Thursday, 3rd April 2008
Discussion and choice
I consider myself to be pro-life, pro-choice, and anti-abortion.
I am ‘pro-life' because the criminalisation of abortion actually leads to more deaths since dangerous homemade abortion methods often cause women to die along with the foetus they are trying to abort. Therefore I feel that the real ‘pro-life' stance is one that does not exclude the legalisation of abortion where this can be done in a safe and controlled environment so that, at least, the women are saved.
I am ‘pro-choice' because as a man I feel that I should not be part of a society in which women are forced to have children against their will, and that if they are severely physically, mentally, emotionally or financially ill-prepared to bear a child, and they wind up pregnant anyway, there should be another option.
That being said, I consider myself to be ‘anti-abortion', because as much as I feel that people who commit abortions should not be imprisoned, I will never encourage anyone I love to go through with one. Abortion is very damaging emotionally and is often done at times when the female is particularly vulnerable. I believe abortion should be the very last option and a pregnancy should be terminated only in extreme cases. I strongly feel that there are other options that should be considered and that women should have the chance to weigh out their options objectively, hopefully with the help of psychological experts, at the expense of the government, if necessary.
Having hijacked all the labels of ‘pro-choice', ‘anti-abortion' and ‘pro-life' and twisted them to my advantage, I am left with no words to describe the tens of thousands of Maltese people who think I am crazy because they believe abortion is murder and this should be entrenched into the constitution never to be changed again.
These people are the same ones who write letters to the editor saying we should end this debate once and for all, that we should not let Dr. Rebecca Gomperts speak to our people, that it is shameful of the government or anyone else to discuss abortion in an objective way and that we should close our eyes to the Council of Europe's recommendation and all other information which clearly tells us that the criminalization of abortion is not the best way forward.
The only word I can think of to describe these arguments is ‘antiquated'.
How come it is always the ‘anti-choice' movement that seeks to silence debate rather than engage in it? Are they so insecure in their beliefs?
It seems that they know they will be proven wrong, so they need to hurriedly entrench this into the constitution so that by the time they are proven wrong it would be too late to change.
Wherever you place yourself on the pro-life, pro-choice, anti-abortion, anti-choice spectrum, I encourage you to be firm in your beliefs so that none of us have to be afraid of discussion. To come to the right conclusions we need to have a mature debate strengthened by logic, accurate information, factual medical evidence and an analysis of successes and failures of the abortion policies of other countries, as well as a sense of openness and objectivity.
And once we have set the tone for a proper discussion, let us talk about some points that I have conveniently left out:
What choices and rights does a foetus/baby have?
Why should the foetus/baby have to suffer because of the irresponsibility of its mother's action?
Does the wellbeing of the foetus/baby override the wellbeing of the mother?
Let us see how long we can go on discussing something objectively and maturely, until someone starts trying to bully us out of having this debate.
RSS
Comments
I must agree with Adrian that what Kyle said is not correct. I agree with the point that science will not lead us anywhere, furthermore, the discussion of whether the unborn child is human or not will not give us any results either. The points of view are too far apart. I am not trying to open up a discussion about this either.
I am acknowledging the fact that you think that there is a need for
abortion which can be used as a tool for a mother who does not want a child at the present time. That is what this discussion is all about, power in the hands of the mother so she can do what she thinks is best for her AND for the unborn child. I can see why this can be seen as a
valid, ethical and useful tool. There are as many pros and cons as there are to letting the unborn child reach term. I have passed through a time thinking that abortion is a good thing too, because I thought that after all, it is for a common good, a way to safeguard the quality of life of the mothers-to-be and the unborn child (who does not have a quality of life in the first place you might argue, and one cannot miss what one never had).
However, why don't we just let abortion out of the picture for a
moment, and discuss other totally ethical and unobjectionable ways
there are to avoid pregnancies from happening in the first place? I mean, if the mother knows that having a baby at the present time will turn out to be a really big problem (social, financial or otherwise) then why does she let herself get pregnant in the first place? There
are ways and means of contraception, and while these are not 100% failsafe, they are quite reliable. And furthermore, if this is not enough safety, then just DON'T DO IT!
If one is a responsible and ethical person, one should think before acting, and if the risks of having a baby (even though they might be small if using contraceptives) still outweigh the 'benefit' of having sex, then abstain! This would save us all this discussion about right
and not right!
I am sure you all agree with me that, although you might think that
abortion is right, prevention IS better! But you might say that we are not living in an ideal world where there are no problems, and obviously, there are discussions about what should happen in the case of rape, of unwed mothers, and of teenage mothers. But this is a social problem and not an ethical one. These should theoretically be
problems which can be solved at source, and there should never be the need for an easy and last way out. If the unwed and teenage mothers already showed that they are unresponsible and cannot be trusted with their own bodies, how can they be trusted with taking such an important decision about life and death? Society should strive to
solve these problems and offer support to those who fall for it, and NOT marginalise them.
This is what I think. If one is a responsible and ethical
person, then don’t try to prove it by aborting your child, thinking
that this is what is best for all involved, but by being responsible at source and abstaining or using contraceptive measures. That is the TRUE easy way out, and not abortion!
- It's a mother's responsability to ensure the best quality of life for her children and for herself. The option to abort can be a tool in the mother's hands to help ensure that quality of life. I agree with encouraging support to those mothers that need it, however there are cases when having a child is simply out of the question.
"The fundamental vocation of women is to spread love, show kindness and defend life"
- I agree, but as per above, a mother's foremost right and duty is the well-being of her children, and that includes, in the case of an UNBORN embryo, the woman's right to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.
"I presume you are a strict vegan." "– Your logic here defies me"
- Let me explain. The initial statement I reacted to was, "life is not a choice...it is a right". Clearly we have a misagreement of whether an embryo can in fact be called human, the same way you are called. The whole global abortion debate is a reflection of that disagreement. The original statement did not say "human life", only "life". The only people qualified to make such a statement, in my opinion, are vegans, who go all the way in protecting "life".
"If the majority in a country think it is good for their society ... then I'm afraid you don't have a right to disrupt the development of that society.
- In no way am I seeking to disrupt the development of a society, as you put it. Rather, I'm trying to open up dialogue on a very personal issue which should be the mother's concern, not everyone plus one. If the majority are against abortion, so be it! Nobody's forcing you to abort!
"Well, science says that it is a human being. I see no point in defying facts."
- Science doesn't say that. Your statement is misinformed. This is an ethical question, not a scientific one. While science may HELP, it does not even TRY to declare whether something is human or not. That's up to philosophy, ethics, religion. All science can do is try and find out facts about the world, not make moral declarations.
"Do you think that, having people like you making women pay up enormous amounts of money and then leaving them venturing about in this world without anyone to lean on just so that abortionists can make some profits, helps?"
- I was starting to enjoy the healthy debate, which you managed to crash down clamorously. I have no interest whatsoever in abortion doctors' interests. I'm interested in the quality of life of both mother and child; the establishment of support groups, along with abortion clinics, goes without saying, as well as qualified counseling facilities BEFORE the actual abortion to explore possible alternatives which the woman on her own might overlook. Still, the ultimate decision should lie with the woman herself. Nobody's forcing YOU to start aborting; likewise, it's unfair of you to force other women regardless of ANY consideration NOT to choose what they think is best for themselves and their families.
Furthermore, let me turn your last sentence around and address it to you,
'who are YOU to take away the right to life of an unborn child?" After all, what existed first... procreation or abortion? "We" as you so hastily categorised "us", are not denying the mother any rights, but are wanting to protect the unborn child's rights.
In this day and age it has become fairly easy to control whether to become pregnant or not. So just because there was a mistake or lack of responsibility, or casual unprotected sex, does this give the mother a right do kill her unborn child so as not to "ruin her life"?
Abortion is just an "easy" way out, a 'Delete' or 'Undo' button on our computer. This is not the way to go about with a life however.
Fundamentalism? It's simply about protecting the right of life and encouraging support to those mothers that need it (just as we do with people who are drug addicts). I'm sorry but if defending life is now fundamentalist you might as well kill me now and get it over with.
"What about celibate women? Are they also undermining their fundamental womanly vocation?"
The fundamental vocation of women is to spread love, show kindness and defend life (basically like those of men among other things). Celibate women have decided to dedicate themselves completely to these vocations refraining from raising and caring for their own children to make sure that these vocations are met to the fullest.
"I presume you are a strict vegan." - Your logic here defies me.
"Simply because some people think something is bad doesn't make it a universal moral imperative."
If the majority in a country think it is good for their society (especially when it is noted in other countries) then I'm afraid you don't have a right to disrupt the development of that society. (Note that I'm not referring here to having your own opinions since this has nothing to do with it because freedom of speech is accepted by our society as being healthy for itself.)
"A being (animal or otherwise) without all these can barely be called human."
Well, science says that it is a human being. I see no point in defying facts.
"Nonetheless, having people like you hammering these women on what an utterly abominable, beastly act they've committed doesn't really help them get over it, don't you think?"
Do you think that, having people like you making women pay up enormous amounts of money and then leaving them venturing about in this world without anyone to lean on just so that abortionists can make some profits, helps?
This past week, I've heard a very wise remark from someone that impressed me so much that I'm going to quote it in its original form in Maltese:
"Is-socjeta qed tħeġġeġ l-libertinaġġ u mhux il-libertà."
"Who are you to deny other human beings their right to live?"
And as for those children that "are raped and abused in orphanages each year. Or the children who live in squalor with their crack smoking mothers." we should do our utmost to find them and help them rather than bickering here trying to show everyone how good we are.
maybe you should ask the thousands of kids who are raped and abused in orphanages each year. Or the children who live in squalor with their crack smoking mothers.
we're not asking for everyone to agree with abortion but who are you people to take away the right of a woman to choose how she wants to live the rest of her life.
Christine Galea: "By abortion, woman is undermining her fundamental vocation" - What about celibate women? Are they also undermining their fundamental womanly vocation?
Christine Galea: "..pregnant through the rape, killing the unborn child is only adding insult to injury." - Your logic here defies me.
c.busuttil: "life is not a choice...it is a right" - I presume you are a strict vegan.
Andrew Camilleri: "simply because people think something is good does not justify the act" - Simply because some people think something is bad doesn't make it a universal moral imperative.
Andrew Camilleri: "Of course, the lives of 40,000 mums are much more important than those of millions of unborn children" - Indeed, those mothers have become social beings through their upbringing. They have their own thoughts, ideas, reasoning, social relationships, loves /hates /life experiences, unlike their unborn embryos. A being (animal or otherwise) without all these can barely be called human.
c.busuttil: "I often look at the people I love. like my husband and ask myself ' what if his mother had decided otherwise and aborted?' " - One cannot miss what one knows not.
Sascha Reiff: "I can guarantee you a 100% definite NO answer!" - Some sort of scientific citation would be in order. Nonetheless, having people like you hammering these women on what an utterly abominable, beastly act they've committed doesn't really help them get over it, don't you think?
You think mothers should be given the right to ruin the unborn child's life just so that it doesn't ruin their's. Egoism. Escapism. Lack of responsibility.
Ask all mothers who have been denied the option of abortion 5-20 years ago whether they think their baby 'ruined their lives'. I can guarantee you a 100% definite NO answer!
Yes, exceptions, exceptions... some of those here and some of those there (such as dark-skinned people that allegedly should have different rights to light-skinned people) ... a little more exit clauses here and everywhere and what do we end up with?
I get to lose my right to live too.
We'd be having legal and "safe" assassins soon enough at this rate.
"What choices and rights does a foetus/baby have?"
Since I am a human being and science proves that an embryo is a human being too then we both have the same fundamental rights (basically, that to live).
"Why should the foetus/baby have to suffer because of the irresponsibility of its mother's action?"
Yes why should it? Although I would have phrased the question differently so that it is: "Why should the foetus/baby die because of the irresponsibility of its someone else's actions?"
"Does the wellbeing of the foetus/baby override the wellbeing of the mother?"
No and it's generally acceptable for the mother to abort only, and only if, continuing the pregnancy has a very high chance that the mother dies. Even though, I think that those women who have chosen that they sacrifice themselves for their child are very honourable and are an example to all of us.
"yeah women have a right not to let a child ruin their life."
Although I will happily tolerate much of what pro-abortion people will say here (since that is really what leads to a healthy discussion and I think that a healthy debate is really overdue in Malta) I find Mr. Farrugia's comment unacceptable and immature. I can't explain how hurt I felt when I read such a comment. I can't possibly think that I might have been ruining someone else's life when I was a child.
I refuse to be baited into the 20yrs = foetus debate, because neither of us will ever win it: my perception of ethics differs from yours, and I respect that. This is why I would ask that people who share my perception be given the choice of termination if they do not wish to bring into the world a child who would suffer. If the choice exists, no-one is going to force the people who disagree with abortion into it. Now that would be Hitlerite. That's not what I'm proposing though.
What YOU are defending, on the other hand, is the staunch refusal to offer an exit clause to the people faced with this burden of disability when it is preventable, and to do so in a safer, more legitimate manner.
my thoughts exactly, as a 33 year old married woman who has wished to have my own children (unsuccessfully) for the past six years you may think I am biased. But I often look at the people I love. like my husband and ask myself ' what if his mother had decided otherwise and aborted?' not only would I have been denied the gift to have my own children but also the gift of a loving and understanding husband who makes up in whole for this void. I would never have known of course, but I and so many others, thank her wholeheartedly for choosing life.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta
Hey, Chris - I am so thankful you have been born - life and the world at large, would not be quite the same without you - such a loving and colourful character! What right would I have had, as your mother, to deprive you of this chance to live your dreams and hopefully leave your mark upon society with the possibility of leaving this world, a better place than you have found it? Using violence to get what one wants is a form of bullying - somebody spoilt for choice, we say. I believe that life is ultimately a gift and even if I am deformed or disabled or carrying a foetus that is (see Samuel's input) I can still be a gift to others, giving others the chance to grow. I think the bottom line here is: As a mother carrying a child (whether deformed or not; whether I am stable or not etc) do I choose to just love myself (and take a rather selfish way out if things don't look easy)? Or do I see/love the other, unconditionally - giving the chance to an unborn baby to perhaps eventually contribute its own gifts/love toward others too? Who knows how many people you have touched in your life already, giving hope and courage to those in need of love and companionship? Would life have been the same for those people that you have yourself been a gift to? I know that MY life, for one, has certainly been enriched through you!
I am therefore pro-life, pro-gift, pro-love!
Just taste the sad and utterly pathetic irony of it all.
no matter what the church and pressure groups would like to think abortion is not going to go away just because you don’t make it legal or huff and puff about it. so why not legalize it and make it safer for those who want to do it? That way you can monitor it and give women the possibility of making an informed choice rather than a rash and potentially dangerous one.
If the thought of it makes you angry or gets yr panties in a punch well then .. don’t get an abortion but respect that there are many people who do not feel the same way as you.
Is there a way to stop these abortions from happening? (Obviously making it illegal does not stop them from happening.)
If we cannot stop them, shouldn't we try to protect the lives of these women anyway?
By the way, abortion is no way to eradicate a disease. That's utterly absurd. What's the difference between a 20-year-old with Down's Syndrome and a foetus with Down's Syndrome? Both are persons. Killing a foetus with DS is just the same as killing an individual who's 20.
Hey, the government should just open a couple of concentration camps, chuck all disabled/sick people in there and leave space for the genetically pure. Why waste money on Mater Dei and a free health system when you can just let anyone who is not healthy starve to death? Is it me, or do pro-abortionist arguments like this sound neo-Hitlerite?
Bear with me, if you will, and I'll walk you through the logic.
Sometimes it is necessary to terminate the foetus if the mother's life in endangered. This is known as the principle of double effect, whereby an intervention is performed on the mother without intent to terminate, but the termination happens as a side effect of the intervention. This is accepted by the Vatican as a necessary evil, in best interests of the mother.
Why then, should the foetus not be terminated in case of severe disability or deformity? Birth with this sort of anomaly is denigrating and undignified, especially with low survivability diseases, and the psychological impact of losing a newborn child after 9 months of pregnancy most probably outweighs that of terminating a pregnancy earlier on.
A successful campaign was run in Cyprus with the aim or eradicating Thalassaemia, which was rampant on that island (and is in Malta, being Mediterranean too). Screening of the foetus was done, and if criteria were fulfilled, the mother was offered termination, being told fully what the outcome of the process (or abstention thereof) would entail.
Thus, introduction of the choice to abort would go some way to eradicating congenital debilitating conditions, while legalisation would go some way to introduce guidelines on who should be offered a termination, and who wouldn't.
A small nod to Andrew Camilleri: as soon as a potentially pro-abortion person raises THEIR voice, the anti-abortionists are also very quick to respond, and you are a very poignant reminder of this. It wouldn't do to point fingers when the person doing the pointing is just as guilty.
In that vein, it's also quite obvious that pro- and anti-choice people will never cross over to the other camp - I disagree that this is not 'politics', as in a democratic country, where abortion is or is not a civil right, democracy rules and the majority wins. It all boils down to how many want the choice for abortion, and how many refuse to concede it.
Now lets make things clear. Its useless replying to this message saying that the baby has a right. I in fact agree with that statement. But still, there's always going to be a strong conflicting argument to any argument posed on abortion, whether its pro or anti!
I have to restress that there's no real solution which will satisfy the majority, so lets please respect everyone to their own opinions, cos its really useless and unfruitful to go on with this never ending fight between pro and anti.
Children too have their dignity, irrespective of whether they are raised within a family or in a children's home, whatever. Hundreds of children brought up in such homes have found themselves back into the main stream of society. Where possible, efforts are also sought to place such children in an alternative setting (adoption or fostering). You certainly cannot declare that a child who is facing a difficult situation has no dignity.
Regarding rape: Yes, it is cruel and inhuman but certainly the victim retains her dignity. If she becomes pregnant through the rape, killing the unborn child is only adding insult to injury. The unborn child has its own dignity which must be defended at all costs, because like rape, abortion is also cruel and inhuman. Leaving aside the moral and religious aspect, it is so also for the mother herself. This may be seen through various studies which demonstrate the many risks which the mother faces when considering abortion: health, psychological, etc.
Abortion is never a solution to any situation or mistake. Abortion is no choice. Both the mother and the child deserve better.
You may feel it's your vocation to be a mother - and fine i wish you luck, but keep in mind that not eveyone feels this way. There are women and plenty of them whose ultimate goals in life do not include babies.
I feel you are probably one of those people who preach things like this with all confidence but have no idea of the reality of life.
What about the dignity of the mother?
As an answer, I quote Pope John Paul II, writing in "Mulieris Dignitatem" para 29: "The dignity of women is measured by the order of love, which is essentially the order of justice and charity". In para 30, he continues: "God entrusts the human being to her in a special way" in every situation of her life.
In the light of this, motherhood (under any circumstance) should be viewed not as a hinderance, but as a gift to the woman. "Motherhood involves a special communion with the mystery of life, as it develops in the woman's womb. The mother is filled with wonder at this mystery of life, and understands with unique intuition what is happening inside her" (MD 18).
I feel that any mother who considers abortion is not doing justice, primarily to her unborn child, but least of all to herself. By abortion, woman is undermining her fundamental vocation (that of motherhood) and the dignity which she recieves from God himself.
In moral dilemmas such as this, one cannot afford to be diplomatic and try and point out valid arguments on both sides. Things are either black or white. Ethics is not politics. Hence, I am not going to write down that I am pro-choice, pro-life and anti-abortion all at the same time, since it's like saying that I'm a Greenpeace activist but I enjoy killing whales and shooting birds.
As for a mature and logical debate, isn't there? Oh, I forgot, as soon as abortion critics raise their voice, everyone shouts them down as anti-female, ant-choice, anti-freedom and what-have-you. Oh yes, very democratic and very logical.
Just come out as pro- or anti-abortion and full stop.
Obviously, from the way you write, you're simply non-commital and trying to please everyone to some extent.