, in favour of marriage and against divorce.
Jean-Pierre Aquilina
Sep 21st 2009, 11:05
@Tim Ripard
A foetus is not a person in legal terminology. Now just ask yourself this question: What was that foetus in my mother's womb which I am now?
@Rachel Agius
I disagree with a couple of points your raise:
"... I am defending is the right for women to make a choice..." In this case, the choice affects the right of life of the unborn human being. What choice does s/he have in this case? Who will defend her/him?
The issue of abortion is not limited to the domain of the Catholic Church, but falls within the domain of the State. Simply because the views of the States coincide with those of the Catholic Church does not necessarily imply that the State "is hiding behind the cassock of the Catholic Church", as you claim. If this is the case, then we should rewrite all our laws to allow killing, theft, violence, and so on, so that it will not be percieved that the State will shares any connection with the Catholic Church.
Sarah Micallef
Sep 21st 2009, 11:04
It is indeed refreshing to read such sentiments - I wholeheartedly agree with the pro-choice standpoint. Even though I, as a young, unmarried female would (in all probability) not choose to terminate my own pregnancy should it occur regardless of the situation, it is undoubtedly the mother's right (and the father's if he is in the picture at all), and no one else's to make such a decision that will impact her life so drastically.
Tim Ripard
Sep 21st 2009, 10:24
@ Dr Sandro Vella. It's not a human being until born, actually. Are you a doctor of medicine? If yes, can you issue a death certificate for a miscarried foetus? No - because a foetus is not considered to be a person.
@ Rachel Agius. Excellent letter. Indeed 'pro-choice' should not be confused with 'pro-abortion' as the holier-than-thou brigade do.
Dr Sandro Vella
Sep 21st 2009, 09:47
Further to your comment 'What right have I, or anyone else, to decide for her?, I will ask : 'What right do you, or anyone else for that matter, be it the State or an individual, to decide whether a human being, conceived and in utero, is allowed to live?'
I'm afraid this issue transcends religeous boundaries and focuses on the basic human right to life, a right which incidentally is enshrined in our Constitution.
Furthermore, as a practising young Catholic, I have a right to express my views borne out of my beliefs.