Friday, 1st May 2009
Are abortionists murderers?
The readers of this blog seem to be more interested in abortion than education. More commented on the indirect reference I had to abortion in my last blog than to the main topic of whether education should be value free or not.
Language does matter
I found the comment by Joseph Camilleri of particular interest. He reacted to TG Curmi in the following way: “Let me re-phrase your question. If a human life is ended, does it really make a difference whether we call it murder, or manslaughter, or accidental killing, or killing in self-defence, or killing in war, or martyrdom, or suicide, or assisted suicide, or passive euthanasia or active euthanasia? Of course it does. The wealth of language is necessary to reflect the subtleties of human thought and the complexity of the human experience. Devalue language and you devalue the human being.”
I totally agree. I think that part of the confusion we are living in is the result of the constant misuse of language. I suspect that the glorification of images in our culture led to what Jacques Ellul very ably described in one of his fantastic books as the “humiliation of the word.” Words are to-day bandied around as if they have no exact and specific meaning. When I protest at this attitude, I am generally met with the retort: “Insomma int fhimt x’ridt nghid.”
Abortion not a murder
Let me return to abortion. It is an abomination. However, can we call it murder?
On December 14, 2008 in my contribution to The Sunday Times I had referred to the controversy on this subject some years back between L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, and Cardinal Mario Pompedda, the retired head of the Apostolic Signature, the Vatican's Supreme Court. L'Osservatore Romano said that use of the abortive pill RU-486 was "really and truly murder." Cardinal Pompedda said that the church was right to condemn all forms of abortion, but he said he would not call abortion "murder," because of respect for language.
"Murder refers to man, while here the reference is to the embryo. Law and morality have always distinguished between murder, infanticide and abortion. Should we suddenly erase this distinction?" he said. Pompedda said he thought the church could fully defend the human embryo's right to life without artificially dramatizing the differences with those who think differently.
"I've also heard the killing of embryos compared with the Shoah. But I would invite people to use more moderate language. Isn't it enough to say 'abortion'?" he said.
Abortion: a deep wound not a right
Pope Benedict during his visit to Austria in September 2007 while addressing the members of government and diplomatic in the reception hall of Vienna's Hofburg Palace, the seat of the Austrian presidency, described abortion as a "deep wound" in society and as the antithesis of human rights.
On the first day of that visit the Pope called for the defence of human rights: "The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. "This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -- it is the very opposite."
Benedict XVI continued: "In stating this, I am not expressing a specifically ecclesial concern. Rather, I am acting as advocate for a profoundly human need, speaking out on behalf of those unborn children who have no voice.”
The Pope was reacting to attempts that are made, from time to time, especially in the United Nation to consider abortion as a basic human right! On the occasion of the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example, the London-based abortion advocacy group, Marie Stopes International, petitioned the U.N. members to declare abortion as a universal human right. Their petition said that it was "intolerable that millions of women continue to suffer severe injuries and trauma, and more than 66,000 die needlessly each year from abortions that are procured unsafely from unskilled providers or self-induced, almost all in developing countries."
They refer to safe abortion. I guess all aborted foetuses know how safe abortion is!
Be compassionate
The Pope said more on that occasion.
"I do not close my eyes to the difficulties and the conflicts which many women are experiencing, and I realize that the credibility of what we say also depends on what the Church herself is doing to help women in trouble."
Archbishop Fisichella also showed the same compassionate attitude expressed here by the Pope when the case of the Brazilian 8 year old girls was made public. (See my blog called: Hug her not excommunicate her.) Cardinal Jean-Claude Turcotte of Montreal showed his pastoral concern during an interview with the Canadian daily Le Devoir. Cardinal Turcotte said that Brazilian Church leaders had been "clumsy" in their public comments, and argued that a more pastoral approach was necessary. "Personally I am against abortion," he said, "but I can understand that in some cases, one almost has no other choice."
The Church has to be present and help those people who feel that they have no other choice. On the other hand, the Church should continue to be the conscience of nations and people in its never-ending campaign in favour of a pro-life culture. According to the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html) the number of abortions carried per year is 42 million. There is no doubt that most of them are not carried in tragic circumstances but because a pro-death culture has been nourished and made to grow. We should resist this culture.
RSS
Comments
"Murder" is an emotive term that only serves to cloud judgment and raise passion rather than clarify and formulate a balanced view. Termination is the process of terminating a pregnancy, nothing more. A foetus doe not assume the attributes of a human before the third trimester when, morphologically and functionally it is virtually identical with a human child, is capable of independent existence and probably is conscious.
It would seem you have not read earlier postings. Classification is based on morphology not process. To recap a tadpole has the genome of a frog and has the potential to become a frog but it is not a frog. An acorn seed has the potential to become oak tree but it is not an oak tree. A foetus has the potential to be come a child but it is not a human child. That is the view held by the vast majority of scientists, medical practitioners and governments world wide.
Termination is the process of terminating a pregnancy. Nothing more.
The concept of "Personhood" is at best vague, philosophical rather than scientific, hotly contentious and one that raise a myriad issues while solving none. You choose what you want to mean by it. If you mean personality then there can be no personality without a brain.
Legalisation of termination has resulted in definite benefit for mankind, the abolition of complications of illegal abortion and the safeguarding of the health of thousands of women while improving the quality of life for thousands more.
The human embryo (at nuclear fission) is alive because it performs all the essential life processes. It is a human being because it has the same genetic structure of human beings and it is an individual (distinct) human being because it's genome (genetic composition) is different than every other human being on the planet.
With regards to whether it is a person or not, personhood is a term invented by these pro-abortion people so that they can be able to judge whether certain human beings can be killed or not. What you are saying is that there exist moments where a living human being is not a person.
Well, that's a logical fallacy now, isn't it? A human being who isn't a person... hmm. A human being that's an animal?
This means that abortion is the termination of life of a living, individual human being. No one has any right to do that as far as I know.
The question is when does human life begin not when does life begin. Life begins before conception as both sperm and ova are living entities.
Feel free to hold as tenaciously as you like to any view you choose but accept the rest of the world holds a different view and rightly so. Please desist from your efforts to prove yourself right at any cost and stop enbarassing yourself.
No one single study will suffice to establish scientific truth. The results of any one study may confirm or challenge an existing hypothesis. Still conclusions from any particular study have to be tested and retested further by other independent studies which deliberately set out to prove that conclusion wrong. The hypothesis will be accepted as valid only when it has withstood all attempts to prove it wrong. That is what establishes truth, not the opinion of reviewers. If the hypothesis does not survive, a lot of knowledge would still have been gained from the effort that in turn prompts the formulation of other hypotheses, which will guide further studies. That is how science progresses.
Contrast that cautious and sceptical approach with that of your "renowned" authorities who publish what they will in the popular press without challenge or feedback, aiming to thrill their readers with what they want to hear.
Do yourself a favour. Stop trying to prove yourself the hero who will illuminate the world into the Machiavellianism of science. Fishing should prove a more pleasant and rewarding pursuit. And much less stressful.
When are you going to accept that you are way out of your depth and do not have a clue as to what you are talking about?
Peer reviewing is not the means by which truth is established. It is the way to ensure that papers submitted to professional scientific journals are sound in methodology and conclusions and not mere bombast and opinion. Neither the reviewers nor the editors of the journal have to agree with the conclusions, but you can rest assured that the article is scientifically sound. A study may be considered "flawed" in some respect but the editor and the reviewers may well decide to publish anyway, if they consider it has merit, especially practical import. A common example would be a study describing a modification of an established method of treatment of a condition with promising results but one based on a small sample and therefore not definitive. Such "flawed" studies can prove very useful to those who know how to interpret them.
Peer reviewing is the standard methodology used for accepting scientific research papers and reports for publishing in mainstream scientific journals, thus eliminating papers that are not scientifically sound and also reducing the risk of such high-caliber scientific publications losing their credibility. However, one must not consider the process of peer reviewing as a process that provides the ultimate scientific answer or truth. Have a look at what the editor of The Lancet wrote in 1999 about one peer reviewed paper that went awfully wrong:
>"First, how can two (reasonably) well-regarded organisations peer review the same work -- Ewen and Pusztai's research on the effects of feeding genetically modified potatoes to rats -- and yet come to such radically opposite conclusions about its validity, as did the Royal Society and The Lancet? All six Royal Society reviewers pronounced the research "flawed", while five out of six of The Lancet's reviewers judged that Ewen and Pusztai's work should be published. Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of scientific data is surely discredited. >(cont'd)
There is a gulf between abortion on demand and legalisation of termination. The femminists demand for the former is being resisted, mainly successfully, by most legislators and by the medical profession. The latter views termination as a medical procedure to be performed only after responsibly weighing up the indications and the contra-indications in each individual case and always within the confines of the law, certainly not at whim.
Other arguments in favour of legalising termination rest on its success in eliminating the morbidity and mortality associated with illegal abortion. Many would see this by itself sufficient justification. Further numerous follow up studies done over the past 25 odd years clearly show that the outcome of terminating a problem pregnancy is almost invariably preferable to not terminating while the consequences of not terminating when indicated can be severe and long lasting. The pros for legalising controlled termination by far outweigh the cons.
One should not worry too much about isolated court cases however dramatic their results. They merely highlight gaps in the legislation that need addressing so that the law comes to better reflect the spirit in which it was formulated.
I suspect you may not have read earlier postings and if so you may find it profitable to do so. Essentially, it is not the act of birth that transforms a foetus into a human child. Human life is considered to begin around the third trimester of pregnancy when morphologically the foetus comes to bear a close resemblance to human children, is capable of independent existence and develops consciousness and awareness as suggested by the development of brain waves. Once that stage is reached, the unborn child's life becomes sacred and is fully protected in most civilised countries.
These are hard objective verifiable facts. Those who, for whatever reason, prefer the view that life begins at conception, have so far failed to produce any such facts that support their belief and rely solely on opinion and rhetoric, not facts. Rest assured no one is playing games and a lot of solid, hard, carefully conducted scientific work and argument went behind the accepted distinction between an embyro, a foetus and a child.
Opponents of this view are entitled to their opinion. They are not entitled to impose their views on others.
The claim that the right of every woman is 'undisputed' (therefore trumping the ‘disputed’ right of the unborn child to live) is in fact highly disputed and has never gained unanimous approval from any authority; never recognised until the US Supreme Court quashed the criminalisation of abortion in every state with its fallacious judgement (Roe v. Wade 1973) which fails to report to a rational justification. Many notions the pro-choice faction markets as undisputable are in fact constructions, misinterpretations or more-so subjective lies. The gross-fallaciousness of pro-choice literature is manifest in the fact that it reaches no consensus on the status of the unborn child. The question whether the conceptus becomes human or a person or otherwise entitled to a right to life, nor on any moral question involved. They want to play the game on their ground!
You have quoted opinions not facts. I have referred you to hundreds of carefully conducted scientific studies on the subject. Please refer to any basic textbook on biology, embryology or obstetrics and follow the references at the end of the relevant chapters.
You keep quoting a handful of people who support a position similar to yours and rest your argument on their "eminence". They are entitled to their opinion as you are entitled to yours. But can they prove it? I fail to find any reference to any work they have carried out to support their contentions in the professional scientific literature. Furthermore some of them have a very obvious vested interest in pushing their views and all are being handsomely renumerated for their efforts. Without supporting evidence that is verifiable, their views are mere opinions and at odds with that of the scientific world.
I do not have a crystal ball and have no idea what our grandchildren will be saying. They might well consider it puzzling that so many could ardently cling to sentimental nonsense and callously deny assistance to so many pregnant women when it was within their means.
My comment: If Mr. Obama is so enlightened, how come he is spending so much money on overseas abortion clinics, but not sending cheap drinking water to the 50000 children dying every day? I thought enlightnement was the fruit of intelligence and logic, but maybe I am mixing things up due to my hysterical right-wing hoodwinking arrogant intolerant characteristics. (Have I managed to include all the titles that you have kindly awarded me?)
If the people you mention enjoy such "international renown" and have been "pioneers" in their field how come one cannot find a single reference to their work in the professional peer-reviewed scientific literature? Scientific work follows a strict protocol of methodology and analysis. Conclusions have to be verifiable. Mere opinions, unsupported by testable evidence, do not qualify, no matter how "renowned" their owners might be. Professional scientific journals are peer reviewed precisely to ensure strict objectivity.
On the other hand anyone can publish an opinion in the popular press. Opinions are not facts. Unchallenged, such works are worthless. Their authors are well renumerated for their efforts, are motivated to sell and are well aware that the more outlandish a work is the greater the appeal to the uninformed and uncritical public. You will also find that such "renowned" authors have an agenda to push through associations with churches and other organisation. Such a far cry from the pursuit of truth.
To persuade the scientific and medical communities quote real scientists and real scientific works that are published in professional scientific and medical journals. You will be very hard pressed to find one.
Pick up any textbook on biology, embryology or obstetrics and read the relevant chapters on foetal development and on termination. While you are at it read the relevant chapters on termination in a textbook of psychiatry as well. The chapters will be followed by a list of references to scientific publications by numerous authors from all over the world, on which the chapters draw. The references number by the hundreds. Feel free to peruse any one or all of those reference and, if you are up to it, dissect it.
Be aware that textbooks are not cutting edge material and will not include anything controversial. In them you will only find facts and views that are virtually unanimous in the scientific world. They do exclusively reflect sound scientific work published in professional peer reviewed scientific journals whose aim is exclusively that of establishing facts, not on material published in the popular press especially of the more hysterical variety. Established consensus is what matters not the opinions of a handful of individuals desirous only of pushing their selfish agendas, irrespective of how much "renown" their uncritical readers may consider them to have.
There is no country in the world that has legalised terrorism, red districts or drugs, but all civilised countries with an intelligent attitude strive to understand the nature and causes of these social issues in an effort to deal with them compassionately and fairly, striving to help the victims of such problems, not hound and persecute them, the only option you pro-lifers seem to understand. The same goes for termination. Most civilised western countries consider it appropriate and so they should.
As for "this already ruined society" why don't you stop to consider that maybe it is those with a narcissistic intolerance of and a lust for persecuting those who see things differently, who are are sick. Society has changed and changed for the better. People are no longer narrow minded and cowed into a rigid way of thinking and behaving based on fantasy. People are better educated, can think for themselves and through the freedom of thought and of speech and of choice they have won are now able to move forwards and mature. That may well be beyond you but you have no right to impose your mediocrity on others.
"illicit or immoral" are purely subjective terms and you have no right whatsoever to impose your understanding of morality on the rest of humanity, haughtily believing only you know what is right and wrong. Many would argue that it is your arrogant intolerance that is immoral. You fanatic pro-lifers insist on blinding yourself to the fact that legalisation of termination has very successfully relieved so much suffering from the world, eliminated all the morbidity and mortality associated with illegal abortion, not to mention the anguish and the threat to health and life of pregnant women in whom termination is indicated. Why don't you, with all your piety, consider the anguish you would cause to a mother and her child whom she had to relinquish at birth. And why don't you give some consideration to born and living children. The 50000 odd children dying every day from lack of drinking water. Those in overpopulated disease ridden shanti towns in underdeveloped countries. If you pro-lifers are consistent in anything it is in the callousness you exhibit towards fellow human beings stemming from your indignant piety.
"Based on scientific consensus termination has been legalised by most governments world wide"
By this statement you are currently encouraging not only abortion (since it is being legalised by most governments) but you are giving anything that is illicit or immoral space to grow in this already ruined society.
In simple English...if other contries legalise Terrorism, Red Districts, Drugs, illicit advertising etc you mean that Malta's Government should legalise these too...since is "has been legalised by most governments world wide".
I come to ask...George, do you have children? If not, what would you feel if your parents came to tell you that they thought of giving you up through abortion?
I rest my case
1. Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania.
2. Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, was a co-founder of what is now the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). He owned and operated what was at the time the largest abortion clinic in the western hemisphere. He was directly involved in over sixty thousand abortions.
3. Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks.
Should you happen to learn how to count (I made it easy for you) I mentioned three (3) - 2 gynecologists and one peditrician obstetrician, 2 of these being top scientists in the science of how human life begins, and one gynecologist, ex-owner of one of the largest abortion clinics in the US. (continued)
What Madonna, and indeed any other pop artist and those they associate or work with, think, do or believe may be of relevance to their fans but of no import whatsoever to the issue under discussion.
You have quoted but ONE gynaecologist who had a change of conviction. I can find no reference to any work by your beloved Dr Bernard Nathanson in any peer reviewed scientific literature, where he seems an unknown. Your description of him as "internationally known obstetrician" is therefore your biased opinion and nothing more. He may be one who changed his views but that may be for any number of reasons, not all necessarily noble.
You will not find scientific consensus in the popular press but only in peer reviewed professional journals where the quality and accuracy of data and the conclusions therefrom are scrutinised before publication and remain subject to scrutiny by their scholarly readership. Publications in such journals is exclusively motivated by the search for truth and no other motive, including pecuniary ones.
Gruesome descriptions of what happens in theatre will only impress the hysterical and the naive. And talking of conceit, if you think you know better than the scientific community, the health authorities world wide and the governments of most countries feel free to publish your evidence (objective and verifiable not heated opinion) for the benefit of mankind.
Earlier in this blog, you said that you never heard of the leading abortion doctor who turned into a leading anti-abortionist, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, internationally known obstetrician and gynecologist, later on producing a video called 'The Silent Scream', showing the horrible act of cutting up an unborn baby, and showing this baby trying to avoid the knife, actually fighting against the abortionist's knife. This shows that either you tried to mislead or, contrary to what you try to tell us, you are highly uninformed. Also I wrote about what other great scientists think of abortion, that human life begins at conception. THIS IS SCIENCE, NOT, AS YOU TRY TO IMPLY, RELIGION.
The least you can do is admit there there is no consensus amongst scientists regarding abortion and when human life commences. YouR comments do not include any quotes from any scientist. You only quoted yourself. I quoted scientists and gynecologists.
"Abortion is death=evil". That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. It is decidedly not the opinion of the majority of scientists and medical practitioners world wide and you have no right whatsoever to impose your beliefs on others. When you refer to enquiries, symposia and conferences you should first of all ensure that they are not political in nature. Senate enquiries generally concern themselves with carrying the agenda of their constituents and are not renowned for being scholarly and objective. Then make sure you read the whole of the evidence presented and the conclusions, not just the parts that fit in with your view. By their nature, such scientific gatherings present both sides of the picture, as they should. Each piece of evidence is then weighed and analysed, with evidence presented for and against, before conclusions are drawn, a process you evidently are unwilling or unable to engage in.
Based on scientific consensus termination has been legalised by most governments world wide.
As a scientist I will consider any objective and verifiable evidence you can produce. So far, however,you have produced nothing but heated opinion and misquotations.
check out http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1748
here are some qoutes from the above, but you can check elsewhere if you prefer:
"This is about teenage pregnancy. Madonna takes the voice of a confused teenager who wants advice from her father at a difficult time.
"The line "I've made up my mind, I'm keeping my baby," caused anti-abortion groups to praise Madonna and abortion-rights groups to criticize her. Madonna refused to take a stance on the issue." ....Madonna: "A message song that everyone is going to take the wrong way." '
"This was one of the most controversial Madonna songs. Many articles were written about it in the context of abortion. The media attention helped make it a hit and keep it on the charts."
"A producer named Brian Elliot wrote this for a new artist he was working with [...] When a record company executive heard it, he convinced Elliot to give it to Madonna instead, because she was an established star."
"This was one of the first Madonna songs to take on a political issue."
I have yet to hear a song praising abotion for any reason!! And many songs have been written on many subjects!!
The First International Symposium on Abortion came to the following conclusion:
The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week-old child, or a mature adult are merely stages of development and maturation. The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg, or at least the blastocyst stage, and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this was not a human life.
The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the "Human Life Bill," summarized the issue this way:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
>But of course you will remain unconvinced even if science proves it. Are you still a scientist or just plain simple pro-choice?
Dr. Landrum Shettles was for twenty-seven years attending obstetrician-gynecologist at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in New York. Shettles was a pioneer in sperm biology, fertility, and sterility. He is internationally famous for being the discoverer of male- and female-producing sperm. His intrauterine photographs of preborn children appear in over fifty medical textbooks. Dr. Shettles states,
I oppose abortion. I do so, first, because I accept what is biologically manifest—that human life commences at the time of conception—and, second, because I believe it is wrong to take innocent human life under any circumstances. My position is scientific, pragmatic, and humanitarian.
YOUR CLAIM THAT SCIENTISTS ARE PRO-ABORTIONISTS FALLS FLAT ON ITS FACE.
You want more George?
Dr. Nathanson's study of developments in the science of fetology and his use of ultrasound to observe the unborn child in the womb led him to the conclusion that he had made a horrible mistake. Resigning from his lucrative position, Nathanson wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine that he was deeply troubled by his "increasing certainty that I had in fact presided over 60,000 deaths."4
Hello George M Sant? where are you?
A United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee invited experts to testify on the question of when life begins. All of the quotes from the following experts come directly from the official government record of their testimony.1
Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni, professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Pennsylvania, stated:
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.... I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood and that any interruption at any point throughout this time constitutes a termination of human life....
I am no more prepared to say that these early stages [of development in the womb] represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty...is not a human being. This is human life at every stage."
Keep on reading here:
http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_human_rights/Scientists_Attest_To_Life_Beginning_At_Conception.shtml
George has been saying scientists this and scientists that...trying to convince us all that abortion is so gooood. George's arguments now fall flat on their face. Sorry George.
In the western world abortion is carried out after getting irresponsibly pregnant. Then one can irresponsibly terminate the result, the 'few cells', the embryo, the fetus, the baby..whatever. No matter how many condoms, pills, or education one has at his diposal, one gets irresponsibly pregnant. solution? Abort.
Abortion is death:It's evil. QED.
PS. Should you care to note, George, I did not mention any church, religion, faith, theology in this blog, just logic.
Now you can continue killing your offsprings. I will not.
Bye,
Alex
The comment "Apart from the fact that Madonna is not an expert on morality" to you becomes "Precisely my point...clearly not a matter of religion only". Perfect logic.
I do not normally consult youtube when I want to research something but I did check your reference and what transpires?
>>"is she saying keeping my baby as in shes pregnent and keeping the baby or keeping her boyfriend??"
"shes saying that she is pregnant and she plans to keep the baby and her and her boyfriend are gonna get married."
Very definite information. Unequivocal and fully substantiated.
As for the rest of your contribution, I am afraid it is too profound for me.
1. did i put everything in one basket when a week ago I said:
" When I was referring to the '3 choices' I was not taking into consideration cases which were a matter of life and death, as these are what I call extreme cases, and possibly an exception to the rule, so that we be clear." ???
2 "The best was a quotation of Madonna singing "I'm keeping my baby" in support of pro-life. Apart from the fact that Madonna is not an expert on morality,..."
Thank you!!! precisely my piont!!!! So it is clearly not a matter of religion only!!
"..that song referred to a child she wanted to adopt, not carry, and was addressed to his "papa" who mounted an objection!"
WRONG ASSUMPTION! she was pregnant (in the song) and that is also my point..some are pressured into taking these decisions for a number of reasons. You can check out the song for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5nE1J0lKpY
3. "Extreme cases require extreme measures. Indeed but those measures do require a change in legislation to permit those measures to be implemented. This is what we should be debating."
Indeed THAT is what we should be debating!
With the two sides so polarised and entrenched it is not easy to establish middle ground. Yet the possibility has been raised oddly by the pro-life camp. Extreme cases require extreme measures. Indeed but those measures do require a change in legislation to permit those measures to be implemented. This is what we should be debating. Under what circumstances can a termination be performed not whether termination can be performed at all. Neither camp, as far as I can see want to see an abortion on demand situation.
Abortion is a fact of life. It has been adopted world wide and will not disappear simply because pro-lifers do not like it. It is a safe bet that termination will be legalised in our country, sooner or later, either by the will of the people or by the will of the European Parliament especially once the UN declares it a basic human right. It makes more sense to be ready and ensure it will be implemented responsibly than bury our heads in the sand and wish it would never happen. We risk becoming irrelevant then.
A number of pro-choicers argued that caring similar to that shown for the unborn child should be extended to born and living children. The 50000 odd children dying every day from lack of drinking water. Those in overpopulated disease ridden shanti towns in underdeveloped countries. Some thought should be given to the plight of a child relinquished at birth, the often touted alternative to abortion, and of its mother - two lives destroyed by grief and suffering. Maybe those indignantly holding a holier than thou attitude should stop to consider "What if that woman (girl) was my daughter (sister)"? Perhaps that will help them to broaden their perspective.
Two wrongs do not make a right. This proved the most confused and inconsistent approach of pro-lifers. Attitudes to contraception and sex education swung constantly as suited need. In any case the arguments betrayed crass naivety about human nature and regrettably callous uncaring for the plight and suffering of others. Even pregnancies conceived under the best of circumstances can and do go wrong and will require intervention. One correspondent, with no medical qualifications boldly asserted nature then will abort! Wrong. Another suggested that a hypothetical 14 year old girl should have kept her legs crossed. Easy especially when it was her step father who had been abusing her for several years. And while educating girls into saying no, we should also educate 14 year old boys to refrain from sinning against the 6th commandment in deed and fantasies about 14 year old girls. The best was a quotation of Madonna singing "I'm keeping my baby" in support of pro-life. Apart from the fact that Madonna is not an expert on morality, that song referred to a child she wanted to adopt, not carry, and was addressed to his "papa" who mounted an objection!
In contrast the Pro-Choice movement clearly distinguishes between life and human life. Only the latter is sacred and it does not develop before the third trimester. Their view has a sound basis in embryology. Anatomically and physiologically a foetus bears no similarity to humans, has no consciousness and is incapable of independent existence. The picture changes around the third trimeser. This view is endorsed by the vast majority of health authorities the world over, including the Catholic governments of Europe and the new American administration. You pro-lifers of course are free to consider yourselves above such authorities, but you will have to prove it, not shout indignantly from the high moral ground you have adopted.
And stop indulging in conspiracy theories. Scientists have no interest in "beguiling" anyone at all. They concern themselves with establishing the truth through a process of factual observation, formulating hypotheses on the basis of those observations, and then rigorously testing each hypothesis, constantly attempting to prove it WRONG, until the truth becomes evident. In the process valuable knowledge is gained that generates other hypothesis.
Implied in your argument is the belief in a creator from whom all life emanates and it is therefore morally wrong to go against His will. This is not established fact but merely a belief, a matter of faith. You are entitled to hold this view, just as some are entitled to believe in the man in the moon controlling traffic on earth. But you have no right whatsoever to impose that view on others who prefer more logical and factual explanations. Mr Falzon has done an excellent job in dismissing this argument in his well researched reply on how pliable faith has been over time and across faiths.
The creationist argument comes to even seem ridiculous when one considers that the majority of fertilised ova are aborted spontaneously. Are they really suggesting that God would so busy himself creating life only to revise his decision a couple of days later?
Your whole argument hinges on your assertion that human life begins at conception. Yet none of you has produced one single shred of evidence in support of your contention. Some have argued that a foetus has the potential to become a human child and is therefore human. They fail to distinguish between morphology and process. It is the former that determines the nature of an organism. A tadpole has the potential to become a frog but it is not a frog. An acorn seed has the potential to become an oak tree but it is not an oak tree. A foetus has the potential to become a human child but it is not a human child. Indeed, morphologically a foetus has more in common with a tadpole or a segmented worm than a child.
No madam you are the one putting ALL pregnancies in one basket. They all have to proceed to term no matter what. Legalising termination is not an attack on pregnancy or motherhood. The rights of the unborn child are sacred, once it becomes a human child. We are not talking about normal pregnancies, but about complicated pregnancies. It has already been pointed out - several times - that contrary to your assertions, termination is not carried out lightly. The law clearly defines when and for what reasons a termination can be carried out. The law is interpreted in each individual case by properly qualified and responsible medical practitioners who are answerable to their profession, their medical boards and society at large. Each decision to terminate has to be justified and is arrived at only after careful consideration of the pros and the cons. Abortion on demand may be wanted by the feminist movement but it is resisted by everyone else. Perhaps it does not suit you to consider these distinctions.
The jewel would have provided enough food for a lifetime had he not been ignrant to its rewarding qualities. But he preferred to discard it since it was inadequate for his immediate apetite.
Your problem is that you keep putting ALL pregnancy cases in one basket, and maintain that the solution to ALL the problems of:
life threathening cases, rape, deformity, overpopulation, teenage pregnanies, 'unplanned in any way' pregnancies, etc.. have the same justification of termination.
I disagree. Will not judge them though.
Let me jog your memory from 1 week 1 day ago...I said
"I really see your point however:
I think that the problem is ..that two different situations are being considered to be allowed the same legalized end.
1. re: Legalizing abortion so as to be carried out for whatever reason anytime.
2. re: Trying to save a woman's life at the expense of an unborn human (whatever state of consciousness).
Extreme cases require extreme measures ..(although I still feel it classifies as abortion) "
Also please find me one phrase from your comments where you upheld pregnancy, or motherhood or the right to the foetus, or the right of the unborn life!
"Abortionists are a dying breed"? Have you read the above blog lamenting the ever increasing number of abortions? You and your fellow Pro-lifers have failed miserably in producing even one single shred of evidence in support of your contentions, but continue to feel smug in regurgitating and reasserting your opinions. If you want the world to take notice you have to discover facts not subjective opinions. Otherwise, I am afraid you are the ones heading for extinction. Scientific and medical opinion is decidedly against you, while termination has been endorsed by the vast majority of health authorities the world over, including virtually all Catholic governments in Europe, not to mention the Obama administration. Of course you may know better. The wonder is you are still in existence. To paraphrase Dawkins "They serve no function in the planet’s ecosystem, and no other species has survived so long while in such fundamental disagreement with observable reality". A challenge to the theory of evolution!
Did the jewel feed the rooster or did the rooster die of hunger? The moral is exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting. What may be precious in one situation may be worse than useless in another. It is the basis of the consequentialist school of morality. Judge actions by their consequences not their "absolute" value. Indeed even absolutes concede exceptions to each and every one of their proscriptive rules.
As far as this debate is concerned, one aspect you and your allies failed consistently to appreciate is that a pregnancy is not always a jewel and then the consequences of not terminating are more often than not worse than those of terminating.
I would like to conclude my contribution to this blog with a fable from Aesop:
A very hungry rooster was scratching and digging in the dirt looking for food. He scratched and dug and finally found a beautiful jewel. He was amazed at how the gem shone glittered.
"This is a very fine and beautiful thing," he thought, "but I would rather have one tasty kernel of corn instead."
Moral of the story: What is a treasure to one may be worthless to another.
Thank you Ms Abela. That is exactly what this is all about.
Respecting other people's views and choices, would be the mature way to go.
I do not think that either of us (ie me vs you two) is going to convince the other, so I think that we might as well be mature about it and accept the difference in opinion:)
You make it sound as if there is no influence of how abortion is viewed and accepted or rejected by societies, when there is religious, social, legal and culture pressure.
I disagree.
P.S . My reference to procreation being a natural instinct was in reference to celibacy, which I insist very rarely exist, but professed to be the way of life of many.
What I"m simply saying is that the ends justify the means.
Theft, murder, abuse, rape and (for the sake of the thread, suicide) are globally accepted to
be inhumane and illegal (even though I have my views of suicide, which makes me a trace minority). Abortion is NOT globally accepted not even in this country. So yes, people like you are thinking for a generous fraction (rather than a trace minority) of people. Monotheistics do this, capitalist do is. Politicians do it.
Please don't be another one to do it.
Of course abortion is not a means of contraception, hence it's name,
Oh, bird hunters are a generous group too, whalers by proportion are a trace minority. So guess what's the priority.
"We long for the reaper's Presence, craving the touch and control of His scythe, It's such craving which made us live through the ages".-Sahhar
Please note that YOU are the one who keeps getting the church and sin into the equation. Try to find anywhere in my post where I said anything about religion or sin please! I am a Catholic but at no point in time was I biased towards religion, in fact I said in extreme cases there are extreme measures, and also suggested the use of contraception.
Do you not see the irony of it...civilized countries are so civilized that they do not manage to use some non-abortive means of contraception, hence resort to abortion!
You say:
"The natural survival instinct, including the survival of a species, is what gives us the urge to eat and the urge to procreate." Jahasra you keep contradicting yourself.. how is this to be in effect, if people keep terminating at will.
I think the argument is exhausted..I stated my opinion and I was clear that I will refreain from passing judements on those who choose to abort, but I hope that there is someone out there who has the guts to 'enlighten' ignorant us, with the 'joys' of her abortion experience. Perhaps I too can come to appreciate this righ to choose.
It is only your interpretation that if a woman chooses abortion, she has “chosen to kill”, and hence it is murder.
In most civilised countries it is not considered as Murder. An example of a few of these countries are: Australia , Bulgaria, Canada, China, Cuba, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Israel, Japan, Italy , New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Russia, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States.
It is an undisputed fact that the Catholic Church has changed its mind on whether and when it is murder & sin over the centuries. The debate is mainly based on when the soul enters the fetus, something that will be in dispute for along time within the theological circles of the Catholic Church.
It is your right not to do to abort, it is also your right to call it “murder and sin”, however as a Christian please have some respect, love and compassion for others that wish to have the right to choose.
Your deduction that “"the teachings of the Catholic Church are wrong because the Catholic Church has inflicted suffering on me" is wrong.
Please do not misquote me. This is what I said: “My aversion to the catholic faith stems from the psychological damage done to me by the infliction of guilt by the Catholic Church, both as a child and a young adult.”
The Catholic Church is still inflicting guilt on young people, ask any young gay person for example. I feel very liberated not to be associated with the Catholic Church, however I still find the hypocrisy of the Church repugnant.
The love, tolerance and compassion that you profess your religion teaches would be good if put into practice. Why are abortion clinics overseas burnt down in the name of the Christian God?
John Falzon
the psychological damage allegedly inflicted on you as a child and as a young adult by he Catholic Church needs to be addressed in a very different manner. Your reasoning which I deduce goes as follows; "the teachings of the Catholic Church are wrong because the Catholic Church has inflicted suffering on me" is fallacious. It would be more true to say that you were hurt by the behaviour of persons who called themselves Catholic and perhaps were not. Otherwise it would only be fair if you were to quote the exact passages in the teachings of the Catholic Church which of themselves can cause hurt. I firmly believe that you will not find these quotes as our faith is built on the commandments love God with all your heart and love thy neighbour as yourself. Our search for truth can never be hindered by personal issues.
You wrote, “It is as if all evil/selfish/irresponsible behaviour towards an already born child is tolerated so long as it is not abortion against an unborn child.” This is as it should be. One cannot kill a child in the womb because one is afraid that this child might suffer at the hands of others in the future. With this kind of reasoning not even children born in wedlock are safe. We know of children who are supposedly living in a “normal” environment but who are in fact suffering. Therefore Marianna the only healthy argument in your post is about the inadequate education being given to our children. Yes our educational system is lacking and we still need a holistic approach in order to draw up an effective educational model on sexuality. If anything your post has proved one thing. That if for economic purposes the Swedes have through their educational programmes managed to curb teenage pregnancies this means that abstinence is an effective option for whatever reason. It might be economy, moral, spiritual etc. etc.
Men..you will probably realize the disillusion in this issue being 'the woman's choice' when you father a child and the mother decides, without consulting you to terminate that life.
Woman...well up till now I have never heard anyone speak of how free they felt after an abortion! Even Madonna sang 'I'm keeping my baby'
I think you mean assisted suicide, or euthenasia NOT suicide. I have never seen a suicide case brought to trial! And that is precisely why it is illegal because a person has to be appointed to kill another.
I know history well thank you :), and I do not need any history lesson to know, that what applied in 400 AD may not be applicable in 2009! For instance crucifixions, hanging, beheading, slavery and all sort of things which are unheard of today. During the middle ages the Inquisition had many heretics burned at the stake, it was wrong but it was done, does this mean that it does this today?? Some eras have produced horrible things.Do you still look at Germans and think of the Holocaust? If your answer is yes, mela in that case you need to take a lesson.... in Christianity ..and find the chapers on love and forgiveness.
I Never said that those women who are unfortunate enough to resort to abortion should be prosecuted, I think that they suffer enough, but it is not the right of the woman to CHOOSE to kill, irrespective of when the soul enters.
Good Day :)
Murder and theft, intrinsically are not a human instinct, mankind "normally" does not resort to that kind of behaviour unless it is for his/her survival. They do not come natural to us, they actually go against human nature. The natural survival instinct, including the survival of a species, is what gives us the urge to eat and the urge to procreate. Spiritual laws can never go against natural laws. The natural laws were put in place by the "creator", not by a religion.
The only thing you got right in your comments is my "aversion to the Catholic faith".
My aversion to the catholic faith stems from the psychological damage done to me by the infliction of guilt by the Catholic Church, both as a child and a young adult.
By the way I looked at the word "Faith" in my Merriam Webster dictionary, and I got the following definition: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".
Can you imagine what having "blind faith" would imply?
I suppose the more faith you have the more virtuous you are!
Firstly suicide, does not put the lives of others in danger, but it is both illegal, and considered a sin by the church.
If only abortion was beyond religion, the argument would have been settled long ago.
Historically the Catholic Church has changed its mind quite a few times.
In the days of St Augustine around 400 AD, abortion was neither considered a homicide nor a sin.
In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratian's code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that "abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed."4 If the fetus was not yet a formed human being, abortion was not homicide.
The church kept chopping and changing through the centuries, to fit in with what was convenient for the Church at that particular point in history.
I suggest you have a short lesson in history and have a look at:
http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Law111/CatholicHistory.htm
to find out for yourself the historical truth on this issue.
The big shots in the Catholic Church cannot make up their minds when the soul enters the fetus to this very day. Ask any of the learned theologians.
"Actually yes, because thinking what others should is the source of mid boggling and Hypocrisy."
So let me see if I got you right...If I think that people (including myself) should not rob the Jewelry round the corner it's hypocrisy, if I believe that children should not be abused, molested or raped it's hypocricy, maintaining that a person cannot take another's life it's hypocrisy. Believing that killing an unborn child is in reality killing ...is hypocrisy. And yes bilhaqq bird hunting, whaling and seal slaughtering..
Is this the meaning of hypocrisy? I may have been wrongly raised!
"[...] because saying that abortion should not be legalised is selfish, but so is ignoring the actions of others."
selfish?? shall we legalize cocane intake, theft, rape, murder,....etc so that we're not being selfish against those who want to be high, are poorer or those who have an insatiable sexual apetite, or get a kick from murder???
Are you sure you know who is being selfish when abortion is discussed??
Many women have very active sex lives and never need/needed to resort to abortion!
Abortion is not a means of contraception! Now THAT is an act of selfishness!
"Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusion".
True, but you are confusing 'refusal to do something' with 'demanding to be able to do something'
If the state feels that the JW allowed a person to die out of neglegence I'm pretty sure that the persons responsible will be prosecuted legally. However aborion is beyond religion!
Many choose to put therir lives at risk constantly, on the roads, at sea, in the air, by doing extreme surgery, racing drivers, stuntmen, thrill seekers, etc all jeopardise THEIR lives, but NOT that of ANOTHER! If they put others in danger they are liable to be prosecuted.
:)
Language does NOT matter as language is more malleable than wet clay. you simply cannot categorisze words and phrases.
Indeed, Abortion Not a murder...murder is merely a more grim word for termination or, indeed, abortion, irrelevant the age.
"Abortion: a deep wound not a right"
Some wordy talky from the pope, I'm not catholic so I may as well ignore them.
However, "Be compassionate" is similar to pitying and conseguentely turning a blind eye. I don't do "compassionate" because there is nothing wrong in which a loophole occurs trhough compassion.
@fr.joe borg, about the education thing, it's a human right to gain knowledge and education. It should be a free value of course.fullstop. This article just sparks more controversy, something which I thrive on like oxygen.
"I would be the biggest hyppocrite ever..cos sewwa as long as I do not do it it makes it ok..NO! "
Actually yes, because thinking what others should is the source of mid boggling and Hypocrisy.
It's not a matter about it being ok or not, it's about YOU being off the hook, because saying that abortion should not be legalised is selfish, but so is ignoring the actions of others.
Naturally the latter is a form of less self-centred selfishness...nobody will be affected by your thinking.
You have stated that "Abstinence is not working, never worked, never will, because ABSTINENCE GOES AGAINST HUMAN NATURE. Procreation remember, go and multiply (Genesis 2 verse 21 and 28!!) "
Your statement does not prove you right. By far!!!! Human beings have been endowed with reason and therefore knowing that sexual activity is directly linked to procreation they have learned to CONTROL their sexual urges. Control has nothing to do with repression. It is only in this enlightened age that men and women has been given to understand that they can give way to their sexual urges at all times. And of course then we have the infamous solution of Abortion. Mr. Falzon human beings are more than creatures driven by instinct. Were they only that, were they only creatures driven by instinct then there would be mayhem in our streets as with the least provocation we will have murders all around.
It would only be fair on the readers of this blog if you were to show the real reasons behind your stand against abstinence. Does all this stem by your aversion to the Catholic faith as your latest post seems to suggest???
The difficulty is defining "sound moral principles". Are we going to use an absolutist approach, "thou shalt not" under any circumstances? Or should we use the more enlightened consequentialist approach of judging actions by their consequences? The former is indeed "conditioned by social and peer approval". It inevitably leads to fundamentalism and intolerance. It is what launches crusades, inquisitions and suicide bombers, sets Christians against Muslims and Muslims against Jews. They all insist they are the ones with "sound moral principles" that must be imposed on others.
Consequentialism, on the other hand, is more tolerant and compassionate, but more difficult to follow as it throws the responsibility on the individual to enlighten himself or herself and make decisions on the basis of logic and reason. Your comment "to act out of a sense of duty" unfortunately does suggest a militant intolerance of those who hold a different point of view, irrespective of evidence. Are we entitled to do that?
Islam believes that based on science and the sayings of Imams, the fetus is infused with life after the 4th or 4.5 month (16 to 18 weeks) of pregnancy.
Thomas Aquinas, the greatest of the medieval theologian-philosophers, had opened the same door in the 13th century with his view that the soul does not enter the body immediately upon conception. On the basis of the sketchy biology of the era, theologians estimated that the soul joined the body at the 40th day of pregnancy. Church law, for a long period, offered different penalties for abortions before and after the entry of the soul, though both kinds of abortion were considered wrong. Citing these examples, the Rev. Charles Curran, professor of moral theology at the Catholic University of America, argues that there is room for the church to modify its stance on abortion, at least concerning the first few weeks of life. (Time Magazine)
For all the believers out there:
Is there a soul? Is there life without a soul? When does soul entry the fetus?
Teaching biology gives the impression that "it is so cool to indulge in sex". With respect that argument is ridiculous. Biology teaches the anatomy and physiology of the sexual act. Full stop. Your conclusion that the rising rate of teenage pregnancies in the UK stems from "liberal views" seems unjustified. The phenomenon is not noted in other European countries, just as "liberal". Germany has half the rate of teenage pregnancies than the UK and there sex education is compulsory. Scandinavian countries, holding the most liberal attitude towards sex, have the lowest rate in Europe. The phenomenon seems peculiar to the UK, where a deteriorating economic situation and rising unemployment, especially among school leavers, factors well known for the psychosocial disruption they generate, may well be more pertinent.
Sex education in Britain is often criticised as "too litte too late" and as inadequate, focusing on the theoretical but failing to equip teenagers for the reality of modern life. As for sports and reading, I can think of no other Western country so focused on these activities than the UK.
Prohibition in the US in the 1920's did not work; it only created illegal trading of poor quality liquor. The banning of alcohol in Muslim countries is not working, and illegal alcohol trading in Muslim countries is rampant.
Anti-abortion laws are doing just that, they are creating an illegal back street abortion trade, killing 78,000 women annually.
The anti-abortion camp to their detriment, has been deliberately arguing "Minn mhux maghna kontra taghna", thus pushing people to the extreme boundaries. Let there be CHOICE, you have no obligation to save anyone's soul, just save your own.
Are you seriously arguing that "sex education programmes and the prolific dispensation of contraceptive pill and condoms" do not assist in reducing unwanted pregnancies?
Abstinence is not working, never worked, never will, because ABSTINENCE GOES AGAINST HUMAN NATURE. Procreation remember, go and multiply (Genesis 2 verse 21 and 28!!)
Are not teenage pregnancies on the rise in Malta too?
The number of unwanted pregnancies, and abortions, have no correlation to whether abortion is legal or not in a country, see the WHO statistic below.
Yes, I concede the term “informed” has no place in relation to conscience since conscience is an intuitive way of thinking, deciding what is morally the best thing to do and impelling obedience.
But conscience is also conditioned by social and peer approval and could thus be molded to respond accordingly.
What I meant was that, we should create a conscience based on sound moral principles which could direct us to act out of a sense of duty in relation to the abortion issue.
“[...] abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it. [...] What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”
Mhux ovvja..If culture keeps advocating self centeredness, ruthlessness and egoism and scientists continue to beguile women to believe that a foetus is not a human life...what does one expect!!
Imma as long as we save the seals and the endangered species we're ok..after all something else gives birth to them!
"Pro-choice is not only a human right but a compassionate, sensible way of dealing with the global problem of unwanted pregnancies."
Hello does anyone notice?? ...."UNWANTED"!?
Sadly the rape victims are being used as an excuse for the bigger scenario:
UNWANTED pregnancies, by women who prefere to continue ascending the ladder of success, have promiscuous sex, keep looking good, have no ties till they're 50..and have perfect babies...probably if they get the chance to produce a cloned baby they would do so.
Very well argued Mr Falzon.
How sad the indoctrinated are so unlikely to be swayed by facts but will only see their blinkered point of view.
Let me assure you that I have little time for "biased pro-abortion literature" nor for the even more biased pro-life literature. I inform myself exclusively from peer reviewed professional journals. I do not know where you get your information from but your understanding of scientific thinking on the matter is radically different to mine. At the risk of repeating myself, the consensus of scientific opinion is that there is a clear distinction between an embryo, a foetus and a human child. A foetus is anatomically and physiologically different from a human child, does not have a brain and has no consciousness. These characteristics develop by the third trimester when consciousness probably also develops, since brain waves can be detected in the then mature foetus. That is when human life starts.
“a foetus is not a baby anymore than a tadpole is a frog”. I cannot claim originality. The phrase has been used by the likes of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, far greater intellects than yours or mine.
I invite you to read Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions" for a beautiful account of the beginning of life and of human life.
Celibacy does not work, never has, never will. No point in legislating if you cannot enforce the law.
Sex education and contraception are the only answers to drastically minimise unwanted pregnancies. Only when religions and governments take sex education and contraception (distributed freely if we have to) seriously, will we see a worldwide reduction in unwanted pregnancies. Who wants an abortion if pregnancy can be prevented by other methods?
I wonder if Rome can rise to the challenge. I wonder if it ever will.
"an informed conscience against abortion"!? How is that for a contradiction in terms?
The consensus of scientific opinion is that there is a clear distinction between an embryo, a foetus and a human child. A foetus is anatomically and physiologically different from a human child, does not have a brain and has no consciousness. By the third trimester the foetus has all these characteristics and consciousness is probably present, as brain waves can be detected in the unborn mature foetus. That is when human life starts.
"Should we start culling homo sapiens?" - No need. It is already happenning. Just take note of all the wars, epidemics, people dying of starvation and born children without clean drinking water. You hint at this yourself in referring to "unnecessary suffering to millions". The question is what are we going to do about? The solution is complex and elusive. Most authorities, however (real scientists not just those who dabble in science), are adamant birth control is essential and so is termination.
I have no idea who the "leading anti-abortionist gynacologist" you keep referring to is. Doctors are entitled to change their view point. Issues are not decided on the basis of individual conversions and opinions or hot air, but on hard verifiable facts. Science proceeds by a process of evaluation and reevaluation, testing each hypothesis on the assumption it is wrong, until the truth becomes clear. Then you can find consensus in text books.
Should you wish to put scientists right there are plenty of professional publications to which you can contribute. Be warned however, that they require hard evidence not opinion.
How can we create an informed conscience against abortion, which no matter from which angle we look at it, in the end (at least in the normal cases) it is always an evil?
How can we lessen the instances of unwanted pregnancies and hopefully lessen the need for abortion?
That is what, I feel, we should be concerned about at this stage – the unnecessary abortions resulting from a promiscuous society.
"[...]women pregnant after rape, pregnant mentally challenged girls, women pregnant after war time rapes, pregnant women already mothers of numerous children that struggle daily to feed their offspring?"
Rape is a horrendous crime, irrespective of whether it results in pregnancy or not, and unfortunately leaves the victims scarred deeply either way!
A mother of numerous children on the other hand can be educated, both in the developed and underdeveloped countries.
I think everyone here remembers our grandparents having 10 and 12 children..always
hobla u tredda...I urge you to go ask your grandmas and see if they ever thought of aborting any one of those children!
And please note that I have a 16 year old girl and like every other mother worry about unplanned pregnancies, but believe me abortion is definitely NOT an option, neither in my books nor hers!!!!!!!!!!!
To those others pro abortion:
About termination due to deformity..Is this how compassion should be exercised?? oops sorry I got it wrong mela!!..science is being abused, if it is being used to eliminate a foetus if it shows signs of some form of deformity. ...
ROME, Oct. 11 ..........CONT.
“We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”
But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”
John Falzon's comment:
Isn't it amazing that these people are medical doctors too!!
What would the World Health Organisation know anyhow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.
The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.
CONT..................
How can you call it "a reluctant mother's whims"?
Do you sincerely believe that all abortions are capricious?
Any compassion for the pregnant teenager, women pregnant after rape, pregnant mentally challenged girls, women pregnant after war time rapes, pregnant women already mothers of numerous children that struggle daily to feed their offspring?
RELUCTANT MOTHER'S WHIMS INDEED!
Dear Doctor you are so engrossed with your ideology that you are out of touch with reality.
If one's profession does not add credibilityto an argument, much less so is the total absence of any qualifications in the subject and an abject blind reliance on the biased selections of quotations out of context.
Your last paragraph implies clearly that the killing of a maturing baby in utero is of lesser importance than a reluctant mother's whims. The pretence that most early procured abortions are carried out inevitably to save the life of the mother has long been dismissed as palpably untrue. Abortion is now being touted as the absolute right to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy
Scientists have been saying that this planet cannot feed 1 billion humans, then 2 billion, then 4 billion...... We are presently some 6 billion but we always managed to produce more food than we require because real science always finds real solutions, warped science finds warped solutions to our problems. The real problem is, again, egoism, that human trait that causes so much unnecessary suffering to millions of humans, including children, mothers, unborn human beings...
One's profession does not add to the credibility of one's argument particularly when the argument is erroneous and in total disagreement with the majority of his international peers.
Medical doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers around the first world stress that "the actual physical, psychological, and social consequences of abortion on the one hand, and of unwanted pregnancy on the other, we will see that the consequences for the woman are of a far greater magnitude than for the fetus".
"qualified to terminate pregnancies"=ready to kill a life. "therapeutic abortions"=killing a life; "The majority do not and see termination as an essential tool in their armamentarium in their efforts to assist their patients."=This really stands out.
You did not try to explain why a leading anti-abortionist gynacologist is an ex-abortion clinic owner. What happened to this man's brain? Why is he so much against abortion?
You keep insisting that 'most doctors' ,"most scientists" ...Can you produce a real scientific opinion poll of all doctors and scientists of this planet? I am a man of science myself, but I do not know yet when the transition from a few cells to a human being occurs, therefore I ask you to tell me, give me scientific proof, then, only then, will I know if killing a life that one day will become an udult human would not be wrong.
Till such time that scientists can tell me without any shadow of a doubt when this ttransition occurs, I will be of the opinion that pro-abortionists are confusing basic human rights with complex human egoism.
It is very unfair of you to accuse me (and others) of lack of compassion when I (we) am in favour of life (however that life turns out to be)!!
To me it seems like you got to the end of your rope and resorted to insult and personally I think it is rather childish. I could have thrown those terms and others at you but I thought this was an 'enlightened' debate. I refrained from passing personal judgements and was very cordial as far as I know.
How can you accuse me of being callous and lacking compassion just because I do not discriminate against deformed babies and do not concede to killing (yes it is killing) unborn humans?? I never gave the impression that I do not care that other people suffer!! Many other people pass through months of suffering, not just pregnant women I never said that they deserve it; but to take it out on the unborn child is not the solution.
How dare we as mothers decide or think that we have some sort of prerogative to claim that our life is more important/significant/precious/healthy/sane/ worth living than the one growing inside us???
Life starts at 12 weeks........this makes sense. I will suggest something similar to my boss. It could save us tonnes of cash. Start working for our company and you will get paid from the 12th week. Yes, this IS a ridiculous comparison, but i think it will take something as ridiculous to jog us into some form of sanity. Life starts on conception, there can be no debate on basics. There are no shades of grey here. This is fact. There are numerous reasons why mothers to be wouldn't want a pregnancy. They might be justified to have such feelings, but that does not make it morally or ethically right. Extreme cases should be dealt with by taking extreme measures, & giving extreme help, NOT by terminating life.There is ONLY one case where i justify this...when the mother is at risk of losing HER life. Life is beautiful and every day i thank God for this (oqow gejja xi burraxka ghax nemmen f'Alla nahseb!). I can never accept any form of murder, be it abortion, mercy killing, homicide.
1 Can you please clarify why you're making this accusation!!...
"As to your "so what other people suffer too" attitude, I am appalled. As a woman I would have expected to show more understanding and compassion."
2 You fail to understand that for me a foetus' life (irrespective how old) is equal to a 100 year old life I stated my position many times. I simply compared their state of dependence on others.
3 Also please note that you were the one invited me to " persuad[e] the whole of the human race to go against that which they have been programmed to do" or did I misunderstand you..perhaps you did not mean procreate you meant have irrisponsible sex??
4 As to the comment below I suggest you re read it cos if you have a look at my 3 choices I was the FIRST one to suggest Contraception and family planning!!..I was only referring to as 'biased' to you implication that DESPITE GIVEN THIS OPPORTUNITY SOME WOMEN STILL GO AHEAD AND OPT FOR AN ABORTION! since you said " but they (CONTRACEPTION AND FAMILY PLANNING) do not eliminate the need for termination."
I am not trying to “change scientific knowledge” only applying it correctly. I am contesting your incorrect version of today’s medical science, most probably culled from biased pro-abortion literature. Otherwise you would never state “a foetus is not a baby anymore than a tadpole is a frog”. The foetus and the subsequent baby both have the same genome and the same applies to the tadpole and the mature adult frog so that the young and the adult forms are the same individual entity.
I would thank you for your praise of my crystal clear and penetrating logic but it I find it impossible to be certain when you are being serious and when you are trying to be inappropriately sarcastic.
Gynaecologists are the only specialists qualified to terminate pregnancies and all therapeutic abortions are performed by gynaecologists. There are some doctors and gynaecologists who object to abortion. The majority do not and see termination as an essential tool in their armamentarium in their efforts to assist their patients.
What is terminated is the process of pregnancy. From a biological point of view the foetus terminated is alive in the sense that its cells are dividing and engaging in metabolic processes. Most scientists distinguish between a foetus and a human being.
Where evil lies often depends on one's perspective. From where I am standing I see as evil your total lack of caring and compassion for women who lose their lives or have their whole lives ruined through the complications of illegal abortion. That such morbidity and mortality has been eradicated through the legalisation of abortion is a major public health feat and yes by itself would justify legalisation.
1. No nature does not always take its course and intervention is called for not infrequently.
2. Humanity has procreated to the fullest. Overpopulation is the problem nowadays, especially in underdeveloped countries. We also have a mandate to assist humanity, relieve suffering and improve the quality of life for all people especially those most vulnerable and underpriviledged.
3. Contraception and family planning biased? Convey your views to the WHO and virtually any other health organisation world wide.
4. Terms like "killing" with reference to abortion are wrong and serve no purpose other than to rouse emotions. Terms like "months of suffering" are an accurate description of what women go through. Evidently you never had to nurse anyone in that situation.
5. As to your "so what other people suffer too" attitude, I am appalled by your callousness. As a woman I would have expected to show more understanding and compassion.
6. As to your geriatric nanna, I fail to see the comparison with a foetus. Anatomically and physiologically she is a human being. A foetus is not. If you mean she is demented the issue is a different one altogether albeit equally complex.
Your logic is crystal clear and penetrating!
If you wish to change scientific knowledge there are plenty of scientific journals to which you can contribute. Be aware, however, that they are all peer reviewed and will not take just anything. Moreover, their readership will not be hoodwinked by bragging about professional standing as the readers of an everyday newspaper might.
- 'Women with unwanted pregnancies have more than a right to their opinion, they have the right TO CHOOSE. - No, I am sorry, they have no right to choose. If that is a different life they have inside them, they have no right to choose, merely to look after it and carry it.
- 'To call for the survival of "life" at any cost, without regard for the quality of life for actual living individuals, is to ...' - Again, a fallacy. So, let us start following Nazi Hitler in his quest to destroy the lives of handicapped people! How short are our memories? So, let us terminate an unborn child on the grounds that it is going to be born handicapped in some way ... and then, who is going to judge up to which level a handicap is going to be acceptable or not? Don't you realise that in so doing, you are opening a series of Pandora's boxes?
Do you realize that you are advocating that during the first trimester any dissatisfied pregnant mother should be given the right to have her pregnancy aborted for no better reason than that of a capricious whim and that there is no need for the “pro choice” agitators to continue to pretend falsely that, in most cases, legalization of abortion is being demanded in the interest of the mother’s survival or of her mental health?
As a doctor may I ask if your justification of the “right” of any pregnant mother to have an unconditional abortion during the first trimester also includes the legal obligation on the part of doctors and other hospital medical staff to carry out that abortion otherwise they would be liable to be prosecuted for malpractice or dismissed from employment?
If, as you claim, “the right to life is intrinsically tied to his/her capacity to sustain that life” you are condemning to death not only the embryo and foetus in the mother’s womb but also any adult and most premature babies who would not be able to survive without the assistance of his fellow human beings. You are advocating euthanasia of the elderly, the weak and “mercy” killing in general.
Vatican official announced his support for the excommunications of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped by her stepfather.
In Brazil, abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or when a woman’s life is in danger, and both stipulations were fulfilled in this heartbreaking case. The doctors determined that the girl, who weighed only eighty pounds, would not survive this pregnancy. The girl’s 23-year-old stepfather admitted to sexually abusing her for several years, and he is also suspected of abusing her physically disabled 14-year-old sister. He has since been arrested and placed in protective custody.
Last Saturday, Cardinal Giovanni Battista, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops and president of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, defended the excommunications first announced by Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, the girl’s local archbishop. The very next day, on March 8—International Women’s Day—Pope Benedict stated, “Today's date invites us to reflect on … our commitment that always and everywhere every woman can live and fully manifest her particular abilities, obtaining complete respect for her dignity."
How can this egregious hypocrisy even be possible?
A human-being's right-to-life is intrinsically tied to her/his capacity to sustain that life. Although we live in a compassionate/welfare society that agrees to sustain the life of individuals unable to do so themselves, such individuals have no special claim over other individuals' lives/bodies. In the case of the unborn, the foetus' life - and consequently its right to it – is entirely dependent on the mother's willingness to lend her body for such a purpose. But neither the foetus nor anyone else can coerce her into doing so. From a moral perspective, a woman has a right to have the foetus removed from her body at any time during the pregnancy. If the removal takes place during the period when the foetus will inevitably die outside the uterus, the procedure is called an 'early-term abortion'. Otherwise, it's called 'giving birth'. For practical-rather-than-moral reasons, and to provide a buffer-period, most laws specify the first trimester as the stage when abortions can be carried out.
You have every right to have your own opinion, irrespective of how erroneous it is.
Women with unwanted pregnancies have more than a right to their opinion, they have the right TO CHOOSE.
To call for the survival of "life" at any cost, without regard for the quality of life for actual living individuals, is to live for the sake of morality rather than the other way around. The principle becomes a religious dogma, absolute and untouchable, sacred for its own sake rather than because it will benefit individuals.
Religions, cultures, amended constitutions, sharia laws, American christian fundamentalists, they all can deny this fundamental human right, at humanity's peril.
Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right!!
And it is DEFINITELY NOT UP TO ME to judge whether these victims have a right or not to terminate the pregnancy. Pregnancy from rape qualifies in my opinion as one of the few extreme case.
Unfortunately rape is one of the worst violations that a human can inflict on to another, and has plagued humanity since forever.
Abortion however does not always yield the desired stability in the victim, or replace what has been ripped away by that injustice. One has to find a way to get to the source and instead of legalizing abotions we need to teach humans especially the younger generation to respect others. Also and very importantly, the legal system has to make sure to punish rapists accordingly.
"Language does matter" as Fr Joe well said, but what is of more concern is the humans' alienation or aloofness to certain words in language and their meaning, which are increasingly becoming obsolete. Words such as:
"Love" replaced by "Indifference"
"Compassion/Empathy/God" replaced by "Rationality"
"Forgiveness" replaced by "Vengence"
"Morality" replaced by "Right"
To seek Justice does not imply to become Vigilante .
'Hell on earth', in my view, is your opinion in favour of choice. You have no right to decide whether that person lives or dies.
In spite of all this, I still maintain that indeed, no, the State should not take an abortive mother to court. This is because in my very limited experience in such matters, abortive mothers have such a sense of guilt that that in itself is punishment enough.
By the way, for those who question whether an embryo in gestation is a human being or not, you will simply have to answer my question: when, at what stage, did I become a human being and not an extenson of my mother's flesh? Please, answer me and in plain language so that I can understand.
@ Mr John Falzon: as to your comment: 'Consult with the parents of a fourteen year old pregnant daughter.' Excuse me, that comment is nonsense: the 14 yr old shold have kept her legs locked firmly against each other, and she should have been repeatedly schooled in the way of causes and effect, and failing that, of proper and effective means of contraception.
Just because that 'embryo' happens to be 'housed' inside a woman's body does not in the least give her complete control of that life. Once that child is born, if it is born, that child is under the control of a parent or parents, but that does not mean that these parents have the right to do whatever they like with the life of that child - and that is where the State comes in: to protect that life.
On the contrary, I consider that the mother is abusively controlling the life of that child within her when she decides to terminate that life.
....
Could someone explain why these alleged "abortion murders" should not be subject to the penalties that murder receives at present under Maltese law?
Since I am advocating free choice on abortion could I be subject to murder-conspiracy charges?
Enforcing unwanted pregnancies, compulsory childbearing, and secretive coat hanger abortions for the edification of fetus-worshippers, is to establish hell on earth.
Nothing new has been thrown into the debate.
Re your question "Is not an embryo a human being just like its other?" , the answer is ethically, morally and legally NO.
I also "believe that love, emotional support and respect would lead to a more favourable solution" when channelled towards the pregnant woman that decides to terminate her pregnancy.
Pitying women and under-aged girls that have unwanted pregnancies, would not be very helpful, these human beings need assistance, understanding and a non-judgemental society.
"The embryo cannot prevail over the rights of the woman who houses it inside her body..."
Is not an embryo a human being just like its mother? The form is different - but still an embryo is a human being and should be treated with dignity and respect - just like its mother.
"Give individuals the choice, without imposing your cultural and religious beliefs. "
I do not subscribe to your view that anti-abortion beliefs are only cultural and religious. I, for one, am against abortion since a human life is terminated in the process, discarded like it never existed. I pity girls and women in situations of unwanted pregnancies, but I do not believe that abortion is the solution. I believe that love, emotional support and respect would lead to a more favourable solution.
I also believe that in some instances cultural and religious beliefs lead one to resort to abortion "ghax inkella min jaf kemm jghidu fuqi (jew fuq it-tifla tieghi)".
When I was referring to the '3 choices' I was not taking into consideration cases which were a matter of life and death, as these are what I call extreme cases, and possibly an exception to the rule, so that we be clear.
so when you say:
"One problem with your "3 very easy choices" is that even planned and wanted pregnancies can at times go wrong and require termination"
....Yes and nature usually takes its course. They are called miscarriages, or nowadays spontaneous abortions..
"Another problem is persuading the whole of the human race to go against that which they have been programmed to do. "
True but this is precicely it..to use your own argument..therefore by termination we are failing to fulfill what humanity has been programmed to do ..ie procreate no??
"Contraception and family planning are essential and should be promoted vigorously but they do not eliminate the need for termination."
...Now this in my opinion is a no go, as it is totally biased, and un-selfless on the part of the mother (which is the complete antithesis of what motherhood is all about).
good day:)
Consult with the parents of a fourteen year old pregnant daughter.
Have a chat with a woman pregnant after rape.
Discuss your views with the parent of a pregnant mentally challenged daughter.
Read about pregnancies after war time rapes, even in recent wars such as Bosnia.
Go to the Pilippines and see the pregnant, already mother of eight, where the local catholic priest, instructs her not to use condoms.
View some papers written by psychiatrists and psychologists about the traumatic lives of some mothers with unwanted pregnancies, and the problems resulting from pregnancies that are left to evolve under strong rejection and, consequently, in adverse emotional conditions.
The embryo cannot prevail over the rights of the woman who houses it inside her body - a body that has to be considerably sacrificed so that the embryo can develop and be born - especially if this happens against her will.
Easy to sit on the high pedestal, when you have not been to the test. Give individuals the choice, without imposing your cultural and religious beliefs.
Trying to justity legalising abortion so that backyard abortions are elimiated is similar to trying to legalise killing of people to eliminate backyard murders. Warped logic is what led to warped governments doing warped laws in the past. We had governments terminating the lives of mentally sick people, old and infirm and which finally ended with a great final solution. Evil does not come in one fell swoop, but in tiny bits and pieces that enters one's brain, immunising one from the horrors of evil bit by bit. In Africa we have today child armies killing and mutilating people. These children become immune to horror. I believe that we are becoming immune to the horror of 'treminating' unwanted life.
I will agree with you as soon as the first tadpole matures into a human being or as soon as the first lady gives birth to a frog. Until then I won't be wasting any more time on your comments.
2.cont
'Terms like "murder", "killing" and "manslaughter" are emotive terms and not helpful to a rational discussion. In any case they apply to the taking of human life.'
True but so are the words "suffering months of anguish", "scars from such a trauma" and "serious suicide risk" "suffer injurious consequences", so we are both making use of such emotive words to justify our arguments.
finally:
"the characteristics of a foetus are more akin to a tumour or a parasite, incapable of independent existence, having no consciousness or sentience."
Every week I visit my dear 97 year old nanna at SVDP, and half the people in her ward are in this exact state and yet many of them are surrounded by loved ones....
Let us agree to disagree:)
1.
Thank you for your clarifications.
But again I have great difficulty digesting various aspects which albeit scientifically and rationally make sense, morally in my books do not, and believe me I am trying to stay detached from religion as much as possible.
Such as:
'It is simply cruel to allow a woman to carry to full term suffering months of anguish and all for nothing.'
Why is this? A healthy child can become deformed by some unexpected turn of events. What then elimination should be allowed cos that child is no longer conscious? A woman (and possibly also a man) can suffer months of anguish until that child perishes.
also
'[...] to relinquish the child at birth - is one of the cruellest thing one can do to another human being.'
True but this does not justify a termination, as is also done by mothers who have perfectly healthy babies..and it is equally as cruel.
cont....
Abortionists, by which I presume you mean gynaecologists, most of whom, surprise surprise, are highly professional, responsible and caring individuals, as doctors should be, do not promote the destruction of anything at all. They assume the responsibility of caring for their patients. They professionally assess a case, consider the various options available to them and act in the best interest of their patients, as doctors are obliged to do.
You are not "calling a spade a spade", but continue to incite emotions. "Killing" refers to human beings. A foetus is not a baby anymore than a tadpole is a frog. You may chose to equate a foetus with a baby. Most scientists, by far more qualified than you, disagree.
As for "incorrect medical assertions culled from abortionist literature" may I suggest you refresh your "own professional medical knowledge" by picking up a recent edition of any basic textbook in obstetrics or psychiatry, read the chapter on abortion and follow the references, if you feel like taking it up further.
One problem with your "3 very easy choices" is that even planned and wanted pregnancies can at times go wrong and require termination.
Another problem is persuading the whole of the human race to go against that which they have been programmed to do.
Contraception and family planning are essential and should be promoted vigorously but they do not eliminate the need for termination.
As a matter of fact I did not want him with me in the delivery room, and I’m sure he was secretly relieved at that. I must have spared him all the distress that you mentioned. So I was the only one muttering “never again” and sure enough I was back again in similar circumstance less than two years later :-))
4. You consider the fact that legalising termination has abolished the complications of backyard abortions suggests that termination is being carried out on demand. I suspect you are failing to appreciate that the health of a woman includes her mental health and well being. Pregnant women who resort to backyard abortion are probably the most desperate about their pregnancy to the extent that they are willing to put their lives at risk. Psychiatric complications of unwanted pregnancies can be pervasive, long lasting and hard to deal with, at times carrying the potential of completely disrupting a woman's life and that of the rest of her family.Numerous studies are available that show the consequences of not terminating, both short term and long term, are far worse than those of terminating, in terms of health, adjustment and quality of life, personally and socially. By contrast, women cope well with termination and do not suffer injurious consequences, especially when provided with counselling both before and after termination, as is the case in most centres.
I apologise for the lengthy reply but the points you raised are fundamental to the debate and worthy of detailed clarification.
3. Terms like "murder", "killing" and "manslaughter" are emotive terms and not helpful to a rational discussion. In any case they apply to the taking of human life. Termination of pregnancy means just that - the termination of a process, not killing. Most scientists working in the field, biologists and embryologists, distinguish between an embryo, a foetus and a human child. Human life is not considered present until the late foetal stage (from a scientific not an emotional view point). Up till that point in time the characteristics of a foetus are more akin to a tumour or a parasite, incapable of independent existence, having no consciousness or sentience. The central nervous system is not developed so there can be no consciousness, no will and no sensation. Incidentally there can be no pain inflicted during a termination.
There are those who chose to believe in a deity from whom all life emanates and consider human life present from the moment of conception. That view is not supported by scientific evidence.
2. There are many justifications for a termination beyond an actual threat to a woman's life. An example would be severe foetal malformations incompatible with life. It is simply cruel to allow a woman to carry to full term suffering months of anguish and all for nothing. The scars from such a trauma may well last a life time. Another example would be a woman who reacts to an unwanted pregnancy with psychoses and becomes a serious suicide risk with long lasting implications for both herself and her family.
Those who advocate the rights of the unborn child hardly ever stop to consider what happens to that same child if the pregnancy is allowed to progress to term. What kind of a life will that child and its mother have, given that the birth will severely impact on the mother's physical and psychological resources and those of her family. The traditional remedy for unwanted pregnancies advocated by churches - to relinquish the child at birth - is one of the cruellest thing one can do to another human being. It guarantees a lifetime of anguish, doubting and remorse for both mother and child.
Thank you for your pertinent comments. Allow me to reply in some detail:
1. Termination of pregnancy is not a form of birth control, at least in the Western world. Extremists in the femminists movement would like it to be so but this is strongly resisted by the medical profession and by legislators everywhere. The conditions under which termination can be performed are specified in law. The interpretation of that law in clinical practice is the responsibility of the attendant medical practitioners who are answerable to their peers and their profession, to Medical Boards and to society. At least two doctors are involved in any case of termination - the referring general practitioner and the gynaecologist performing the termination. Not uncommonly a third opinion is sought from other disciplines, e.g. psychiatrists, to ascertain justification under the law. Statistics on abortion are kept by all health authorities and published regularly for scrutiny. Termination is not taken lightly and it is certainly not a procedure "to be carried out for whatever reason anytime". (cont..)
Congratulations on having such a strong and supportive husband! Quite frankly most husbands in the delivery room are totally amnesic about the "fun part" nine months previously, over anxious and distressed and agitated by the proceedings, very pale in the face and in imminent danger of passing out on the floor of the delivery room rather complicating the usual smooth conduct of operations. Both parents usually leave the delivery room muttering "never again" but it is not unusual to welcome them again in similar circumstances about a year later - the wife more frequently than the husband.
Yes I do consider it a privilige..honestly..I too gave birth to two children .ghawwigt hafna hadid in the process:) ...but I still consider it a privilige!! Which unfortunately not all woman have.
I feel some things require more sacrifice in life ..making them all the more rewarding.
Also... true that it is not fair that the woman has to bear the pain/discomfort..and that is why I feel that some things are naturally biased more to one sex than the other ..c'est la vie..
nahseb jghaggbuha naqra aktar minna kieku :)
@all the people who are pro choice
I think that the issue for women to be pro-choice is always there..married or single..(pls note that I am not getting into religious issues)
there are 3 very easy choices to the unwanted pregnancy issue:
1. one can make use of non abortive means of contraception
2. make use of family planning guidelines/help if you do not agree with no 1
3. abstain from sexual activity
The choice is very clear to me
An embryo, a foetus and a baby are continuously evolving stages in the life of an individual. Abortionists promote the destruction of all of them by means that escalate from an abortifacient pill to the gruesome horrors of the “partial birth abortion”. Not being fools, they concentrate initially on the former as a prelude for of the latter. The “arguments” in support of the pill to destroy the foetus would be just as useful in the promotion of destructive surgery on a baby but of course the former is less revolting to the more fastidious.
“Killing” and “baby” with reference to abortion are not “emotive terms”. Colloquially, it is known as "calling a spade a spade" without any hypocritical euphemistic sugaring of an unacceptably bitter pill.
Please do not throw at me your incorrect medical assertions culled from abortionist literature in the hope that I would rashly accept them in spite of my own professional medical knowledge.
Please realize also that the legal classification of homicide under such terms as “justifiable” “excusable” “infanticide” etc is not intended to justify some killings as morally unobjectionable but to recognize that there are different degrees of culpability meriting different punishments.
Sharon, permit me to give a light twist to the above statement and to the overall intense, and at times, nit-picking discussion. Do you really feel privileged in that way? I gave birth twice but I could not do it without the help of my husband.
It takes two to tango!!!
Actually my husband had only the fun bit while I had the take all the rest. Hardly fun! But granted very rewarding :-))
I think that the problem is ..that two different situations are being considered to be allowed the same legalized end.
1. re: Legalizing abortion so as to be carried out for whatever reason anytime.
2. re: Trying to save a woman's life at the expense of an unborn human (whatever state of consciousness).
Extreme cases require extreme measures ..(although I still feel it classifies as abortion)
It would probably be called 'involuntary manslaughter' instead of 'Killing' or 'murder' had the life been born.
Killing a person is legally and morally wrong, but... in self defence or accident cases both the state and God's law gives the person a chance for a fair trial.
So I feel that the scenario below.....
'In the very vast majority of cases termination of pregnancy is carried out for grave reasons that pose a real threat to the woman's health if not life, and not for expediency. '
....does not tally with the one below:
'The other established fact is that legalising termination has all but eliminated the morbidity and mortality associated with illegal abortion. As such it has been a resounding public health success.'
NOT LIFE FORMS animals or parasites!
I suggest you google it if you cannot tell the difference!
And do not even try to make an argument in favour of animals rights considering the stance you took against the right to human life.
Most authorities, be they biologists, embryologists or obstetricians, clearly distinguish between an embryo, a foetus and a baby. When, in the course of a pregnancy, termination becomes unacceptable, is invariably stipulated in law and based on the stage at which a foetus becomes capable of independent existence and on when the risks of termination become greater than those of allowing the pregnancy to progress to term. These are matters for the medical practitioners attending the patient to determine. They must be free to consider all options available to them in the best interest of their patient.
Insisting on "aiming to save the lives of both" is based on theory and belief not facts. It is completely divorced from the realities of the everyday practice of medicine. In particular it is ignorant of the complexity of risks involved in any one particular case and of the process by which medical decisions are reached, based on probabilities of outcome.
The other established fact is that legalising termination has all but eliminated the morbidity and mortality associated with illegal abortion. As such it has been a resounding public health success.
Your repeated use of emotive terms like "killing" and "baby" betray your attempt to win your argument by generating outrage and hysteria rather than by logic based on objective facts. You are very wrong in your assumptions. In the very vast majority of cases termination of pregnancy is carried out for grave reasons that pose a real threat to the woman's health if not life, and not for expediency. Invariably, the conditions under which termination can be performed are clearly stipulated in law and administered by responsible, competent and experienced medical practitioners after they carefully weigh up the circumstances of the case.
Numerous follow up studies and reviews have been carried out over the past 30 odd years, that should leave no doubt, at least in those who choose to inform themselves and remain impartial, that the consequences of not terminating are almost invariably worse than those of terminating. Such consequences can be severe and long lasting. Your statement about "no greater than that of guilt feelings" is ill informed while your comments about "advances in medicine" betray an overinflated opinion of medicine and everyday medical practice.
Are topics such as smoking, drug taking, alcohol consumption, indiscriminate sex also value laden-subjects and not to be campaigned against? I hope not! If that were the case then I wonder what subjects the teachers can safely teach without the fear of transgressing in their vocation.
How was this “enlightened” idea arrived at? Who was the “brain” behind it? What are the benefits we expect to reap from not showing our youngsters the harmful effects from all the above-mentioned practices?
I might be daring too much, but I would say that rather than keeping our distance from showing the negative effects of “value laden” subjects such as the abortion issue, we should come all out and do the very opposite.
Campaigns targeting the very young (children) should be organized if we hope to have a better balanced future society. Unfortunately the older students would already have been “indoctrinated” by the “progressive” way of teaching.
Notwithstanding that abortions are illegal, they are still carried out, albeit, clandestinely. As a result, women/girls may find themselves needing urgent medical help. I assume one cannot refuse them this help under such circumstances. Therefore, I ask, “Why do we deny the right to a safe abortion if the woman/girl is set on having an abortion anyway?” The answer could be that we would be giving women the right to choose to have an abortion which, of course, brings us to the whole dilemma. So I am now posing other questions, “Why are the prospective teachers taught not to influence students either way as regards the abortion issue? Why is the subject regarded as a value-laden subject? And which are the other subjects also regarded as value-laden and therefore not to be presented as harmful to the well-being of society?
Continued….
A brain tumor has life.
Spermatozoa has life.
Water has potential life.
How can we justify destroying the above "life or potential life" on a daily basis? Are we all murderers?
Your comment that legal rights “should” reflect moral values is a clear admission that they do not always do so – and that is precisely why you should be making that distinction.
I also note your clarification that you are in favour of “early term abortions” only. Doubtlessly, in due course we may learn just how “early” that is and at which subsequent week of pregnancy your acceptable “early term abortions” would suddenly become unacceptable from a) the immoral and b) the illegal angle and by what criteria.
The problem of which life to save, the mother’s or the baby’s, is actually a very rare occurrence (if it ever occurs at all) and mostly of academic interest. However it is frequently used to prop up arguments in favour of all abortions where that risk does not actually exist at all. The risk to the mental health of the mother is no greater than that of guilt feelings associated with killing the unwanted baby. Advances in medicine have made it possible to intervene aiming to save the lives of both mother and baby, without aiming to kill the baby, although that could be a foreseen but unintended result.
I was referring to this blog. But you are probably right :)
Unfortunately the Feminist movement, albeit has paved the way for the woman of today with achieving milestones, has got itself into a rut in my opinion, and to me at times is comparable to a dog running to catch its own tail.
'It would be a contradiction had it already been established that the foetus indeed has the right to life. I believe it's this claim that's being challenged. '
To me there is no difference between an hour long life or a full term foetus, because if the process started there is life.
For me UNLESS a foetus commences its existence on the 12th week (or whatever week pleases pro abortionists) that argument does not make sense! Because without the initial weeks in order to get to the stage of 'being a human' the latter cannot become human ever.
It is like saying that a stable multistorey building can exist without the ground floor!!
If the ground floor is removed no matter how hard you try to build the rest..it is impossible.
You can only wonder how that building would have turned out to be!
Consider the hypothetical case where a pregnant woman will die if she carries the foetus up to a stage when it has a good chance of surviving outside the womb (e.g. in an incubator). If both the 'innocent baby' and the woman have an equal right-to-life, what's the moral justification for resolving that it's the woman's life that should be saved, rather than the foetus' (or vice-versa)? You might retort that this is a fringe case and that most abortions are performed for 'frivolous' reasons and not life threatening ones. But as I see it, a moral truth - 'a human being has the right-to-life from conception' –, if such, should not lead to any contradictions or the need to resort to 'exceptions to the rule'.
Yes, you are probably right. I AM sitting on the fence. It is the best place to be if you want to try and get a good picture of what both sides are saying. Once I make up my mind I will probably climb down to the side that, to me, makes more sense.
Reading your comments, I cannot help but form an opinion of a person trying to win over the “weaker sex” to his way of thinking by pushing home certain situations which probably were true at some time, but the mentality has changed and with it the assertiveness of women. They are no longer gullible and they can make up their own minds according to their beliefs. Trying to win over women using the pro-choice vs. the pro-life issue does not carry much weight because the issue does not really exist for it is common sense that abortion can never be seen in any other way but the elimination of a human being in the making.
"1 It is Men who seem to be the ones in majority to favour abortion!"
On this blog, possibly. My impression is that, more women than men favour abortion rights. Surely, this is the case in Western societies where it was feminists mainly who campaigned for such rights.
"2 Some men who are so ferociously canvassing for women's rights dare to deny the right to life for the foetus ... the latter may as well be flogged at ta qali. Is this a contradiction of terms or what!?"
It would be a contradiction had it already been established that the foetus indeed has the right to life. I believe it's this claim that's being challenged.
'Luckily ' motherhood is being 'advertised' lately by pop and film stars, so there might be hope yet for those stubborn enough to think that it is normal, to favour a career over being part of the creation process. God shared this gift with women, He did not have to, but He did. Let us stop looking this gift horse in the mouth please!
Good day to all
:)
When will we be ready to excercise and respect THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE?
Part 2.
To my way of thinking, one should first concentrate on how to minimize the instances of abortion. It could be tackled by an intense campaign in schools, starting from the secondary classes (10 years old upwards), on the horrendous aspect of abortion. Education puts a lot of emphasis on the environment issue (which is commendable, of course), why shouldn’t it give as much importance to the abortion issue? Sex education focusing on the importance of abstaining from intercourse (rather than providing youngsters with contraceptives) should be propounded. Although sexual practices have become quite common even with the very young, and consequently there might be some resistance, however, we should re-instill in our students the respect and pride in one’s body. There are youngsters who would welcome such a stance, for not all feel ready to have sex and only do it through peer pressure.
Part 1.
I do not like to be categoric in stating on which side I am on for I feel that in a discussion one has to try to digest what the other side is saying as well, for otherwise the scope of a discussion is lost. I do, however, have strong views on the validity of my religion and it can take a lot of battering without the risk of me veering to the other side. This does not mean that there are not certain issues which I find outdated.
Re the abortion issue, I am definitely not pro-choice in the average cases, however, there are cases which, for humanitarian reasons, I feel that abortion should be taken into consideration. Why should a rape/multiple rape victim carry an unwanted child for nine long months, go through the birth pains, and later be responsible for the child’s upbringing while the unknown father goes Scot free? Is that fair on the woman in such a case? Is the morning after pill acceptable/advisable in such a case?
Continued…
1 It is Men who seem to be the ones in majority to favour abortion!
2 Some men who are so ferociously canvassing for women's rights dare to deny the right to life for the foetus ... the latter may as well be flogged at ta qali. Is this a contradiction of terms or what!?
@John Falzon
'Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder? '
I think that this is exactly why the Catholic church is agaist both procedures.
'If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?'
What is the logic behind this comment??
Your 'unwanted neighbors' analogy is faulty because, clearly, the criteria are not the same. Neighbors are autonomous human beings who would have acquired the right to life by virtue of being born, and not just conceived. A fetus' existence is, by its nature, exclusively dependent on that of its mother and, pending the time when the fetus is able to exist outside the womb (assisted or otherwise), it has no rights other than those granted to it by the mother.
The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?
The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights. Take away her reproductive choice and you might as well have sharia law. If the government can force a woman to continue a pregnancy, what about forcing a woman to use contraception or undergo sterilization?
Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced.
IIllegalising abortion is as good as sharia law. How about turning Ta' Qali Stadium for public hangings, flogging and stoning of women every Friday morning.
Doctor faith does not plug all the holes.
The Catholic church does not advocate sex outside marriage so you cannot expect it to give out condoms to students!!!
Having said that everyone knows that by making use of condoms there is no killing of any foetus whatsoever. There is merely a prevention. Whether it is irresponsible or not for the pope to say what he did considering the circumctances in these poor countries ma nafx, however, I can hardly see him advocating something against the church's belief.
I think that the issue of condoms is very debatable, precicely since there is no loss of life, and moreover it helps to prevent the spreading of STD's, for those who do not pertain to the Catholic Church and its beliefs and as adults have the right to practice responsible safe sex outside marriage.
ps (and please note that I am not judging anyone) but you said:
'We are here to procreate, that is all that natures wants out of us'.
How is this applicable to homosexuals??
It is obviouisly immoral and illegal to kill a neighbour for no better reason than that he is inconvenient and unwanted - that is why I brought up that example. By the same reasoning it is just as immoral (even if not always illegal) to kill an innocent baby in his mother's womb simply because the baby is unwanted and the pregnancy inconvenient. The most glaring difference between an innocent baby in utero and a boisterous neighbour is that the former is absolutely defenceless if his mother rejects him but the neighbour is usually quite capable of looking after himself.
I consider it demeaning to involve myself in any intemperate tirade against religion in general and Catholicism in particular.
Celibacy does not work, Darwin's natural selection, does not allow it to. We are here to procreate, that is all that natures wants out of us.
Promoting safe sex to the young and old, would help to eliminate the moral dilemma, that some people choose to have. Indeed why put yourself in such a situation, if you can help it?
Would the pope perhaps change his stand, from the irresponsible position he took in March this year in Africa, condemning the use of condoms?
Would the Catholic Church in Malta perhaps distribute condoms to teenagers in schools, and educate young people to have safe responsible sex?
I was misled by your original two-installment comment in which only the last sentence could be considered as arguably “pro-life”. The other nine sentences could all be utilised in support of the “pro choice” pretended right to get rid of an innocent unborn baby in the case of inconvenient unwanted pregnancies. I am greatly relieved by your reassurance that that was not your intention and also that, like me, you do not damn anybody to hell.
Instead of allowing individuals to choose, let us inflict the fear of hell and create social pressure. What is the point of stimulating the discussion, if you are a woman, you have no say, only the men in red will deciide what is good for a Roman Catholic girl.
Women if you are not happpy in a violent relationship, stay in the marriage out of what, sheer enjoyment? Self sacrifice? Men if you are not happy in your marriage, best to find a girlfriend on the side, it is more socially accepted, right? Homosexuals stay in the closet, you can always pretend you are celibate. If your teenage daughter is pregnant, send her to London for an abortion, if you can afford it that is. If there is incest in the family, best to hush it all up.
Everything under the carpet, the Maltese way!
I do not need to belong to any other religion other than the Roman Catholic Church. Just because I am putting forward some thoughts which are meant to stimulate the discussion does not mean that I am at odds with my religion.
Neighbours can change or the quiet ones constrained to move, so really they do have a choice, but if a woman is impregnated she has no choice but to carry the pregnancy through.
I am not trying to justify abortion in any way but I thought that in a discussion which I hope would unfold in a mature way, we could spare a thought to these women/girls who are in this predicament and try to put ourselves in their state of mind and try to understand what impels them to commit such an abominable act. I certainly would not damn them to hell, for I do not see it as cold bloodied murder to perform an abortion with the very real risk of inflicting injury on oneself with the possibility of even losing one’s own life
When a young adult is faced with an unplanned let alone unwanted pregnancy, the solution to the reinstatment of 'freedom' (and the need for instant gratification to it) is abortion. I am purposely not considering abortion as any cover up for the 'shame' brought to the family as may have been the case some years ago. I do not think that for the sake of the women who choose not to be responsible enough for their own actions, there should be a ‘safer way’ to have abortions. Should this become the case it may as well be that we start providing safe drugs (I mean illegal ones) so that the kids who decide to take that path, will not be at as great a risk as those unfortunates who everdosed before them, who got them off some dealer on the streets! Similarly we can legalize the distribution of weapons, so as to provide self defence to those being bullied; and we must not forget those who feel that they are deprived from having the same wealth as their neighbour, that they can help themselves to it!
I think that in the same manner that most of the giant companies, and unfortunately also criminals such as drug dealers are taking the approach of ‘get them when they’re young’, I feel it is the responsibility of the education system (irrespective of what religion it is) to teach the young firstly what morality is, and secondly what its values are. I think that despite the fact that many approach the subject of abortion as a right of the woman to decide, if girls are thought from a young age the positive values of motherhood, and how precious life is, half the battle is already won.
Society is increasingly making our youngsters hooked on what I call the ‘instant gratification syndrome’; from silly things such as getting a birthday present months before the day, to getting an advance on pocket money, etc, hence the removal of the element of sacrifice and the working hard for something, and the excitement of waiting to get the deserving reward. Much is available on demand, be it deserving or not.
cont..
I do not agree that Ms Borg and Ms Falzon should be given the choice whether or not to kill their "unwanted" unborn innocent offspring because by the same criteria I would be expected to allow Mr Borg and Mr Falzon the freedom to kill their "unwanted" neighbour and, thank God, up to now no one in his right senses is claiming that freedom of choice.
This is no case of anyone "sitting on the fence". You choose to jump down on one side of the fence namely on the side permitting the killing of an innocent, helpless but unwanted unborn baby. I choose to climb down the fence on the side reprieving an innocent offspring who has been brought into existence by the choice of his prospective killers.
Freechoice does neither qualify nor disqualify the other issues from being an abomination. If you do believe that they are an abomination, show your conviction by saying so. I personally DO NOT believe they are, I choose not to sit on the fence. The only reason why I do not practice homosexuality, is because I am not that way inclined, and not because the bible says it is an abomination. Only I have the choice.
More respect should be given to people that make these isues their personal choices. No one is forcing Fr Borg to have an abortion here, just give Ms Borg or Ms Falzon the choice to have an abortion. We are talking prochoice here, allow others to choose without condemning or inflicting your beliefs on others.
What is shameful is the catholic church, and indeed other relgions that continously choose to descriminate against women, both in excluding women from the preisthood, to instructing women what to do with thier bodies. Talk about Islam!
Please note that if homosexual practices, divorce, abortion and euthanasia are all of them deliberate personal “CHOICES” that would not preclude them from being also at the same time abominable choices.
Many thanks for so promptly proving me right in my prediction that the blog would soon be adopted for the usual onslaught against the Catholic faith. "To give the devil his due” I hasten to add that you yourself are generously catholic (in the sense of “all-embracing”) in damning impartially the Christian, Moslem and Jewish religions.
@John Falzon:
Let it be said straight away, that I am very much pro-life but I am also one who likes to see the other side of it.
I will try to elaborate later this afternoon for I will be out this morning.
There are enough women and willing men to put a stop to this sexist hypocrisy, should you feel the need to belong to a religion, belong to one that does not descriminate against women, and women's right to choose.
The killing of an unborn child could never be justified by the fallacious argument that “women have battled for ages to get rid of unwanted pregnancies”. No one would try to justify the killing of any neighbour because quiet residents have battled for ages against noisy “unwanted” neighbours.
Responsibility for any “unwanted” pregnancy could lie equally with the male or female partner or both – “father” or “mother” would be inappropriate terms for anyone contemplating to kill the indubitably innocent party, the helpless baby in the womb.
The fear of induced foetal deformity resulting from a botched attempt to procure an abortion and also any life-long remorse about the successful killing of an unborn baby are both self-inflicted wounds. They could hardly be acceptable as an excuse for involving doctors or midwives as accomplices in any immoral or criminal activity.
I am avoiding religious arguments not because I do not believe that they are compelling reasons. I do not want to provide an excuse for the usual half a dozen commentators to divert this blog into another futile tirade against Christians calling them today’s equivalent of the crusades and the inquisitors and “fundamentalist” “Talibans”.
Some hope!
Part 2
Failing the desired result women lived the remaining months in continuous guilt and fear of a deformed child. Can one imagine the mental state of a mother-to-be after a failed abortion? And if the child is, as a result, permanently damaged, can one imagine her miserable life? “Serves her right!” some self righteous person might say.
Ironically we get mostly men pontificating on the horror of abortion because they can sit in judgement over the fickleness of women who refuse to carry a pregnancy through.
Fortunately for them, many plant their seed and get away, but women take the brunt of all the consequences.
It might be easier to have a safe and sure abortion in these “enlightened” times, but it is also damaging society beyond repair for who would now be able to stop the flow that permissiveness has set in motion?
Part 1.
Sot it all boils down to the effect of sexual promiscuity, aided and abetted by the liberal attitude which has become far too easy to adopt, especially with the younger generation who do not have the strict moral upbringing of a few decades ago. If man had exercised self restraint, which was actually a way of life in the not too distant past, we would not now be involved so vociferously in this controversy.
Abortion is not a modern “curse”, however, for women have battled along the ages with unwanted babies. Without going into any graphic descriptions but which, with a little bit of imagination, one can visualize, women have tried, in a number of ways, in the secrecy of their own space and in the turmoil of their own psyche to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies.
Continued…
Homosexuality, abortion, divorce, stem cell research are not abominations, they are CHOICES. The church's insatiable hunger to control the masses by inflicting fear, NOW THAT IS AN ABOMINATION.