Thursday, 18th September 2008
NOT ABOUT ABORTION
This isn’t about abortion. I’m on record, for the nth time, as being against abortion, though far be it from me to dare to judge any woman who resorts to it. This fact, that I am on record as being against abortion, will not, of course, deter the “Pro Lifers” from slagging me off and tarring me with the brush they reserve for anyone who doesn’t slavishly jump to the crack of their whip.
No, this isn’t about abortion.
It’s about bullying and sharp tactics. It’s certainly not about me agreeing with Joseph Muscat, surprising as this would be to all the Lil’Elves. I don’t, precisely, agree with him about the question whether the unborn child’s right to life should be entrenched in the Constitution, because I don’t have reservations about this. I’m not shilly-shallying or sitting on the fence: I know this right should not be entrenched.
I disagree with Joseph Muscat in the same way I disagree with him about the introduction of divorce. He says there should be a debate, I say that the time for debate is long passed: the right to civil divorce has been denied to those of our citizens who can’t afford to get it in the time-honoured fashion for way too long and it’s time for us to crawl out from under the soutane. So, again, no more fence-sitting, Malta is a secular state and there’s an end to it. Allowing the civil contract of marriage to be dissolved by the civil courts does not render it a mandatory procedure for anyone who does not believe that divorce fits in with his or her belief system.
And no more guff about how the rights of the children will not be protected or anything like that. Anyone who says this with a straight face hasn’t had the fun experience of being involved with (or even hearing about) a separation procedure. Likewise the “protection of the family” myth: does anyone really think that a family undergoing separation proceedings is “protected”?
If anyone does, then as far as I am concerned they are terminally deluded and shouldn’t have any say in setting national policy.
So, this isn’t about abortion, it isn’t about my (dis)agreeing with Joseph Muscat and it isn’t about my personal morality, anyone’s opinion about which leaves me utterly uncaring anyway.
As I wrote earlier, it’s about bullying and sharp tactics. The Right To Life Lobby, has been trying to strong-arm politicians into jigging to their little tune for many, many months now.
You will remember, I trust, one of the earlier mild trials and tribulations that Dr Harry Vassallo went through, when it was put about, if memory serves, that he had signed that confounded petition. The Pro Lifers or whatever they call themselves had put this about, again if memory serves, and when they had to lap that one back up, it was said that there was a bit of misinterpretation or something like that. I seem to recall that Dr Vassallo was forced to make it public that he wasn’t particularly amused by the whole thing.
Well, it seems that this sort of publicity stunting has been resorted to again.
Not content with leaning very heavily on anyone they can get their claws into, the lobbyists have now broadcast a statement that was so up-beat about Joseph Muscat’s take on their visit with him that the MLP was constrained to put out its own statement, making it very clear that Muscat, while being against abortion personally (with him on this I am as one) had reservations about the appropriateness of entrenchment.
As someone had once put it, losing one parent is unfortunate, losing two is sheer carelessness. You can use the comments section to demonstrate your literary erudition. Similarly, making one slightly disingenuous statement about a party leader (as Vassallo then was) accepting to sign a petition might, with judicious application of some tolerant parameters, be classed as carelessness, but making a second such statement smacks of a bit more than that, and then a bit more than that again.
Do the people who run this particularly strident lobby really think that they’re helping their cause? This is a European country with a (relatively) sophisticated media audience, where freedom of thought and expression are prized above many other freedoms. It is true, and this is why I am against it, that abortion denies a basic freedom to the unborn child, but manipulating and bullying politicians and the media is not the way to educate society to eschew it.
Another thing I didn’t particularly like, though it was a welcome rest, was the, forgive me, cynical way the Pro-lifers “suspended” their campaign during the elections and for most of summer. This rather savvy approach to campaigning and media presence points towards the inescapable conclusion that they carefully and with much thought calculate the effect of their actions.
So, now that they want to mix it with the media and come out with guns blazing, I’m easy with having a bit of a blaze back at them. As far as I’m concerned, I hope this campaign comes to a juddering halt, before the perfectly understandable reaction that many thinking people are having creates a climate where abortion becomes acceptable.
RSS
Comments
Can we be fair once and for all and stop lambasting, attacking and defaming people who simply want to protect unborn children from abortion under the veil of choice.
In reply to my writing: "I repeat - people who have valid arguments to substantiate their claims, do not fear debate. ", you wrote: "Tell that to the 9 judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm sure they'll be very impressed".
Of course they won't be impressed. Judges are not there to debate. Judges are there to...yes...judge, according to the laws of their country.
So no, won't tell that to the judges. I tell that to you. Actually, I will ask you: Do you fear debate?
As for my last question, it was a hypothetical. But of course, people who fear debate would probably not get the point.
But of course, I won't refer to you as mad, like you are suggesting I might be. But here's one thing to consider. Many times, the mad think they are sane.
You seem to think that I am a Gift-Of-Lifer, or something of the sort. Please don't confuse willingness to debate issues with being anti or pro anything.
And finally, don't think you will earn any respect and win arguments by ridiculing others. People who do so are usually unreasonable men who chicken-out from debates.
You wrote, "I repeat - people who have valid arguments to substantiate their claims, do not fear debate. "
Tell that to the 9 judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. I'm sure they'll be very impressed.
To your last question, I would say, "The gates tal-Manikonju have broken down. There goes a crazy woman and a nutty doctor."
(Psst ... pose that question in a Canadian court, and you'll earn a ticket to a free psychiatric evaluation.)
Laws are based on reason and are meant to keep us, all, on a civilized track. The Constitution is there to make sure that the Laws are applied equally, and do not infringe our fundamental rights and freedoms.
In Malta, we have the Constitution guaranteeing the same rights to all citizens, and Articles 241 to 244 of the Criminal Code denying those rights and freedoms to pregnant women.
What is even more bizarre, is the fact that, people like Bocca who are forever dredging up the Human Rights violations of the MLP are themselves silent while this tragedy is taking place under their watch.
So much for reason. So much for reasonable men.
One question: If its simply a matter of a woman's personal choice what she does with her body before the birth of her child, what would you say if a woman decided to terminate her pregnancy at, say, 8 and a half months?
I believe that all states where abortion is legal set a time (in weeks) after which abortion is not permitted.
Do you still think its a simple clear-cut matter of personal choice?
"There is no arguing with him, for if his pistol misses fire, he knocks you down with the butt end of it."
So you still go down ;)
What I think or believe IS relevant when the topic is whether a foetus at a point where he/she becomes sentient, for instance, has rights or not. Your argument that since its in her body a woman can do what she likes is like saying I may kill anyone who enters my house.
I repeat - people who have valid arguments to substantiate their claims, do not fear debate.
And once again, I'm not for criminalizing abortion. I'm only saying that abortion should not be uses as simply a means of birth-control.
They pretend to be defenders of freedom of expression but they go bananas if/when someone contradicts them or have different opinion from theirs.They play 'experts of 'written English' and when others draw their attention to their 'written mistakes' they hurl at him/her anything that comes from filthy mouths.
They rarely write anything about the present situation we live in or condemn the mountains of wrongs that the various PN Adminstrations had committed and are committing on daily basis. The reasons for such behaviour are most obvious , apart from the fact that their bread and butter depends on delivering the spite I mentioned above.
Thank God that the majority of the readers are much more intelligent that the above writers, as the various comments on this particular blog clearly demonstrates that.
Furthermore, the credibility of the above mentioned scribblers is well below freezing point.
Their obsessions is their failure.
I pity those people that confuse morality with piety. Having morals/ethics is equal to being a bigot!
But alll that goes beyond the scope of what GOL wants, which of course is downright absurd. What's next? Shall we entrench the right to have clowns at birthday parties in the constitution?
For some reason you remind of what Oliver Goldsmith famously said of an opponent: "There is no arguing with him, for if his pistol misses fire, he knocks you down with the butt end of it."
What you think, or believe, is not relevant to what a woman CHOOSES to do with a part of her own body. You have no business interfering. Period. No debate. Period.
@K. Pullicino
The only thing to remember is that, it's a woman's choice ... as guaranteed to her by the Constitution.
Re-read my first post where I quoted the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, when it struck down the Abortion Law:
"Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."
Do you suppose that the Canadian judges -- 9 of them -- did not know the difference between a foetus and a new-born baby?
Give it up, boys; you do not have a case.
"Is there a reason as to why divorce is considered a "civil right" but abortion is not? Why is it that the majority of Maltese want divorce to be legalised, but not abortion?"
Yes, quite a simple one, whilst divorce concerns two consenting adults without harming any of them, abortion involves harming a non consenting party, namely the unborn child!
If you believe that abortion is getting rid of an unwanted baby (which is not the same as birth control), then it means you are willingly ending its life or killing it.
The law against homicide is not in the constitution, so why should abortion be?
One way for unmarried women (who find themselves pregnant without wanting to) to be free is when the guy who gets them pregnant offers to take the child and bring it up. Also, i think all women, married or not should have the morning after pill made widely available.
C John Zammit, tthat's an interesting way of describing men.
Please enlighten me!
@ Jonathan Polidano. You are doing the same mistake like the Archbishop treating abortion and divorce as one issue. Divorce is the termination of a marriage consented by the two involved parties hence a civil right. Abortion is the termination of a helpless being thus condemnable. And my impression is that ABC is not pro abortion but against the constitutional entrenchment issue. I share those notions too.
First of all, who mentioned "faith-based" fundamentalism? Fundamentalism need not be faith-based - take Stalin, for instance. As for choice, it comes with responsibilities.
Also, if the subject under dispute is whether a foetus has a right to life or not, this IS a matter of public morals and/or policy.
If the foetus has no such right, then it would be a personal matter. But to foreclose debate is to be totalitarian and fundamentalist. I personally happen to believe that there are some cases where abortion may be justified. However, I don't believe that abortion should be a method of birth-control, with no moral (not necessarily religious) concerns whatsoever.
I need get nothing into my "thick MALE head". I'm more feminist, liberal, secular than you think. Add to this, I'm an atheist, so my concern regarding abortion (neither all for, nor all against) does not come from any religious belief. I'm also definitely not for criminalising people who perform abortions, even though I'm opposed to abortion as simply a method of birth-control. But you wouldn't know this about me unless you debate.
Only people who think they have insufficient grounds for their beliefs fear debate.
Borg Cardona is right about the "Pro-Lifers". In their attempts to gain publicity, they resort to the most ridiculous publicity stunts, like going to a statue of Mary on a roundabout, and draping a black scarf over her head to show how humanity is going down the drain.
How about some clarity?
(You need to brush up on what faith-based fundamentalism is all about. And while you're at it, check out the meaning of "choice",)
Your statement -- "Every case where arguments can be brought for and against is an issue." -- would be correct IF it concerned a matter of public policy.
A woman's private life is not public policy; it is personal. What she chooses to do is strictly her business. Not yours. Not mine. Not Bocca's. Not the bishops'.
Get it through your thick MALE head ... it's no one's business ... it is not for debate.
@ Sarah Jane Scicluna
The Constitution is the umbrella that shields us, equally, from tyranny. It is the safe-house for all citizens.
Maltese women are being deprived, of their right to choose, by males who think that the bulge in their crotch is Mount Olympus.
It's time to stop the nonsense ... take them to Court.
Oh, by the way, I didn't suspend anything during the elections or summer - look at my column and my blog for confirmation.
Although your last message was addressed directly to Dr Borg Cardona I'm sure you won't mind me asking you a question.
What are you talking about?
Some consistency please!
By calling the abortion issue a non-issue, you are being as much fundamentalist as any anti-abortionist who is not even willing to debate. Every case where arguments can be brought for and against is an issue.
Aren't the laws in the constitution about Malta - how it is governed, about the flag and national hymn, the political hierarchy, about it's geographical setting, official languages and capital city? In a way, these laws describe and define what Malta is. Wouldn't a law against abortion be like the "odd man out"?
Charles J Buttigieg, what did you mean by "Moreover an entrenchment could be seen as the high water-mark to protect it-it could become a standard that is usually met, but never exceeded."
Thankyou.
Don't mention it. Always glad to help
These are two frequent examples from everyday life and not the far-fetched hypothetical example of two roped mountaineers using a rope strong enough to support only one person!
@ Dr Francis Saliba.
Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defence when a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm no matter who is causing the danger.
A person may defend him\herself against people and animals, and he\she may during the attack kill them, but not afterwards.
A crude example would be that of two men hanging down a sheer cliff holding on to the same weak rope which hasn’t the strength to take on all the weight and the man at the top cuts the rope underneath himself to drop and kill his friend. Dr. Saliba, that would be legal and probably morally acceptable too even though the life threatening element was not that of an ‘unjust aggressor.’ I qualified ‘morally’ because what is legal is not always morally correct.
@Sarah Jane Scicluna. The answer to your question is no. Any law may be enacted and \ or amended in our parliament with a vote of 51% of the members while a constitutional entrenchment requires 66% support to enact\amend.
There is a danger that once particular laws are entrenched in a Constitution, they will be set in stone. It is appropriate that changes to our constitution are rare. However, it is much less desirable that the abortion law is constitutionally entrenched, because our understanding of abortion is still evolving. We cannot imagine the kinds of amendments that will be needed in the coming years, century and beyond. For this reason, it is much more sensible to place our trust in the mechanisms that already protect the unborn, but are flexible enough to reflect change over time. If our parliament were to entrench the present law, it would eventually stagnate, and could inhibit the freedoms of future generations. Personally although I am anti abortion I do not wish that to happen.
Moreover an entrenchment could be seen as the high water-mark to protect it-it could become a standard that is usually met, but never exceeded.
If the Gift of Lifers succeed in pushing through the entrenchment of Abortion into the Constitution, it wouldn't surprise me if these people will be emboldened to a degree which will demand the broadening of the Articles dealing with Abortion (in the Criminal Code) and ask for even harsher penalties.
Never underestimate what these people are capable of doing.
The best way to stop them is to have the Constitutional Court strike down the Abortion articles. While this will only stop them temporarily it will send a strong signal to parliamentarians that the wind of progressive change is blowing.
Assuming that Abortion is decriminalized, there is no guarantee that it will be available in Malta ... no doctor will be required to perform the procedure; no hospital will be compelled to provide the facilities and equipment for a safe operation.
It is, once again, a long, arduous journey in the quest of women's rights. Too bad Malta does not have a counterpart to the Americal Civil Liberties Union, or the Canadian Civil Liberties Association ... it would be much easier.
The RTL lobby wants the anti-abortion law entrenched in the Constitution because they know that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land; it trumps all other laws.
As things stand, Articles 241 to 244 of Sub-title VII of the Criminal Code, dealing with Abortion, are clearly inconsistent with the Constitution and are, therefore, VOID (as per Article 6 of the Constitution).
If challenged in the Constitutional Court, it is very likely that these offensive Articles (of the Criminal Code), will be struck down, and thus, Abortion will be decriminalized.
Enshrining Abortion in the Constitution will make it that much more difficult to decriminalize because it takes a vote by two-thirds of the House to make any change to the Constitution.
@Kenneth Cassar
This is not an "issue." It is a personal-decision over which no outsider has a say.
The problem here is not only to lurk out from the PNs grasp and long well thought brain washing but also from the curia’s . That can be an intrigued problem for this island and a Christian Democrat Party !!
So to see a slight indication of life for the divorce issue, everyone has to wait for Dr Muscat to be Prime Minister because DR Gonzi already turned down that issue !!
A matter of teaching an old dog new tricks.... ?
VBG
Are you saying that is the fault of Dr Muscat that divorce is not in force in Malta because now he is promoting the debate and quoting “ He says there should be a debate, I say that the time for debate is long passed: the right to civil divorce has been denied to those of our citizens who can’t afford to get it in the time-honoured fashion for way too long and it’s time for us to crawl out from under the soutane. So, again, no more fence-sitting, Malta is a secular state and there’s an end to it. Allowing the civil contract of marriage to be dissolved by the civil courts does not render it a mandatory procedure for anyone who does not believe that divorce fits in with his or her belief system.”
I want to remind you that in the past 20 years the PN was in the government , why don’t you refer your fence-sitting reference to them !!
At the end of the day, there is also one's FORMED and INFORMED conscience.
This is what I believe:
1. I have yet to be convinced that life does not start from conception;
2. Abortion is and always will be, abortion, whatever the circumstances and contexts; today, in general, there are ways and means, as well as knowledge, on how to prevent a pregnancy;
3. a pregnant woman and her foetus, the unborn child, are two seperate lives, yet one is dependent on the other - hence, this brings not RIGHT but RESPONSIBILITY;
4. I am always in favour of the protection of the most vulnerable - children (un/born), senior citizens, the infirm and sick, animals.
It's not so much a clear-cut case. The abortion debate is about whether it is "humans" who have a right to life, or "persons". "Personhood" requires consciousness, so the pro-choicers would argue that since early-term foetuses are not conscious, they are not persons and so would not have a right to life. The anti-abortionists, on the otherhand, would claim that it is being "human" that gives one the right to life, and that humanity starts at conception.
If one takes the side of the pro-choicers, one would argue that a woman has the right to do what she will with her body. But they can only say this if their argument (regarding personhood) is a valid one.
If one takes the side of the anti-abortionists, one would argue that the right to life of the other "human" in her body would trump the right of the woman. But they can only say this if their argument (regarding being human) is a valid one.
The issue is very complicated, and is not as simple as you make it to be.
It is about a woman's right woman's right to "life, liberty and security of the person" as guaranteed by Malta's Constitution -- Chapter IV, Article 32.
In 1988, Canada's abortion law was struck down, by the Supreme Court, as unconstitutional. The Chief Justice wrote, "Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of her security of the person."
For anyone, especially males and most especially the celibate ones, to even think that they have a say in what a woman chooses to do, or not do, with her body, goes beyond the pale.
It is time for the progressive elements of Maltese society to say "enough" and petition for the abolition of abortion laws, on constitutional grounds.
ABC did cry loud that this is ‘about abortion’ and it is “about bullying and sharp tactics”. I had a good laugh about this, realizing that ABC is writing about his personal attributes.
Isn’t BULLYING the most important ingredient in ABC’s scribbling? However his ‘sharp tactics’ are rather very weak.