Gerie Cowie, London, UK
Unborn on death row
I never cease to be amazed and saddened at the triviality with which some these days seem to treat human life – their own “species” as they are often wont to say.
The arbitrary way in which decisions are made as to when human life begins is also of concern. Life has to begin at the moment of conception. It seems logical to me that the beginning is the beginning, whether or not one has a healthy respect for that life. The decision not to allow that human being with potential to develop within the safety of the womb is misguided, rather the unborn human being is seen as a potential human rather than a real one.
Denigrating the human embryo in a way demeaning to humanity, calling it a meaningless ball of cells, attempts to deny its true humanity.
It then becomes convenient for disposal if people can be persuaded that it is not yet human – just another cheapened commodity.
The fact that people seek to defend human life means that we face various nonsensical accusations, one of the most common of which is that only religious people respect life.
This is poor spin indeed. And of course it is a total insult to the many millions of people with no religion who still value human life.
Those who comment against life seem to conveniently forget that they are alive today because their own parents chose life. Yet they are still happy to arbitrarily declare the lives of others as being valueless, meaningless and unreal.
If we fail to defend our own kind from the start of life, remembering how vulnerable the unborn are, particularly when developing within the safety of the womb, what hope is there for mankind?
I would say that those who either promote, encourage or support abortion, are acting as judge and jury to the baby in the womb, and that womb becomes a condemned cell in a human death row.
They are seduced by the pro-abortion movement’s persuasive arguments, often based on an anti-religious stance instead of a pro-human one.
The defenceless and downtrodden have always needed the protection of other people. Who will stand up for the unborn?
Popular Stories
In Discussion
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Gerry Cowie
Feb 10th, 21:36
I stand by what I said in my letter and I am happy to take it on the chin from those whom I predicted would say their bit - and William Flynn of far away Australia (by the way he often lets everybody know I am in the UK, though does not think I should remind people of his Australian domicile) has indeed risen to the fore and by his words justified totally the contents of my letter, for which I thank him profusely! But he needs to write a letter in if more people are to read his pitiful opinions rather than engage in a battle of wits with P Vincenti below - a man who clearly knows his stuff when it comes to the plight of the unborn. And people do not want to take their hands from their eyes and ears and accept the truth of these matters!
And talking of avoiding the question, why does Mr Flynn detest the Catholic Church so much? If he can give no reason for this blind hatred of the Church then what does that do to the credibility of his arguments? But they are not arguments, they are just anti-Church jibes, intended to mock and upset by their petty sarcasm.
P. Vincenti
Feb 9th, 14:26
William Flynn continues to believe and regurgitate the worn out Maltusian / Al Gore fiction that somehow the world is overpopulated.
He forgets that we are now living in an age that is described by the UN living in an age that is akin to a demographic bomb, that people are living longer, having less children and therefore the so called growth is only cosmetic. Populations are imploding in Russia and Italy and japan. There will be 7 men to every woman in China by 2040 -source WHO
P. Vincenti
Feb 9th, 14:08
Dear William Flynn
This may come as a surprise to you but in the USA, abortion is preferred to inducing an early birth because it is far cheaper to abort a baby than to take the financial and medical risk of having a pre-term child who will then need special intensive care treatment. The length of neonatal care time in a special unit far exceeds the costs required to kill the baby. Hence why Mr. William Flynn, they did not consider inducing birth it as a viable option to abortion.
It was because of this option that the case created such a PR mess for the abortion camp.
William Flynn seems to have made himself an authority on cases where a pregnancy threatens to kills a mother. When people do that, I am always very worried about their actual motives.
I will not dare be so haughty. Allow me therefore to indicate that Dr Tony Levatino from New Mexcico with over 30 years experience as an OBYGNE as well as Dr Donald Felice in Malta, both stated in no uncertain terms that there is never a need to kill a baby to save a mother's life.
These common pro-abortion arguments are fiction and not science. They are pure fabrications made up by the pro-abortion movement to attempt to create an exception for abortion. They are an attempt at trying o show that being pro-life is uncaring.
The inventions are then regurgitated by commoners as William Flynn who robotically repeat the semantics without actually investigating if their statements hold water.
So instead of getting into some pointless battle with Mr William Flynn, I suggest readers have a look at what the real experts say about the matter.
For what Dr Felice witgh over 40 years experience as a Gynae has to say go to: http://lifemalta.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=208&Itemid=2
For what Dr Levatino , with over 35 years experience as a Gynae has to say go to: http://lifemalta.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=118&Itemid=2
William Flynn
Feb 9th, 12:15
1.
It is wonderful to see that Mr Vincenti had the answer where a team of specialists in a top USA Catholic hospital found no other alternative for that mother to live. In the video clip there was a Canon Law Expert priest who had his two bob’s worth in favour of the abortion decision.
So Mr Vincenti should write to the hospital team and the Canon Law expert priest to put them right.
He should also write to the mother so she can sue the hospital for negligence. They should have known what Mr Vincenti knows; it’s their job.
I personally would applaud a case where an abortion is avoided but I have enough brains to understand that is not always possible.
Bu, Mr Vincenti has avoided my question; so I’ll reword it:
In a case where the mother’s continued pregnancy is almost certain to mean certain death of the mother, and his gynaecological expertise cannot find an alternative, would he kill the mother or the foetus? There I made it simple for him.
(By the way who’s the wolf over whose eyes I’m supposed to be pulling the wool? Or is it a mixed metaphore lost in translation?)
2.
Mr Vincenti should read comments properly before he responds.
I called his religion misogynistic, not him. I don’t have any expertise so I leave assisting women to make these types of excruciating decisions to the experts; so long as the women ask for their advice; otherwise people should leave them alone.
I am not responsible for what happens in Pakistan, India, Indonesia and China. All these countries have all the population they need and then some. How they manage and try to control overpopulation is not my concern. They may have decided rightly or wrongly that abortion is the better of two evils compared with starvation, pestilence and war.
But Mr Vincenti can go on beating himself about it till he cuts himself into little pieces if he likes. He won’t make a difference. Planet Earth's problem is overpopulation not abortion.
I would reiterate my caveat to Mr Vincenti to be very careful with his ad hominem. I am a very happy family man enjoying life immensely and at full peace with my world.
I don’t like him or anyone suggesting otherwise especially as he doesn’t know me and I don’t know him from a bar of soap. He is welcome to hit me with all he’s got intellectually but not make ad hominem attacks based on his assumptions.
I have never been raped by a priest or anyone else and I have been fortunate enough never to see anyone I know combating the need for an abortion. I have however known many people who were going through hell and high water trying to conceive a child. For almost all of these their story had a happy ending and I have actually met real persons conceived and alive today because of IVF.
P. Vincenti
Feb 9th, 11:12
Regarding the case of Margaret Mc Bride which William Flynn uses as his basis for accusing pro-life people of intolerance and misogyny, William Flynn either out of ignorance or deceitfulness, fails to mention that there was indeed another viable option available to killing the baby. Birth could have been induced early, after 24 weeks when the child may have then been able to live outside the womb (viability). Modern technology and medical advances now provide this option. Babies are treated regularly at this age in neonatal units around the globe.
This is acceptable practice amongst OBYGNE. Readers should read here for a professional view on these cases.
http://lifemalta.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=118&Itemid=2
Inducing labour early would have solved the problem caused by the mother’s pathological condition of pulmonary hypertension.
She was not given this option. It was not even considered. Had it been given, she would in all likelihood have another child today.
Instead it was decided to kill the baby as though the baby was the threat to the mother, when in fact, it was the mother’s pathological condition that was the threat.
Mr William Flynn should not try to pull the wool over this wolf’s eyes.
P. Vincenti
Feb 9th, 10:45
This is a right of reply to the comments made by Mr William Flynn in this comments section.
William Flynn calls me Misogynistic. By this I expect he implies that I am a woman hater because I do not agree with abortion.
I wonder, how many women has William Flynn assisted who have been in a crisis pregnancy in the last month?
How many female babies can be killed by sex selective abortions in countries like Pakistan, India, China and Indonesia, before they too are accused by William Flynn of being Misogynistic.
How many women condemned to a life of regret and silent despair after abortion will it take before the very same male dominant abortion industry, which William Flynn seems to agree is also labelled by him as being Misogynistic?
William Flynn will not receive threats of laws suits, as he seems to be accustomed at doing himself with me. Though his are indeed defamatory remarks, he will receive in return, a measure of compassion at his despair of life, topped up with a touch of hope. The hope being that one day, Mr William Flynn will find some peace. That he will allow himself to cut through his hatred of Christianity and come to finally accept the facts and the insanity of abortion.
William Flynn
Feb 9th, 09:15
If Mr Cowie believes he could have written my response, he should have. At least he'd have presented some facts rather than the usual unproven claims based on his misogynistic religion which no sensible free thinking man or woman would give a second thought to in the real world. Even a blind person knows what a human being is.
A few cells hundreds of thousands of times smaller in number than those in the skin around a cuticle that a manicurist removes from a woman's fingernail is NOT a human being.
But Mr Cowie is more fascinated in telling readers that I live in Australia than the facts. It’s a mystery to me why he thinks where I live somehow strengthens his argument.
Wouldn’t readers more likely be interested in such things as whether he and Mr Vincenti would support the destruction of an embryo in an entopic pregnancy for example; or in a pregnancy where the mother’s life is at stake? For example:
The bishop of Phoenix USA, Thomas Olmsted, excommunicated hospital sister (Nun) Margaret Mc Bride for supporting the termination of an 11 week pregnancy of a gravely ill mother of four.
The nun as part of a committee approved the termination to end the hypothetical life of the foetus to save the real and present life of the mother.
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW8WfmlPbpQ
So Messrs Cowie and Vincenti may perhaps state their position in this particular case rather than give us the usual useless platitudes. Would they side with Sister Mc Bride or bishop Olmsted? Simple enough straightforward question I should think.
Doctors and mothers are daily making life and death excruciatingly traumatic decisions like this in some part of the world or other; perhaps even in Malta. They should be allowed to make them in the privacy of their own conscience without any interference from fundamentalist old men.
If the Maltese abortion laws, that Messrs Cowie and Vincenti is so enamoured of, include forcing a mother to die rather than destroy an 11 week foetus against her and her husband's wishes, they’re barbaric laws and I dare predict they won’t be around for long.
William Flynn
Feb 9th, 08:09
Why is it "Gerie" Cowie on the heading of this letter and "Gerry" Cowie in the comments? Is it Gerie or Gerry, Gerie/Gerry?
Perchance, is Gerrie/Gerry chopping the "y" because it doesn't exist in the Maltese alphabet and replacing it with "ie"?
Gerry Cowie
Feb 8th, 21:36
It is incumbent upon us all not just to value our own familes and lives but indeed those of others. Those not permitted to be born because of the selfishness of abortionists still count, even though some seek to deny their humanity in an arbitrary manner. How sad that we do not value our own kind enough to defend every stage of human life from conception - the only possible point at which life can begin - until natural death.
Gerry Cowie
Feb 8th, 21:09
Sadly Peter Murray has misread and thus misrepresented what I actually said. I suggest he reads the letter and rethinks his comments.
Joseph Calleja has fallen for the same old argument which tries to make a child a thing that is just attached to a woman. A woman seems to have the right to kill a child, a child growing in her womb with no defence but that womb and the hope that the mother will not abort. Sadly there are many women pressured into abortion who do not really want it. The problem arises from misrepresenting the unborn human being as not being human, thus merely making it a commodity and thus easily disposable. Whatever the reason for the pregnancy, it conveniently brushes aside the fact that both male and female are involved in producing a child, rape included, sadly.
I do not judge those who abort their children - I merely stand up for human life. Amazingly this stance for life involves the most amazing negativity from other human beings!
P. Vincenti
Feb 8th, 20:59
A very well written contribution from Mr Cowie.
The Vociferous objections raised by the usual suspects show how hopeless some people remain. Thank goodness that Malta remains firmly pro-life.
Franco Farrugia
Feb 12th, 12:47
''Thank goodness that Malta remains firmly pro-life.'
That is why we don't need further legislation and changes in the Constitution regarding same! Got that, at last, sir?
Gerry Cowie
Feb 8th, 20:27
The negative comments I have received were expected. Especially those from William Flynn if even farther away Australia! The only unconvincing comments come from him, not from me! I could have written his response for him! Well, there you go, look at what I have written and then look at what the negative commenters have written!
Karl Consiglio
Feb 8th, 20:59
Gerry,
Whenever someone disagrees with you, you just label it off as a negative comment. Its not fair.
Wally Vella-Zarb
Feb 8th, 22:39
"Well, there you go, look at what I have written and then look at what the negative commenters have written!"
Fair enough, since you have asked, I would say that the score is now Three for the 'negatives' and One for Don Quixote as far as convincing goes.
As for your usual inane remark about how "their own parents chose life", what is that supposed to mean? The parents of Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Josip Stalin, Pol Pot, George W.Bush - and even your own for that matter - made the same choice... Was it a good choice?
Joseph Calleja
Feb 8th, 16:38
Mr Gerie Cowie I have one question for you. Have you ever been pregnant with a child? Because if you haven't I suggest you leave the abortion decision up to women, they know best. It is a woman's right to choose. Religion is what causes most of the problems in this world and this is no different.
P. Vincenti
Feb 8th, 22:29
It would seem that some think that unless you are a dog that has been beaten by its owner, one cannot interfere with an owner who beats his dog.
By the same ridiculous argument, if Calleja has never been pregnant, he has no place arguing for abortion
Franco Farrugia
Feb 12th, 12:45
@ Joseph Calleja: I disagree 100% with you. Women know what they should do if they don't want to get pregnant.
William Flynn
Feb 8th, 13:27
Sound the clarions, beat the drums, here comes Don Gerie Cowie from far away England with his usual unconvincing nonsense about an early embryo a few hours in the making in a Petrie dish being a human being.
No serious country on earth, except those controlled by the Vatican through their bishops, define an embryo in a pipette as a human being.
We don't need Cowie to tell us that we should protect pregnant women and their babies. People have natural love towards anyone's babies and of course our own. As a father of several children and grandchildren and one on the way, I can attest that nothing is more precious than that.
But that doesn't mean that of the hundreds of thousands of eggs a woman has in her ovary, she cannot choose to discard one if it is defective or it presents a danger to the mother. That decision is agonizing enough without stigmatizing her.
And that doesn't mean that a woman shouldn't feel free to go on an IVF program and have more than one embryo available to the procedure to improve her chances of one successful embryo becoming a human being.
And if a woman feels she can donate to science a few eggs of all the hundreds of thousands she possesses (as each of the four billion women on earth possesses), so that science may one day eradicate diabetes and other terrible diseases, most countries have said that should be allowed. Anybody who decrees otherwise is downright mean, insensible and senseless.
As to which religion is behind this itinerant nonsense, the Catholic church allowed abortions up until the "quickening" of the foetus for centuries. Priests brought their own women to obtain an abortion decree from the church; upon the payment of the appropriate fee of course.
The Vatican only changed its mind relatively recently, in 1869.
The pope who decided this was one and the same who thought democratic voting is "madness" and that there is nothing wrong with slavery as it is allowable according to the scriptures.
There are people who pray and light candles to him for he's none other than Pio Nono.
People can believe any mumbo-jumbo they like but no civilised person is going to listen to their “black and white” exaggerated artificial arguments.
Peter Murray
Feb 8th, 10:20
As usual you make sweeping .blanket-cover statements relating to unsupported by fact ,therefore also arbitirary, declarations, when you state that those people"who are happy to arbitarily declare that the lives of others are valueless,meaningless and unreal".Who are these "happy people " and how do you know they are happy?People may, like you, similarly be amazed and saddened at your apparently not open to being contested unilateral viewpoint ,which I accept and will defend your right to submit,but that right doesn't automatically make what you state right- and say it you do but regrettably in a rather supercilious and pompously bumptious manner.All this is academic to the law-makers in any event , as not to trivalise this serious issue they only think life begins- when that life can vote!