Pathetically Sad Arguments
The worst kind of let downs are the ones you walk straight into. They’re the ones your better judgement warns you about but you just don’t listen.
And this is exactly what I did with the new IVF Bill.
I had convinced myself that the PN – the political party which was always at the forefront of human rights - would not blatantly discriminate against anyone based on their sexual orientation.
Silly me!
Given that the PN’s affair with The Church could reduce any self-respecting adulterer to a crying shame, I really don’t know why I expected anything different.
According to Minister Chris Said the proposed law is not discriminatory because it does not ‘specifically’ ban gay couples, but disallows sperm and egg donation even in the case of married or ‘stable’ heterosexual couples. The government’s concern he said is that children born through IVF are brought up in a family with a mother and a father because this is better for the children.
Puhhhlease! Your idea of a family couldn’t get more restrictive even if you squeezed your big head into your three year old’s beanie!
The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines reproductive rights as the basic right of ALL couples to decide freely and responsibly the number and timing of their children. It also includes their right to make decisions concerning reproduction FREE OF DISCRIMINATION, coercion and violence.
But what does the world’s most specialised and highly respected health agency know? In Malta we’re different, we know better, and our arguments are sound and justified:
The ‘UNNATURAL’ argument
Some argue that denying IVF to homosexual couples or single people is not discriminatory because it is after all ‘unnatural’ to have two mothers or two fathers or a single parent conceive in the first place.
Conveniently they fail to see the irony of their argument of course. Conveniently they fail to realise that IVF is an unnatural thing all together, and that if biological infertility is nature’s way of prohibiting an individual from bearing children, then perhaps we shouldn’t tamper with nature even if it’s being unkind to heterosexual couples.
The ‘CHOICE’ argument
Some insightful bigots argue that homosexuals are infertile because of their lifestyle choice and that it is therefore not justified to use IVF technology in such circumstances. But I wonder what they’d have to say about the women who end up needing IVF because they delay having children giving priority to their careers during their childbearing years? Should we deny these older women IVF because they are only infertile thanks to their lifestyle choice? And whilst we’re at it, why don’t we go one step further and deny treatment to smokers who develop lung cancer, or even orthopaedic surgery to the endurance athlete?
The ‘FAMILY’ argument
Whilst I understand that many of us come from family backgrounds which included a mother, a father, and 2.5 siblings, how hard can it be to realise that family dynamics are changing and that divorced parents, single parents and same sex parents are all over the place? And how hard can it be to get our head around the fact that they are only as unnatural as the nuclear family was when it replaced the extended family during the industrial revolution?
Of course, this is not to say that there aren’t pre-requisites that should be present in our definition of a family, but these qualities are certainly not two parents of the opposite sex. The requirements are simply love, support and a sense of belonging.
The ‘VOLATILE’ argument
Some boldly maintain that homosexual relationships are volatile (as opposed to stable) and that this could be harmful to the child. Can you hear me laughing out loud?
Pathetic isn’t it? So, on the one hand we have irrefutable proof that straight marriages break down and that the rate of breakdowns is on the increase, and on the other we have absolutely no proof whatsoever that homosexual relationships break down at a higher rate than heterosexual ones, because, lo and behold, same sex marriages are not yet possible. So, saying that homosexual relationships are less stable than homosexual ones is nothing but an unfair bigoted unfounded attack based on zilch.
The ‘MONEY’ argument
Lack of funds and resources is always an issue especially when it comes to the medical field. One very strong argument in favour of refusing IVF treatment to homosexuals is that there is not enough money to fund everyone. But then why is it ok to just refuse homosexuals treatment? Why don’t we apply the same logic to IVF as we apply to organ transplants?
The recipients of donor organs are chosen based on the urgency of the case and the probable success rate of that transplant? If someone’s chances of surviving an organ transplant are grim, the organ goes to another patient with better chances of survival, so that the organ is not ‘wasted’.
If we had to apply this same logic to IVF treatment, then for this argument to hold water, there would have to be undeniable proof that lesbian pregnancies are less successful than heterosexual ones.
The ‘RELIGIOUS’ argument
Malta's Adoption Act permits adoption by married couples and single persons, and it does not in any way specify the sexual orientation of prospective adoptive parents. This means that in the eyes of the law competency to be a parent has absolutely nothing to do with your marital status or sexual orientation.
But of course, being the morally twisted country that we are, despite of the law, some IVF practitioners might refuse to treat homosexual couples or single women based on their religious or moral beliefs. And though, like most religious arguments there is no valid reason to do this, in the name of freedom of religion, THEY CAN.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
42 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Richard Ian Borg
Aug 9th 2012, 22:46
But, out of curiosity, how can you guarantee a non violent gay couple? (just to pick one of a number of overly simplified arguments that you make)
Joe Xuereb
Aug 7th 2012, 16:25
When it comes to homosexuals (male or female) clamouring for civil partnerships, gay marriage, etc. I am fairly indifferent to the matter other than on principle. The same I can say about homosexual couples adopting a child.
Comparison is odious, as on that basis any argument goes off at a tangent in no time at all and gets precisely nowhere for that reason. So, in my opinion, favouring (or even trying to experiment with same-sex parenting simply because the more usual parenting formula often produces abysmal results, does not hold water. Surely, we should aim at an excellent rearing strategy that would consistently produce good results. It could even come with a 'How to...' manual which would only work if children were robots. Some might say that an excellent standard of expectations (from parenting) is already in place. Could someone remind me what this is? I look around me and I see young people who are nothing to write home about. Maybe the ones who are attaining their goals are at home, studying, aspiring to be doctors, lawyers, or even social workers. I cannot judge and count what I don't see but today's generation are already the offspring of a generation that was already 'corrupt' in its time. Maybe we should be concerned more with what we are churning out and make the necessary amendments. And give homosexuals the chance to bring up children while ignoring biased myths (sounds silly but it bears repetition: Hetero couples produce homosexual children, so saying that homosexual parents would influence a child in that direction is ridiculous. One thing is for sure, however. Boys in hetero families are exposed to any kind of legitimate violence - whether on the playing field or the boxing-ring. With so many of these kids succumbing to this sort of violence which is often visited upon wives, friends, peers, themselves. Violence as an accepted norm, in other words. On the other hand, a homosexual couple (let's assume they are male) rearing a boy would discourage such horrendous spectacles and would teach the child that two men can be civil towards each other. There is no guarantee that the child will not grow up to be a homosexual but that would be sheer coincidence. In any case, such a (boy) child would need to have regular contact with female figures otherwise he might think the world is populated only by men. The likelihood is that he will grow up to be a kind, decent heterosexual male.
K Grace
Aug 8th 2012, 14:39
Well said Joe
Patrizia Vella
Aug 6th 2012, 20:55
Excellent article
K Grace
Aug 6th 2012, 16:05
It is in my opinion that if society really was serious about protecting our unborn children, then it would not be the question of who, Hetero or Gay, and by what means Natural or IVF etc, The question society should be asking before anyone, at all, no matter what circumstance they are in, is are the prospective parents capable of bringing up a child. We need a licence for nearly everything we do these days..yet we allow just anybody to have children.
r buttigieg
Aug 6th 2012, 13:31
rights for all eh according to the WHO, how come then only women dictate if a child is to be born or not in most of the world. Where are the rights of the male, oh yes he has just have to pay alimony.
Roderick Micallef
Aug 6th 2012, 12:46
As always Alison, well done for this fantastic article. Numerous times when I speak on this topic with most people I end up being one of the very few in favour of gay couples being able to adopt or having children of their own. To me it's basic, as long as the children are loved and have good living and upbringing conditions anything else is really and truly irrelevant.
The best part is that most of the times the discussion always ends up 'Well but if gay couples adopt or have children those children will be more likely to be gay' which is of course utter rubbish AND is not substantiated by anything except ignorant idealogies.
In her article Alison managed to high light most of the arguments and counter arguments on this topic, I just hope that the people that read the article will enhance and mature in the way they reason and view things. Well done once again Alison
Rachel Agius
Aug 6th 2012, 12:32
I still can't wrap my head around anyone using the 'It goes against nature!' argument in absolutely any modern context. If you'd really like to follow through with that thinking then get off your computer and smartphones, forgo supermarkets in favour of hunting and/or gathering your food and hope for the best when you develop a minor infection. Nature, aside from our biological processes and functions, has little to do with human life any more. We've manipulated everything from our environment to concepts of personal hygiene. The progression of science and technology presents new moral issues, ones which will not be solved by holding up 'nature' as a standard which does not exist. I do wish people would just admit that their opinions are their own, a result of their thoughts (one would hope) and not merely some impartial reflection of a divinely ordained 'natural state'. But that might involve actually admitting that those thoughts are bigoted and grounded only in their being uncomfortable with society treating everyone else as well as it treats them. I hear that that's not as fun as it sounds.
Richard Ian Borg
Aug 6th 2012, 12:29
Our arguments in favour or against this issue, or any issue for the matter, should start with this: Will there be any loss of life? Yes? Therefore it is not a valid option, whether the majority wants it democratically or not. Discard and seek alternatives.
Raymond Bezzina
Aug 6th 2012, 10:32
@ Alison Bezzina
Regarding 'the Religious argument' which you mentioned in your article; the Pastoral letter which the Bishops of Malta and Gozo issued on 26 July 2012 gives a clear and detailed explanation about the issue of IVF.
This is, of course, for all those who want to find the Truth and follow it.
D Fava
Aug 6th 2012, 09:48
Brilliant article Alison. You have just thrown another blow to the pathetic and sad church fanatics in the nads.
Mr Richard-Nazzreno Farrugia
Aug 6th 2012, 11:11
Give me scientific evidence...if you have got any...and not just insolent words which simply confirm that you have no argument of your own to sustain your position.
D Fava
Aug 6th 2012, 22:14
I am not going to waste about 20 minutes to write all of the scientific evidence of this issue. Just read the books for your self and you will find the answers.
Richard-Nazzreno Farrugia
Aug 7th 2012, 16:29
Well, since you are the one labelling some people as "pathetic and sad church fanatics", you should provide evidence to sustain your arguments. Your comment simply shows that truly you don't have 20 minutes to waste on providing proof (and I agree that you'll waste them, since there is much scientific evidence showing the perils and risks of IVF)...yet you got 20 seconds to write non-sense and unjustly label people. Who is then really the pathetic guy?
Mr Richard-Nazzreno Farrugia
Aug 5th 2012, 23:04
Ms Alison, what about the "BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD" ARGUMENT? It is true that being conceived and born within a stable heterosexual couple does not automatically mean that they will grow in a "safe" environment. And it is equally true that there are single mothers and there could be homosexual couples who could accomplish their mission as parents in a very responsible way. But surely we can't ignored what is the child's best interest. Last March, the American College of Pediatricians, (which, by the way, surely has no "affair with the Church"), presented a scientifically laden study that affirms: "The limited research advocating childrearing by same-sex parents has severe methodological limitations. There is significant risk of harm inherent in exposing a child to the homosexual lifestyle. Given the current body of evidence, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on same-sex parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science." For those who want to read this study, click on http://www.acpeds.org/Homosexual-Parenting-Is-It-Time-For-Change.html
Ms Alison, treating different realities differently is not discrimination. And what about discriminating the child-to-be? Has he got no rights whatsoever? So, one shouldn't rush to the conclusion that we are wrong just because other countries do differently. And, for the record, it is not just us Maltese who "know better"...maybe we read scientific evidence...maybe we consider also the child-to-be...
Alison Bezzina
Aug 6th 2012, 10:38
Hi Richard,
As you rightly said there's very limited research advocating child rearing by same sex couples. However there's lots and lots of research and proof that heterosexual parents are capable of doing a really bad job in this area.
There's by far more empirical evidence that heterosexual couples can be abusive, neglectful and damaging to their children. There's also lots of evidence to show that children of heterosexual parents get bullied for a myriad of reasons. In essence, to date the research is against hetroes and lack of evidence and research about same sex parenting is certainly not equivalent to negative proof....
Mr Richard-Nazzreno Farrugia
Aug 6th 2012, 21:06
@ Alison:
a Latin axiom says that "abusus non tollit usum" : [The possibility of] misuse does not preclude [right] use. So if there are heterosexual couples who are abusive, neglectful and damaging their children that doesn't mean that the solution to the problem is to open parenting to same-sex couples! Nor does it imply that all heterosexual couples do so! One should never generalized! The study I quoted goes to the root of the problem: it is in the child's best interest to grow within a heterosexual couple: a child needs a father and a mother. When due to circumstances a child has to grow having a single parent, or has to be adopted by another family other than the natural one, or his parents get remarried, these are all circumstances that the child finds himself in (he already exists!) and so the best solution is sought for him. But here, considering IVF and gay couples, the argument is of another sort: we are deciding to conceive a child to be grown by a homosexual couple: we are deciding to deprive him of a mother and/or father, of one of the "gender parents". So, again, I ask: is it in the best interest of the child? As studies do show: NOT AT ALL. As the study I make reference to says - and I think that considering its Authors it cannot be easily ignored - "depriving a child of one or both biological parents, as same-sex parenting requires in every case, is unhealthy". Please take a look to all the studies quoted in the article. So, notwithstanding all the research showing heterosexual couples doing a bad show, this is no argument in favour of same-sex parenting.
If, on the other hand, I would argue that there is limited research advocating rearing by same sex couples just because most countries of the world still do not allow it, there is enough studies to show that the risk involved does not in any manner justify that a third party (the same-sex parents) should force their "best" interest to become "parents" against the best interest of the child himself. When deciding on behalf of a child, it should always be in his best interest. And since "tradition and science agree that biological ties and dual gender parenting are protective for children", same-sex parenting is never in the child's best interest.
Alison Bezzina
Aug 7th 2012, 10:00
Statistics are a slippery slope when you’re on your side of the argument Richard.
Going by your very own dogma - [The possibility of] misuse does not preclude [right] use, even when there is some evidence of misuse.
So since there is absolutely no clear or significant proof that same sex parents ‘misuse’ their privilege, then their [right] of use should NOT be precluded.
manuel Attard
Aug 7th 2012, 12:18
couldn't agree more than this ......apparently in this so called modern society we can bend every situation to our advantage or to our extravagance, the important thing is to be noticed for something so called normal we have done.no matter if we don't give a damn about the interest of our children.
Richard-Nazzreno Farrugia
Aug 7th 2012, 16:25
@ Alison
Again you avoid to tackle the argument I'm sustaining regarding the child's best interest. In the case of same-sex parenting it's not about exceptional abuses of parenthood but the problem - as shown by the Pediatricians' study - is in the very reality of same-sex parenting. It is not in the child best's interest to be conceived with the intention to be given under the care of a same-sex couple. I don't want to repeat what I wrote in my previous comment, but the fact is that a child needs a mother and a father.
Ethelbert Schembri
Aug 5th 2012, 12:32
Spot on article Alison, the proposed bill is not only discriminating but offensive to all women!
The minister stated that the bill will agevolate only those women that are in a stable relationship with men.. And all the others ????
As I see it, the Govt must start a holistic reform in the social welfare where children are involved. It shouldn't only focus on who can have or not have children but it must focus if our children are raised in the best way posible. And as you well said in this article "The requirements are simply love, support and a sense of belonging." , if these are fulfilled no matter who your parents are, how many there are and what sex are they !!
Joe Xuereb
Aug 5th 2012, 10:48
@ Joseph Calleja (Today, 07:48). Mr. Calleja, why bring the 'Church' into it, when the Church is not best placed to dictate about matters sexual most of all. And NO, morality and ethics are NOT the sole prerogative of the Church. Proof of this is its obsession with sexual matters (the enforced celibacy when other religions are more liberal) and when scandal happens within its cloisters it deals with it in a very furtive manner at least (NO, paedophilia within the Church and among the general population, as it is often put forward, is NOT the same. I have no investment in the Church so I can afford the luxury of seeing things more objectively). And N, the good that the Church undeniably does, does NOT balance out any misdeeds. Anybody who says otherwise is merely rationalising away a thorny matter because it is expedient for them to do so.
@ Joe Vella (Yesterday, 18:54). Mr. Vella, speaking for myself, only the other day I approached a couple playing with their baby. I asked if I could admire their product - I must have sounded like a right old Maltese 'kitchen' woman. I congratulated them and walked away, leaving them with a bemused smile on their face to enjoy a wonderful child who is smelly often. Children take a long, long time to rear so why wouldn't I congratulate them? Especially in an ever depleting population and children born to the 'wrong' people. So, although I am happy to be 'unmarried and childless' - if this is what Nature intended, so be it! - I am happy for those who do marry and sire kids. But for that I wouldn't be here and I would so give anything to be here. And I am, enjoying (so to speak) my one and only stab at life experience. There ain't nothin' else!
Choice. One notices that people come and physically (and mentally) develop along a wide spectrum of types. That is Nature read genetics for you. We are born gendered and equipped but otherwise, we are tabula rasa, a clean slate. The influences that determine our acting out our sexuality come later as I said earlier. If sexual orientation were clean cut, a black and white affair, I could accept Nature's input in deciding who turns out straight, and who bent. But bisexuality - believe me it exists as do hermaphrodites and trans-gendered people - then comes in to wreak havoc with a convenient theory and so we are back to square one. I am quite happy with the status quo and I can understand people being diffident about threatening their own identity whether through experimentation or feeling threatened when people say things they would rather not listen to. We deal with this by resorting to euphemisms and hiding behind 'one-does-not-use-such-words-in-polite- society' ticket. Self-censorship at its crudest. ( I was recently in a Humanists' discussion group and I used the 'F' word. I was told to use alternatives as some may be sensitive to such a word. They won on a show of hands. Fine! The problem with these people is that, having jumped all the hurdles and becoming Humanists/Atheists, they are still beholden to that indoctrination that is putting the sexual act on some kind of spiritual pedestal, untouched, unsullied and forever romantic. They swallowed this myth (it is most often a middle-class thing but the lower classes are not spared) and would not want anything to burst their bubble. Instead of addressing this and doing themselves a favour, they choose to chastise the more liberal, the more earthy ones. n case anyone wonders, I disagree with indiscriminate sexual activity if for no other reason than the possibility of infections. As in two living organisms coming together and exchanging whatever crawls on them and in them. That is as Nature intended. Sometimes the outcome is a happy occasion - ie a baby. At other times it is a lethal cocktail that messes up the mind and even the body. It is all there, in the book of Reason.
Joe Xuereb
Aug 5th 2012, 10:02
@ Joseph Calleja (Today, 07:48). Mr. Calleja, why bring the 'Church' into it, when the Church is not best placed to dictate about matters sexual most of all. And NO, morality and ethics are NOT the sole prerogative of the Church. Proof of this is its obsession with sexual matters (the enforced celibacy when other religions are more liberal) and when scandal happens within its cloisters it deals with it in a very furtive manner at least (NO, paedophilia within the Church and among the general population, as it is often put forward, is NOT the same. I have no investment in the Church so I can afford the luxury of seeing things more objectively). And N, the good that the Church undeniably does, does NOT balance out any misdeeds. Anybody who says otherwise is merely rationalising away a thorny matter because it is expedient for them to do so.
@ Joe Vella (Yesterday, 18:54). Mr. Vella, speaking for myself, only the other day I approached a couple playing with their baby. I asked if I could admire their product - I must have sounded like a right old Maltese 'kitchen' woman. I congratulated them and walked away, leaving them with a bemused smile on their face to enjoy a wonderful child who is smelly often. Children take a long, long time to rear so why wouldn't I congratulate them? Especially in an ever depleting population and children born to the 'wrong' people. So, although I am happy to be 'unmarried and childless' - if this is what Nature intended, so be it! - I am happy for those who do marry and sire kids. But for that I wouldn't be here and I would so give anything to be here. And I am, enjoying (so to speak) my one and only stab at life experience. There ain't nothin' else!
Choice. One notices that people come and physically (and mentally) develop along a wide spectrum of types. That is Nature read genetics for you. We are born gendered and equipped but otherwise, we are tabula rasa, a clean slate. The influences that determine our acting out our sexuality come later as I said earlier. If sexual orientation were clean cut, a black and white affair, I could accept Nature's input in deciding who turns out straight, and who bent. But bisexuality - believe me it exists as do hermaphrodites and trans-gendered people - then comes in to wreak havoc with a convenient theory and so we are back to square one. I am quite happy with the status quo and I can understand people being diffident about threatening their own identity whether through experimentation or feeling threatened when people say things they would rather not listen to. We deal with this by resorting to euphemisms and hiding behind 'one-does-not-use-such-words-in-polite- society' ticket. Self-censorship at its crudest. ( I was recently in a Humanists' discussion group and I used the 'F' word. I was told to use alternatives as some may be sensitive to such a word. They won on a show of hands. Fine! The problem with these people is that, having jumped all the hurdles and becoming Humanists/Atheists, they are still beholden to that indoctrination that is putting the sexual act on some kind of spiritual pedestal, untouched, unsullied and forever romantic. They swallowed this myth (it is most often a middle-class thing but the lower classes are not spared) and would not want anything to burst their bubble. Instead of addressing this and doing themselves a favour, they choose to chastise the more liberal, the more earthy ones. n case anyone wonders, I disagree with indiscriminate sexual activity if for no other reason than the possibility of infections. As in two living organisms coming together and exchanging whatever crawls on them and in them. That is as Nature intended. Sometimes the outcome is a happy occasion - ie a baby. At other times it is a lethal cocktail that messes up the mind and even the body. It is all there, in the book of Reason.
Marco Cremona
Aug 5th 2012, 08:54
Well argued , Alison.
Pity you're not in Parliament so that there could be some REAL discussion.
Joseph Calleja
Aug 5th 2012, 07:48
@ Ylenia Rosso: maybe what you have not thought about is that the line taken by Goverment is basically the most decent, one which is also endorsed by other voices such as the Church.
A Spiteri PhD
Aug 5th 2012, 04:27
this is very well done Alison
Joe Xuereb
Aug 5th 2012, 00:50
@ Joe Vella (Today, 18:54). Yet again - there have been others - you say that homosexual people 'choose' their lifestyle. This claim does not stand up to scrutiny so I will elaborate. Again!
I am not convinced that homosexuals are born. Children are born with distinctive characteristics that define their gender (and Nature does make mistakes, here). The are born with reproductive organs depending on whether they are male or females. At this early stage they are not aware of matters sexual because sexual activity, like everything else, has its source primarily in the brain. At this stage the only function known to a baby is crying when it is hungry/in pain. Learning to perceive light and dark, shapes, textures, sounds, and smells. Basic human instincts in other words. A bit later on (especially when it becomes mobile) it develops a sense of it own space, and danger situations (like falling off the edge of a table where it was sat, the different levels of steps, etc. These are all studied experiments to understand a child's stages of progressive self-awareness and its normal development. What comes considerably later is their awareness of physical differences, their ability to observe adult behaviour, interactions with others, preferences and being attracted to some but not others (not necessarily people of the opposite sex - a boy may be drawn to a favourite uncle while a girl to the woman next door, and so on). At this time the character is being formed through contacts, play, learning to survive by telling lies (around five years of age). The stage is set over a number of years until they reach puberty and sexual awareness. Now as we know, most young people turn out to be heterosexual and they have a propensity to that end. Some others, a minority, are attracted to members of their own sex (not forgetting that heterosexual boys and girls often have crushes on, maybe, an older male-model and the girls, likewise. But they grown out of this. And some don't. Now this sounds like I am talking of human sexuality as a black and white issue when close observation shows that sexual orientation often overlaps the one over the other, and with so many variations. Also, it is useful to note here that heterosexual males are so different one from the others. One is brutish and aggressive whereas another may be slender and almost effeminate. Trends that were regarded as gay in the past have now become the norm among heterosexual men. This - a wider spectrum of sexual expression that does not necessarily be genital is often clearly noticeable especially in these more liberated times especially with the internet where the sense of isolation of times past is now unknown. Now, with this infinite variety of sexual orientations, are we to believe still that homosexuals and heterosexuals are born as such? Maybe. I choose to think that it is more a question of people being susceptible to whatever one way or the other and that influences that came into play during their formative years very much come into play. I should mention that homosexual expression is often observed in certain instances, albeit temporarily (for instance, in prison. Most cultures exercise some taboo about this activity and this curtails the phenomenon to a large extent with people policing themselves and others (such is the shame and disapproval). But it still happens. Once released from a 'no-women' situation, men of course revert back to their 'normal' orientation.
The issue here is about 'choice'. I believe that people are all born sexual because that is what Nature decrees. The flowering of our sexual functioning is therefore seeded the minute we are conceived but the developments comes later. In this we have no choice (and even then Nature often gets things wrong). What IS a choice is whether we respond to our sexual urges, or not. And this applies to every sexual being regardless of gender or orientation. Priests for instance, have to choose a life of celibacy and I imagine, they do not bear this lightly such is the human urge to feel sexual attraction towards others. Nature decreed - let's call it evolution in its widest sense, ie including plants (some of which have been noted to express homosexual characteristics) and animals (and these do likewise) - this because Nature is about propagation and once this is achieved it 'washes its hands' and moves on to the next set. Fascinating stuff.
Should IVF treatment be available to homosexual people? First of all marriage between same-sex persons in Malta is still not permissible so first things first. If a gay male desires a child he still needs a female to carry the child for him. There is no law that prohibits a gay woman and a gay male having a child by whatever means. Surrogacy would be another option but would be costly for obvious reasons. When this happens, I do not know the legal implications for the people concerned.
Mike Abbot
Aug 5th 2012, 10:47
You openly admit that nature makes mistakes, how exactly is someone meant to simply 'make a choice' once nature has set it's course?
Priests. Suppressing your sexual urges is a choice. If you want to live a life suppressing your sexual urges then that's fine. That is the definition of choice. Nature hasn't made any 'mistakes', you are not born a priest. You choose and you are free to change your mind.
In the case of homosexuals nature has made the choice for you. You are not free to choose and never will be. You can't simply leave. You either live a live of suppression or you live a life of inclusion. In this you have slightly more choice. You either fight for your rights, against bigotry & ignorance in your country, you leave for a country that is further along in it's fight against the same or you simply try and live your life as quietly as possible.
Denying someone the same rights you enjoy based on the choice argument is fundamentally flawed and only works if you really believe nature is a choice or if you are ready to defend the indefensible argument of nature makes mistakes on matter X but never, ever, on matter Y.
Joe Vella
Aug 4th 2012, 18:54
Can anyone tell me how gay and lesbian couples can biologically produce naturally? If they can't, then how are they being discriminated against. I personally have nothing against two people of he same sex being together or getting married for that matter. What I cannot understand is certain demands that otherwise in a normal situation couldn't have. In this case it is obvious that two people of the same sex, no matter how much they try, they cannot produce children. So why not be happy with the lifestyle that they choose and at the same time be happy for heterosexual couples that there is the possibility that they can have kids.
M Ellul
Aug 4th 2012, 23:22
Please read ''The CHOICE argument'' once again.
Reuben Zammit
Aug 5th 2012, 01:19
Have you even READ the article?
Victor Laiviera
Aug 4th 2012, 18:39
On what do you base your assertion that the PN is "the political party which was always at the forefront of human rights"?
Apart from the spin propagated over the years, that is?
J Abela
Aug 5th 2012, 17:23
Exactly my thoughts Victor..
Joseph Calleja
Aug 4th 2012, 13:32
Having some holes in your arguments is an understatement here. I think that to be more credible Alison, youneed to stop bashing the Church, who has the right to have a voice, like you do in your blog, and convince a bit more with rational arguments,which are a bit more tight.
But yet again a thumbs down article.
Ylenia Rosso
Aug 4th 2012, 18:35
The church may have the right to an opinion. What it shouldn't have the right to do is impose its laws on people who wish to exercise their right to not follow it. You see, in case you haven't noticed Mr. Calleja, not everyone is Catholic. Indeed there exist people who deviate from this believe EVEN on our little island! What the PN have consistently tried to do is legislate according to the Church's ideals - another attempt in the move to consistently discriminate. Yes, the church has a voice and a right to express it. Not everyone, however, is obliged to be its audience. Alison I think this is a great article Prosit!
Alison Bezzina
Aug 5th 2012, 09:19
Yawn! and there goes the Church bashing card again. Where dear Joseph are you seeing any Church bashing in this piece? Not that I don't like it or that the Church doesn't deserve it, but in this case there's none of it.... but I'll remember to stick some in next time just so that you'll have something to go on about. Sigh!
Franco Farrugia
Aug 4th 2012, 12:23
Quote: 'how hard can it be to realise that family dynamics are changing and that divorced parents, single parents and same sex parents are all over the place?'
It's not a question of whether something is 'natural' or not. It's a question of what the results will be of said 'family dynamics'. Just because things are happening the way they are, does not, necessarily imply that they are for the best, don't you think?
I rather think it is all a question of 'satisfaction': anything that 'satisfies' me is OK, is good, is 'natural', must be!
No.
Jonathan Camilleri
Aug 4th 2012, 08:02
I agree, Alison should diversify into read law, maybe she helps Commissioner Rizzo who apparently had trouble finding laws so much that he had publicly claimed he needed a torch. Maybe simplifying laws for us common mortals to read without the assistance of a lawyer would throw lawyers out of a job though...
Joe Aquilina
Aug 3rd 2012, 21:02
Very thoughtful piece, but how would you address the argument that IVF is a measure of last resort to assist where nature has failed?
Jonathan Camilleri
Aug 4th 2012, 08:00
How do you mean?
Gorg Sciberras
Aug 3rd 2012, 20:35
I agree that it is time to open up the definition of family and ensure access to IVF for most of the groups you mention.
However, your arguments have some holes:
UNNATURAL: there is very little (if any) scientific evidence that "biological infertility is nature’s way of prohibiting an individual from bearing children"
CHOICE: if a woman delays having children and is then infertile when she tries to, there is no evidence on a personal level that she would have been fertile earlier in her life
FAMILY: I do not really see same sex families "all over the place" and I live in Sweden.
VOLATILE: this is not really a hole in the argument, more a comment: the thing is we are not comparing like with like as same sex couples have no way of getting married in Malta. So even if they break up more often than heterosexual couples, which I suspect might be true, you cannot compare as they have not promised to live with each other "till death do us part".
MONEY: rationing of transplants is due to a lack of organs not money so it is not really possible to compare. It is also extremely difficult to predict whether a pregnancy will be successful or not. And anyway, I would argue that someone who is less likely to conceive through IVF should be prioritised as they are probably also less likely to conceive naturally. Also the costs here are not prohibitive. I don't think there will be thousands of same sex couples every year trying to get IVF if it were allowed.
RELIGION: you mix religion with conscience which is not only based on religion. You make an extremely valid point though that adoptions are allowed by single parents but IVF then is not.
Matthew Vella
Aug 3rd 2012, 19:45
Excellent article!
Please choose the reason of your report below: