No comment
Published:
November 11, 2008 at 6:40pm
The Times, Tuesday, 11th November 2008
Conference on unborn child
The Conference on Quality Life for the Unborn Child, held on November 7 at the Islamic Centre in Paola, was organised by the Malta Unborn Child Movement (MUCM) and the Malta Branch of the World Islamic Call Society. Gift of Life Foundation is one of the organisations in the MUCM and took part in the conference but was not one of its organisers, as erroneously reported on Saturday.
24 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Thank God! I was worried that Gift of Life was going about organizing wacky events. Have they said if they are participating in Friday’s “ma rridx inhallas il-kont tad-dawl” extravaganza?
Quality life? For a foetus? Can someone explain?
[Daphne – I don’t know about you, but those wombs look pretty uncomfortable to me.]
Well, I suppose I was pretty comfy in there. Warm, well-fed, not a care in the world, troubles wiv wimmin n’ work still light years away. But these MUCM freaks creep me out. Everywhere else, they call it “women’s health during pregnancy”. MUCM calls it “quality life for the unborn child.” The sad thing is that, bar yourself and half a dozen chaps on this blog, everybody takes them seriously. And in the end, they’ll win.
[Daphne – The rest of the women are worried they’ll be perceived as unfeminine if they stand up and say ‘Hey, there’s a woman there as well as a baby.’ And when they see how many of the men strutting about the local stage (going into battle with creased trousers and dandruff on their shoulders, as I once put it 18 years ago) react to me, they dip their heads even lower beneath the parapet. Can you blame them? This is an outpost of Sicily c. 1800: women should be seen and not heard; men should be seen and heard as much as possible, and God help the woman who criticises a man, however ugly, stupid and annoying he might be.]
[Daphne – The rest of the women are worried they’ll be perceived as unfeminine if they stand up and say ‘Hey, there’s a woman there as well as a baby.’
H.P. Baxxter Wednesday, 12 November 0055hrs
“The sad thing is that, bar yourself and half a dozen chaps on this blog, everybody takes them seriously. And in the end, they’ll win”
You forget those who may have witnessed at close range abortions abroad (carried out for the flimsiest of excuses) or have had to deal with the post-abortion trauma experienced by women years later. These may have reason to take them seriously too.
What I can’t understand is why these people can’t present their opinions with facts, rather than working through people’s guilt. I think it’s abuse of the highest order to make a woman go through these extremely difficult decisions with an over zealous dungeon master looming over them.
Also, for something a bit off-topic, have you read about Motl Brody? A 12-year old boy who met a tragic end (yes, END) due to a brain tumour whose parents are fighting the courts to keep his body hooked up to machines as they belief demand that he is alive as long as his heart is beating. Puts the Terry Schiavo case in the shade.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8009124
[Daphne – It could be that they just don’t want to let him go.]
“Quality life” for the “unborn child” – that’s a huge leap, from a foetus to a child (skipping the infant phase altogether), all while still in the womb! But I guess calling a foetus a child veers the issue away from rational thought and understanding to pure sentimentalism.
And I also thought that quality needs consciousness. Perhaps I was wrong.
Now, I am not one to promote abortion as a quick means of birth control (but who am I to judge?), but the use of terms such as “quality life” and “unborn child” denotes deceit.
The following is an email that is going round. I am against abortion, but it all boils down on what the woman involved wants.
A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:
‘Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 yr. Old and I’m pregnant again. I don’t want kids so close together.’
So the doctor said: ‘Ok, and what do you want me to do?’
She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’
The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: ‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’
She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.
Then he continued: ‘You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.
The lady was horrified and said: ‘No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!
‘I agree’, the doctor replied. ‘But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution. The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point.
He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that’s already been born and one that’s still in the womb. The crime is the same!
If you agree, please forward. Together we can help save precious lives!
[Daphne – American fundamentalist, of course – the clue being in the Mom.]
You may have come across this news item yesterday about Hannah Jones a 13 year old who is refusing a heart transplant that may save her life.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/Teenager-Hannah-Jones-13-Gets-Right-Not-To-Have-Heart-Transplant-After-Years-Of-Leukaemia/Article/200811215148770?lpos=Health_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_15148770_Teenager_Hannah_Jones%2C_13%2C_Gets_Right_Not_To_Have_Heart_Transplant_After_Years_Of_Leukaemia
I really don’t know what to think about it.
[Daphne – I think people have free will and should be allowed to use it. I saw her speak on television, and she is clearly one of those well-rounded, secure and self-assured youngsters who knows exactly what she wants and has thought about it. She said quite clearly that she doesn’t want any more operations, that she is tired and has had enough. A 13-year-old is not a three-year-old. Her parents tried to persuade her otherwise and failed.]
Kenneth Cassar:
How many abortion procedures have you watched at close quarters for yourself? How many real life foetuses have you seen for yourself? Would you perform an abortion yourself if the need arises or would you expect that some one will do the job for you? Do you expect the local nhs to provide teaching for under graduates on how to perform abortions? Would you vet potential medical students for any “sentimental” views on the issue and refuse them entry into the course if they belive that life is sacred from the moment of conception till death? Would you turn away undergraduates wanting to further their studies locally in obstetrics and gynaecology and anaesthesia if they refuse to have anything to do with abortion (in the event that abortion is legalized in Malta?) I belive that these are the sort of practical questions you should be asking youself before forming an opinion on the subject and then going ahead trivializing and ridiculing the rights of the unborn child.
Good Day.
[Daphne – American fundamentalist, of course – the clue being in the Mom.]
Shock horror! How politically incorrect. Fancy using the dreader word “Mom”. How dare they!
[Daphne – No problem with anyone using the word mom, but it does rather give away the source of this propaganda.]
The story is quite effective though. Personally I do not agree with abortion but it should be available to women as a last resort. Who am I to stop a woman terminating her pregnancy?
Ms.Caruana Galizia: two million abortions are performed annually in Europe, of which 250,000 in UK:no wonder we need all these immigrants to re-populate Europe!Most european women have given up on having kids:they are more expensive to keep than dogs,and when they reach maturity the politicans send them to Afghanistan or some other war:it was not enough to sacrifice the best of Europe’s youth in two world wars.
[Daphne – Ho hum. Back to the duck confit.]
@ Sybil:
“How many abortion procedures have you watched at close quarters for yourself?”
None. How many have you?
“How many real life foetuses have you seen for yourself?”
None. How many have you?
“Would you perform an abortion yourself if the need arises or would you expect that some one will do the job for you?”
I would rather leave that to a professional.
“Do you expect the local nhs to provide teaching for under graduates on how to perform abortions?”
If abortion ever becomes legal, I would expect it.
“Would you vet potential medical students for any ‘sentimental’ views on the issue and refuse them entry into the course if they belive that life is sacred from the moment of conception till death?”
I would certainly not refuse entry to anyone for any kind of learning.
“Would you turn away undergraduates wanting to further their studies locally in obstetrics and gynaecology and anaesthesia if they refuse to have anything to do with abortion (in the event that abortion is legalized in Malta?)”
No, I wouldn’t.
“I belive that these are the sort of practical questions you should be asking youself…”
I hope you find my answers satisfactory.
“…before forming an opinion on the subject and then going ahead trivializing and ridiculing the rights of the unborn child”.
I have not trivialized anything. If you remove your priviledged blinkers, you will note that I wrote “I am not one to promote abortion as a quick means of birth control”, but then again, its not the first time that I have been called both pro and anti abortion by people who will not, or cannot, understand what I am saying.
As for ridiculing the “rights of the unborn child”, that is impossible. There is no such thing as an unborn child.
Good Day.
Now that I have replied to Sybil’s questions (feel free to ask more), let me make myself clearer (in not-too-technical terms).
The embryonic process is an incremental process, starting from a single cell and culminating at nine months in a (hopefully) fully-grown baby ready to be born. This essentially means that both sentience and conscience are incremental, starting from zero and increasing with time.
It is for this reason that I find that the later a pregnancy is terminated, the more morally problematic it becomes. It also essentially means that something like the “morning-after pill” is not morally problematic at all.
Of course, every case should be “judged” on its own merits, and all things considered, I’d rather women have a legal abortion than a backstreet one.
It must also be pointed out that the claim that “life” starts at conception is both irrelevant and untrue. Sperm is very much alive, and if all life were “sacred”, this would effectively mean that we should all practice celibacy, since with every ejaculation (conception requires this), millions or sperm are “killed”. So this counts out “life” as the determinant of the issue, and leaves us with the problem of sentience and consciousness which I have already mentioned above.
So does this make me pro or anti abortion? Depends on one’s point of view. Like I said, I’ve been called both before.
[Daphne – I agree with your stance exactly.]
Sybil, citing mental trauma as an argument against abortion doesn’t quite cut it. I know women (girls, more like) in their twenties, who’ve had more than one abortion, and they seem to be not in the least troubled by it.
[Daphne – Yes, and post-partum depression is far more well documented than post-abortion depression, but nobody cites that as an argument against giving birth.]
@ Maria:
“This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is”.
Of course it matters which one it is. Sentience and consciousness are incremental, and that’s what matters. The issue is as much a no-brainer as asking who would we kill if we had to – a brain-dead person or a fully conscious one.
In my post after my reply to Sybil, in the second paragraph, I meant to write “consciousness” not “conscience”.
But speaking of conscience (and going a little off-topic), conscience is a product of the mind, and not of some abstract “soul”. Evidence? Here goes. Without going into the merits of animal rights, my conscience tells me that I should not eat meat unless absolutely necessary. I can safely assume that the conscience of most of the readers of this blog would not trouble them on this particular issue. If conscience is “God-given” and God is fair, conscience would work similarly on everyone and for all time. Just something to think about.
Dear Daphne,
A thirteen year old does not have enough experience to take a well judged decision. For heaven’s sake she is just a child. If you believe that this is possible then at this point we can do away with the art of parenting skills. Maybe this is already the case given with what our society is experiencing at the moment ie these supposedely young adults who think they know it all…
[Daphne – Our society treats children and teenagers as chattels, or more specifically, their parents’ chattels. So no, I don’t think parents have the right to impose on this girl. Without seeing her, or hearing her argue her case, you can’t speak. Lawyers I know have just told me of a dreadful case in which a 14-year-old, during his parents’ separation case, begged not to be sent to his father for weekends. His wishes were ignored by the court and he was ordered to spend weekends with the father he loathes. Apparently, the father has a ‘right’ to see his son who, at 14, doesn’t want to see him. But parents don’t have rights. Children do.]
This is off topic but it must be the best quote out of the credit crunch yet:
‘This is worse than a divorce – I’ve lost half my net worth and still keep my wife’.
“His wishes were ignored by the court and he was ordered to spend weekends with the father he loathes.”
That decision doesn’t surprise me. A judge once said to me that it’s unfair to oblige a parent to support a child while “denying a parent the right of access”. His view, which he thought was some sort of moral principle, was informed by what a parent expects rather than by what a child needs or wants. Apparently, he saw the situation as some sort of barter arrangement – child maintenance in exchange for access, regardless of what the child feels and thinks.
This question has been plaguing me:
What is the difference between killing a foetus and a new born?
@ Graham C:
“What is the difference between killing a foetus and a new born?”
You will find the reply in my 3rd post under this topic.
This might interest you: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20081118/letters/murder-by-any-name
[Daphne – How tiresome, all these men bossing women around. It really is too much.]
“Kenneth Cassar Wednesday, 12 November 2124hrs
@ Graham C:
“What is the difference between killing a foetus and a new born?” “
The Carthagenians did not think that there was much difference when they sacrificed both for their god Moloch.