I have read many contributions to these letters pages from Ivan Padovani and Mark Azzopardi about the theme of personhood in relation to the debate on the proposed legalisation of abortion in Malta.
I have found myself in particular in "dialogue" with Mr Azzopardi in the comments section of this newspaper which is available on the internet. I am not certain how many people actually get to read that.
I am sick and tired of having my words twisted and sarcasm poured upon my views, with attempts to blind me with science! I do not speak from a scientific viewpoint, neither am I a religious bigot. Those who oppose abortion are not all religious, and to say that they were would be an insult to those who have a respect for life which is not necessarily religiously based.
From a strictly humanitarian viewpoint I do not support abortion. It is a simple fact that when an unborn child, at whatever stage of its development, is violently ripped from the womb of its mother, whether or not it has a brain, a heart or any other organs, it cannot develop fully by definition of its termination.
How can we talk about defining personhood through brain activity when clearly abortion denies the development of a child within the womb? The confusion is cleverly inserted around the "accepted" concept of personhood as prescribed by "eminent bioethicists".
Yes, brain activity or lack of it may well be used by scientists to define life as they see it. I am seeking not to get drawn into a discussion on the presence or otherwise the brain, but simply, and without having my words twisted or spun in any way, wish to say that I do not favour abortion since it fundamentally denies the right to life of an innocent human being, brain or no brain etc.
The myth that the legalisation of anything actually makes it less of an issue is a suggestion often put forward by those who wish to legalise it. Saying that it simply drives underground what is already underground anyway, does not mean it is right to legalise that issue.
No doubt there are statistics that will be put forward to try to ridicule what I am saying. We must be on our guard to revent legislation slipping through which cheapens life.
In the UK we face legislation which seeks to create hybrid beings from human and animal cells, and to allow people to have children merely for spare parts for another child. And the emotional arguments put forward to support this legislation can be convincing, though the whole truth is usually hidden.
Whatever the rights and wrongs on both sides of the whole abortion argument, I do not set out to condemn or judge others. The fallout after abortions is something people would rather not be made public.
I shall continue to support those people as they are human beings too. I may not agree with what they do, but I would still oppose them doing it.
It is incumbent upon us all to take our part in this debate without mudslinging, sarcasm, spindoctoring and so on. Please make your point without seeking to belittle the opinions of other people. That way we shall all have more respect for one another as well as for human life which, without our support, has no voice from this side of the womb.