An unbiased survey by Gift of Life
Up next: a survey by the Ghaqda Kaccaturi u Nassaba about the popularity of hunting. And what is Gift of Life’s reasoning, anyway – that minority rights should be subject to the will of the majority?
The Times, Tuesday, 2nd December 2008
‘Nine in 10 against abortion’
A survey has confirmed that Malta maintains a very strong pro-life culture, Gift of Life said yesterday. Of 500 respondents interviewed by phone, 91.5 per cent said they disagreed with abortion while 5.2 per cent said they agreed in some cases and 2.6 per cent were in favour. Meanwhile, 88.7 per cent think human life begins at conception, 3.4 per cent at implantation and 3.2 per cent at birth.
The great majority, 84.5 per cent, are also against the legalisation of abortion, while 13.5 per cent are in favour. Another two per cent said they were not sure.Moreover, 82.7 per cent agreed the Constitution should be amended to make legalising abortion harder but not impossible.
Those who said abortion should be legalised were asked further questions to determine why. The reasons included when the mother’s life is in danger, when the child is conceived from rape and when the child is deformed.
106 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Is it really possible that out of 500 randomly selected individuals, over 95% could answer the question related to the begining of human life? Is the Maltese population (of which the respondents are presumably a scientific sample) so intelligent that over 95% are conversant with the terms “conception” and “implantation”?
Gift of Life’s survey is unrealistic even one had to factor in a substantial margin of error. For example how did they get the result of “3.4 per cent at implantation”? Is our population so sophisticated in this regard, or they just happened to be GOL members? Also: “82.7 per cent agreed the Constitution should be amended”: do the majority of people know the implication of an entrenchment of such provision into the constitution? Or they just think it is just another law? I am neither a lawyer nor a statistician so maybe I might be wrong on the above, but from a layman’s perspective I am not too convinced of this survey (to put it mildly)!
DCG – “And what is Gift of Life’s reasoning, anyway – that minority rights should be subject to the will of the majority?”
Well … of course! That’s the rule of democracy, isn’t it? Where a country is led for 5 whole years by the winning party (albeit in absolute minority – 49.34%), and the losing party (48.79% of the voting population, losers by 1,580 votes) jibqghu isaffru l-Aida for the whole legislation!
That’s democracy.
[Daphne – No. It isn’t. Democracy is not just about majority rule. It’s also about ensuring minority rights. And that’s why your views about divorce are so f**ked up.]
Now take out your calculators and work this out: number of abortions per year divided by number of pregnancies per year.
(P.S. and I suppose this “survey” didn’t include the “life begins at x weeks” option. Besides what does “disagree with abortion mean”? )
Was the ‘margin of error’ published with these ‘survey’ results ?
[Daphne – You’re joking, right?}
Unfortunately the fact that minority rights are subject to the will of the majority is not so alien a concept. It is due to a handful of vote differences that the PN are governing the country, and precisely due to this as well that Malta forms part of the EU (thankfully in my opinion). I find it ironic that you should comment about it.
Another point: A proof of the bias of this survey is in the last paragraph: “Those who said abortion should be legalised were asked further questions to determine why.” Why not ask further questions also to those who are against legalising abortion, to determine why they are against it? The survey was, unfortunately, preconditioned by design.
[Daphne – Why is it that the only Labour supporters commenting here show such scant understanding of democracy? Rights are a separate matter entirely to government or to policy choices. Civil and human rights are not subject to majority rule. Choice of government is subject to majority rule, even if the majority is a few hundred votes.]
Democracy is ensuring the rights of the majority. The minority’s rights are only ensured if and and only when the majority agrees that they (the majority) are not put in a disadvantage if the rights are given.
Obviously, unless the rights of the minority are covered by the Constitution or Law.
[Daphne – Rights are rights. They are not subject to the popular vote. You Labour voters amaze me.]
Rights are governed by Laws or directly by the Constitution. If a Right – civil, human or political is removed, redrawn or modified in any way, then it’s obvious that it’s a question of votes UNLESS both parties agree in principle.
Isn’t it obvious my goodness????
[Daphne – No, my goodness, it isn’t!!!!!!!?????? That’s why there’s a European Court of Human Rights, because the final say does not lie with the majority.]
Daphne, I’m not a Labour supporter. I voted PN in the last election. Kindly publish this since it’s not fair to draw these kind of conclusions.
[Daphne – You as hell think like one.}
[Daphne – Rights are rights. They are not subject to the popular vote. You Labour voters amaze me.]
Rights are rights and lefts are lefts! What do you mean – not subject to the popular vote? Of course they are! Like in 5 years’ time – divorce (whether a civil right or a civil wrong it’s not the point to discuss here) – it’s going to be on the agenda of a particular party. The other party said that divorce is not going to be on its political agenda.
Therefore – it means that I was right when stating that civil rights are subject to the popular vote unless there is an agreement between the parties in Parliament.
[Daphne – Spirtu, santu. amen – is that what they taught you in the Brigata Laburista? That rights are subject to the will of the majority? No wonder we were in such a mess in the 1970s/early 1980s.]
Civil and human rights are not universal Daphne, and unfortunately yes, they are subject ot majority rule. In Malta, the majority, being Catholic, decided that divorce, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia etc are not civil rights. The government cannot and will not introduce any of these on the basis that they are “rights”, for the very simple reason that the majority does not agree with them. Things will only change when the opinion of the majority changes. That IS how democracy works. Perhaps not theoretically, but in practice. If you can’t see this, can you name one right that was introduced in Malta simply on the basis that it was a right, and not because the majority demanded it be introduced? I can’t think of any.
The civil rights problem is so incredibly vast. Even I find myself disagreeing with certain principles. For example, in most Western countries today, not being discriminated against and/or offended is a civil right. I, on the other hand, being a firm believer in free speech, believe that I should have the right to offend and discriminate. This is not to say I’m a bigot, or that I condone discrimination.
[Daphne – I really feel I’m banging my head against a brick wall here. RIGHTS CANNOT BE GIVEN. THEY CAN ONLY BE VIOLATED. Your rights are implicit in your humanity. Your government can choose to violate those rights. This does not mean you don’t have those rights. You have them, and the authorities are violating them. Is this a language problem, a logic problem, or what? How hard is this to understand?]
While agreeing with what you preach regarding the rights of the minority, in practice things are way different. Rights of the minority would include: divorce, gay marriages, legalization of soft drugs, euthanasia, abortion, etc, etc. All these topics can be discussed independently, but it is clear that there are people who would regard one or more of these points as their right. And who can blame them?
Passing referenda on such topics is useless if the majority is clearly against. Passing legislation when the majority is clearly against is also political suicide. So unless we have someone with b*lls who can take such unpopular decisions I believe we are stuck with what we’ve got.
[Daphne – I don’t preach, sweetheart. I’m not running the Church of Kingdom Come here. You’re right in your conclusions, but why would it be political suicide? That’s right. It’s because Malta is 40 years behind western Europe in everything but information technology.]
M. Brincat: what did you imagine this was?
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
M. Brincat: I think you need to read this, too –
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Pages/WhatareHumanRights.aspx
“Your rights are implicit in your humanity.”
Ah so you’re one of those believer in so-called “natural rights.” Well, I happen to agree with this concept. But I’m sure you and I would find a lot to disagree with when it comes to discussing what is and what isn’t a right. And this was my main point.
For example, I consider it a right to use drugs. Would you consider the prohabition of certain drugs to be a violation of my implicit rights? I do.
That’s just one example. I could list an infinite number of things which I consider to be violations of people’s natural rights.
[Daphne – You’ve picked a thorny one.On paper, you should have every right to drug yourself if you have the money to pay for it and don’t expect anyone else to pick up the pieces BUT this is the perfect example of individual rights being in conflict with the common good. Yes, it’s a thorny one. I don’t think there’s any comparable example that I can think of off the top of my head. The fact is that when large numbers of people have rendered themselves incapable of looking after themselves as a result of drug addiction, others have to pay the price alongside them. Opium addiction was one of the major factors leading to the collapse of imperial society in China at the end of the 19th century.]
@M.Brincat – Human and Civil Rights are there for all without distinction whether it’s race or creed. The ADOPTION of these Rights is subject to majority rule as personified by different governments. So, Daphne is definitely right in saying that Rights can only be denied {by majority rule) because these Rights ARE there for all.
[Daphne – Case in point: we have the right to legal counsel while being questioned by the police, but Malta is violating that right.]
I see your point Daphne. Although I still think individual rights should always come before the common good.
I can think of other “violations” of natural/moral rights: taxation. I believe the government is violating my right to use my income as I see fit when money is forcefully taken away from me to be redistributed amongst the whole.
But I guess I’m verging towards anarchy here…
[Daphne – Yes, you are.]
The problem with abortion, as opposed to divorce and same sex marriage for example, is that it is not universally accepted as a human right! Your rights end the moment they infringe mine!
With abortion, same sex marriage, lawyer during interrogation etc the case is clear cut – they infringe nobody else’s rights and so are nobody’s business and their introduction should not even need to be debated!
With abortion there is the argument that the right to abort conflicts with the right to life of the foetus so it is not as clear cut a decision! For what it’s worth I believe the right to life of the foetus takes precedence and so I don’t believe abortion is a human right. Should it be in the constitution? Quite frankly I believe it already is and so there is no need for amendments!
[Daphne – Spirtu, santu. amen – is that what they taught you in the Brigata Laburista? That rights are subject to the will of the majority? No wonder we were in such a mess in the 1970s/early 1980s.]
Only silly persons say silly things.
1. I am not a member of the MLP / PL.
2. I never was a member of the MLP / PL.
3. I never was a member of the Brigata Laburista.
However, what you may see as implicit rights, many others may have different opinions. Numbers do not make a “right” a Right. You may be more “right” than a million persons in believing that a “right” is a Right. But surely what you can’t do is give that “right” to yourself.
[Daphne – Nobody ever said you’re a member of the Labour Party, but you were the one who said you support George Abela but won’t be voting Labour this time if divorce is in the manifesto. I find it amusing that some people think there are no facts, that there are only opinions. In this, there is no room for opinion, because there are established facts – any opinion you have must be based on those facts. There is no scope for opinions as to whether people have rights or not and whether these rights are given to them by others.]
“With abortion, same sex marriage, lawyer during interrogation etc the case is clear cut – they infringe nobody else’s rights ”
That should read “with DIVORCE, same sex marriage ….”
Mr. Buttigieg, the problem with the pro-life stance is that it suggests that the “right” to life of a fetus takes precedence over the right of woman to dispose of part of her body.
[Daphne – Nobody ever said you’re a member of the Labour Party, but you were the one who said you support George Abela but won’t be voting Labour this time if divorce is in the manifesto.]
Yes, because before being a Laburist, I’m a Christian.
[Daphne – I find it amusing that some people think there are no facts, that there are only opinions. In this, there is no room for opinion, because there are established facts – any opinion you have must be based on those facts. There is no scope for opinions as to whether people have rights or not and whether these rights are given to them by others.]
Who said so about which argument, skuzi ta’? Who said that what you consider to be a human right is in fact a human right? Is it something that you authorised? I repeat – it’s not a question of numbers. If the whole world said that X is a human right, does it make it so?
[Daphne – Your last paragraph leaves me flabbergasted.]
Drew – Mr. Buttigieg, the problem with the pro-life stance is that it suggests that the “right” to life of a fetus takes precedence over the right of woman to dispose of part of her body.
That’s not a problem – skuzi ta’! That’s the supreme right to live that the foetus would like to exercise!
[Daphne – Foetuses wouldn’t like to do anything. They don’t think or reason.]
Does a foetus have any rights? What did it do wrong to be aborted? As David said your rights stop where my rights start.
I am not in favour of crusades against abortion , and we do not need to entrench a specific law in our constitution.
What irks me is that some people who are pro abortion are also lobbyists against bird hunting . Even a bird has a right to live.
[Daphne – Does the woman carrying the foetus have rights, do you think?]
So let me see if I got this right. For Mrs Caruana Galizia a right is that which is listed in the Western book of rights. These are all inalienable – the right to life, the right to privacy, the right to a divorce, the right to a lawyer when goons kidnap you… They are inalienable rights because the West says so. But the right to ingest whatever you like is a crime when some plants and chemicals are concerned, justified by an unidentifiable collective good, while a very identifiable benefit for state control and goon corruption flies by unnoticed.
And the right to privacy? That is subject to interpretation, especially in times of war, such as the ‘war on terror’. And with perpetual Western wars we are assured perpetual state spying. That is how a right becomes a privilege. That is the beginning of totalitarianism, which only dies out after completing its tyrannical cycle.
In the UK anti-terror police can now arrest a shadow minister for doing his job (1)(2) and the French police can arrest, strip and abuse a journalist over a 2-year-old libel case (3) without much thought to rights. Meanwhile, the blog-queen here pontificates over an ant-hill’s antiquated slights, while a mountain of tyranny rises right across her antennae without her noticing.
(1) http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2008/11/consequences-of-arrest-of-ashford-one.html
(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090062/Terror-Tory-MPs-daughter-NINE-anti-terror-police-raid-home-immigration-leaks-media.html
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112902051.html?hpid=sec-world
Just found this “lesson in democracy” clip:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/yt–E5h6QukJHw/lunch_democracy/
Simply watch the kids!
Who let all these ‘thick heads’ out of their cages?
Any person with a modicum of intelligence will recognize that the GOL survey is a sham and a farce.
Is this a discussion about abortion or about general election results? As for the gift of life people why don’t they find themselves a hobby and stop trying to ram their obsession down everybody’s throat. Enshrine it in the constitution indeed. Dak jonqos issa. As for the perception of democracy and minority rights in this country, we are but one step removed from the hellfire and brimstone of the middle ages.
I do not have the patience to go through all the drivel in flow, but I did see a reference to divorce in one of the posts. Why is it that some individuals have to lump abortion and divorce together? What does one thing have to do with the other? It is simply ridiculous that in 2008, and part of the EU, Malta is still having a heated debate about divorce. I do not see the problem all these so called christians have. If it does not agree with your beliefs then don’t do it nobody is forcing you to, but please leave the option open to other people who do not necessarily believe that they are going to hell if they break up with their spouse for whatever reason. We are supposed to be a secular state damnit not a bloody theocracy.
Why is it that Nationalists can’t stomach a result which does not go their way? All those who feel this result does not mirror the real situation ought to organise a survey themselves. And of course 95 per cent would say they want abortion legalised now.
[Daphne – What does this have to do with support for political parties? You’re completely out of point.]
Frank: the reason some people in Malta lump divorce and abortion together is because they believe that the Catholic Church is always right and that everyone – whether Catholic or not – should live by its rules. Never mind that more and more people don’t seem to care much about what the Church thinks anymore. I left Malta 11 years ago when cohabitating heterosexual couples were still called (in a pejorative way) “pogguti”. Fortunately this word has more or less fallen into disuse.
[Daphne – Does the woman carrying the foetus have rights, do you think?)
The woman carrying the baby has rights …….. and responsibilities. What responsibilities does the baby have?
Put the rights of the baby on a balance with the rights of the mother. There are rights which outweigh other rights, for example the right to live outweighs the right to live as one pleases.
The mother carrying the baby is in a position of strength to get rid of the unwanted baby , and the baby is helpless. Isn’t this similar to dictatorship ?
And please we are not talking politics or religion here this is a question of morals. Let’s try to learn something good from each other. Name calling only means that one has no arguments which can hold water.
Good day.
[Daphne – Who’s name-calling? I only suggested that the woman might have rights. As for your comparison to a dictatorship, I think very little compares to forcing a woman through the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy then giving birth unwillingly. I don’t think some men realise the implications of this, and that some women lack the imaginative empathy.]
John Schembri,
how could you possibly know how a woman carrying a baby, in which circumstances of life howsoever, feels?
Only males seem to be experts on this difficult and delicate question here!
I think it should be pointed out that I am personally 100% against abortion, from conception! I personally think that the right to life of the foetus, who to me is a child supersedes all others. And yes, to me abortion is murder!
HOWEVER, as with everything in life things are never black and white! Entrenching in the constitution should not be on the cards. Besides, I believe it is there already but anyway!
Personally I believe that forbidding abortion in Malta INCREASES the amount of abortions by Maltese women! After all let’s face it, abortion is available for a mere catamaran ticket ride to Sicily! If a woman knows abortion is available here then she may weigh her options more carefully! Education and STATE support is the key (definitely not GOL support). Give a woman easier alternatives to abortion!
Ofcourse even if abortion were to be legalised here it does raise other issues – should a doctor be obliged to perform an abortion? Should a catholic’s taxes be used for providing abortions or can one opt for a deduction?
One final point, I assume that we are discussing abortion BEFORE the foetus can feel pain!
Yes the woman carrying the foetus does have rights. Doesn’t she also have some sort of responsibilty, namely making sure she doesn’t get pregnant if she doesn’t want to? Its not that difficult you know.One neither needs to remain celibate nor at a stretch, not use condoms – just common sense!
Nobody has a right to kill life whether in its early or late stages. Let nature take its course. With respect to unwanted babies, the solution is simple: if you do not want the baby, give it for adoption. I’m sure there are many couples who cannot have children but desperately want to raise a child.
With respect to deformed babies, I think that it comes from inbreeding. Were it not for the escapades of the Knights of St. John and other foreigners where would have ended up with a far greater number of handicapped children. The Maltese have to mix with other Europeans, thus obtaining fresh new genes for our genepool thus reducing the probability of having deformed children.
[Daphne – Who is ‘we’? There was no such thing as a core group of Maltese interbreeding with foreigners. The ‘foreigners’ were the people of Malta. Actually, we are not inbred at all, but the very opposite – genetically, we are very mixed because there were always new people coming in. Malta was a busy port for centuries, and nobody in a port society can be inbred. This isn’t a remote mountain village.]
At what point foetus starts to feel pain is still very debatable..there are several studies however that indicates that foetuses starts to feel pain around the 26 th week . Personally I m against abortion. BUT one have to keep in mind that women are still putting their life at risk by choosing to trust unprofessional person to perform the procedure.Not all women afford to pay a ticket to sicily or anywhere else for what it matters.So is it best to legalised abortion or leave women without no other option than that to risk her health?.I dont think this is a black or white issue.
[Drew – Mr. Buttigieg, the problem with the pro-life stance is that it suggests that the “right” to life of a fetus takes precedence over the right of woman to dispose of part of her body.]
Strictly speaking no, the embryo/foetus is not part of the mother’s body. It has a different genetic make-up (genome), and a totally separate circulation. It lives off the nutrients and oxygen diffusing into its system through the mother’s circulatory sytem via the placenta, but it is not continuous with it.
In short, base your argument on the right of a woman doing what she likes with “her body”, and your argument will be shot down.
[Daphne – Your rights are implicit in your humanity.]
An embryo/ foetus growing in its mother’s uterus is human too. Completely so. Does it not have rights?
[Daphne – Strictly speaking, no, because it has no legal personality.]
I agree with you on this one Daphne – it scares me that in this day and age there is no regard for basic human rights, and that the state is still being heavily influenced by the church. Abortion is a tricky issue, but it’s a valid issue nonetheless. Issuing false facts to keep people from figuring out the truth from themselves is morally wrong – and aren’t these people using morality as their defence?
What people don’t understand is that:
1. Just because abortion is legal, you don’t HAVE to have one.
2. Legalising abortion will NOT encourage it, if people’s morals and religious values are as strong as they say they are.
3. If women want an abortion, they will seek one even by dangerous and illegal means.
4. Not giving pre-teens and adolescents enough sex education in schools doesn’t help the pro-life cause; it just breeds ignorance and unwanted pregnancies.
I’m anti-abortion, but I’m pro-choice and I hate that people think I’m some sort of a baby-sacrificin’ Satanista for that. The authority of these +9/Gift of Life people needs to be questioned.
Democracy is about majority rule, yes, but not when it comes to my rights as a woman, and as a human being.
“Daphne – Who is ‘we’? There was no such thing as a core group of Maltese interbreeding with foreigners. The ‘foreigners’ were the people of Malta. Actually, we are not inbred at all, but the very opposite – genetically, we are very mixed because there were always new people coming in.”
In the pre-war days, it was a rarity for a Maltese girl to marry a man from another village in Malta, let alone a foreigner. The Maltese were are very close-knit community in the village and usually sought the service of matchmaker to match partners. Of course, there were exceptions.
“Malta was a busy port for centuries, and nobody in a port society can be inbred. This isn’t a remote mountain village”
Yes, and no. For the people living in Valletta, Birgu and others port areas, I agree with you. For for the villages farther away from the port (Attard, Lija, Mellieha, Mosta, Zurrieq, Zejtun) the people were sort of isolated. The war then changed everything as people from the port moved into the villages and the mentality changed.
[Daphne – It was the same everywhere in the world and not just in Malta. People stayed in the same village and mated in the same village. There is nothing unusual about Malta’s situation. Deformities, congenital diseases and abnormalities are the result of recessive genes coming to the fore, and not the result of in-breeding per se. If two closely related people who have healthy genes have children together, they will be entirely normal and healthy. On the other hand, two people from different cultures and countries may just happen to have the same recessive gene. When people are closely related, the chances are increased, that’s all.]
[Daphne – Strictly speaking, no, because it has no legal personality.]
Animals have no legal personality, and still we speak of animal rights. Are you telling me that a human (repeat, human) foetus is worth less than an animal?
[Daphne – Some people speak of animal rights, but in reality there is no such thing. Animals don’t have rights. Humans have responsibilities towards them. Incidentally, cruelty to animals throws one open to prosecution not because animals have rights but because cruelty is frowned upon by civilised society.]
Pepprina: Surprises happen and sometimes under less than desirable circumstances. You speak as though an unwanted pregnancy is a punishment for wrong doing. That’s not the best start in life, is it?
John Meilak: “The Maltese have to mix with other Europeans”. Why not non-Europeans too? It’s not as though it isn’t already happening.
Abortion has been around throughout human history and no amount of moralizing or legislating will stop some women from wanting to abort their pregnancy. I say thank goodness that Sicily and the UK are just a short flight away for those Maltese women who have to go through this difficult choice.
And if John Schembri is baffled by those who are pro-choice and anti-hunting, I am baffled by those who are anti-abortion and also speak of African immigrants as if they were animals.
I refrain to comment on that one since it is outside the scope of the discussion.
[Daphne – Some people speak of animal rights, but in reality there is no such thing. Animals don’t have rights. Humans have responsibilities towards them. Incidentally, cruelty to animals throws one open to prosecution not because animals have rights but because cruelty is frowned upon by civilised society.]
So the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights read at the UNESCO Headquarters in 1978 was what? A declaration about nothing?
[Marku- And if John Schembri is baffled by those who are pro-choice and anti-hunting, I am baffled by those who are anti-abortion and also speak of African immigrants as if they were animals.]
Amen to that.
[Marku – Abortion has been around throughout human history and no amount of moralizing or legislating will stop some women from wanting to abort their pregnancy.]
Wanting to so something is not the same as having the right to do so. I may want to kill someone, which does not mean I can do so with impunity. If what I want is immoral and wrong, I can want it till I’m blue in the face – immoral and wrong it will remain. Also, calling what I want by another name, thinking up a hundred and one excuses to justify that what I want is good (there are only a very few good excuses in cases like these) and trying to convince myself that “everyone is doing it” and that “this is the accepted modern way of the World” still does not make it right. A million people resorting to doing an immoral thing does not make it right – it just means that a million people have committed an immoral action, a grave action, which is the destruction of HUMAN life.
I may not agree with the way Gift of Life are going about doing what they are doing – but neither do I agree with abortion.
I thought you would have said something about this (sic)
If Sant were a true gentleman he would have refused the money, if the country is truly in such a state
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2008/11/26/t1.html
@ Davinia “Democracy is about majority rule, yes, but not when it comes to my rights as a woman, and as a human being.” You have rights ,and also the unborn baby has rights. What did the baby do wrong to end up aborted?
@Marku-” And if John Schembri is baffled by those who are pro-choice and anti-hunting, I am baffled by those who are anti-abortion and also speak of African immigrants as if they were animals” Amen to that from me also ,but I find no connection . Where’s the killing?.
“Moggy Wednesday, 3 December 1253hrs
[Daphne – Your rights are implicit in your humanity.]
An embryo/ foetus growing in its mother’s uterus is human too. Completely so. Does it not have rights?
Daphne – Strictly speaking, no, because it has no legal personality”
So according to Daphne a 3month pregnant mother can get rid of this inconvenience without feeling guilty because she only got rid of a creature with no legal personality. Maybe on a legal basis Daphne’s argument could hold water , but still it is morally wrong to kill an unborn baby.
BTW : This is what I call name calling: “Who let all these ‘thick heads’ out of their cages? “
So for Moggy abortion is immoral and wrong while forcing a woman to continue with her pregnancy against her will is the moral and right thing to do.
What do you suggest we do to a pregnant woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy? Shall we pin her to the bed until she gives birth to her baby?
Being a man, I find it very strange that the majority of women are against abortion and in favour of the incarceration and demonisation of women who opt for the terminaton of their pregnancy.
I thank the Lord (as the saying goes), I was born a man. Life is certainly not easy for women, both in Malta and all over the world.
@ Colin Vassallo : life can be even harder for the baby……. it will be taken away.
Is life really that beautiful? Some of you talk as if it really were.
Whilst i wouldnt agree much with the GOL people, or their methods anyway, I fail to see how a mother of a baby can live with the knowledge that she has killed her unborn child. I mean, my concience would crush me if it had to be me. I cant ever do ths, of course, so maybe i am not qualified to judge here on what is right or wrong, without going into lenghty discourses on rights. Abortion just FEELS damn wrong, unnatural and sinful somehow, with no reference to God at all but the basic goodness of human nature. It just feels bad when we, as a human race, can cynically excise our young and kill them at will. I mean, its not as if nature makes us do this, does it? And in this day and age of Durex, Mirena,Yasminelle, Yaz, Billings and the like, is there really any reason why we cant have sex without the risk of conception? Are our casually mating couples, young or not so young, so obtuse that they wouldnt take the precaution of at least wearing a bloody condom when they are doing it? I suppose instant gratification, of which most of us are guilty of, has much to do with this. As Vodafone says, Life is Now……as long as you take the necessary precautions!
So John Schembri, you think it is morally right to force a woman to go through with her pregnancy against her will.
If it is true that a woman who commits an abortion will burn in Hell, well so will those who force women to remain pregnant against their will.
As I have already said on this blog under a previous thread on the same subject, I was present when both my two kids were born. I witnessed the whole ordeal twice. There is no way anyone can force a woman to go through all that against her will and claim sainthood.
So Hell it shall be for both the pro-lifers and the pro-choice.
“So the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights read at the UNESCO Headquarters in 1978 was what? A declaration about nothing?”
That would seem to be the case according to some. Fancy that. Then what’s all the fuss about hunters and bird shooting ?
[Daphne – The fuss about bird-shooting has nothing to do with animal rights and everything to do with threats of extinction.]
[Daphne – Strictly speaking, no, because it has no legal personality.]
So, stictly speaking, anyone can have a go at it and bump it off at some abortionist’s clinic at will? But has anyone around here actually been inside an abortionist’s clinic abroad and actually seen how an abortion is carried out?
[Daphne – In most countries, yes, they can. As for your last point, nobody who sees live births ever suggests that birth be banned because it is a form of extreme cruelty to women, and I imagine that not many people would want to see any other surgical procedure, either. Do you know how many children, especially young girls, are horrified and put off childbirth by being shown birth videos as part of their education – precisely because it is so gruesome and horrible, especially to the eyes of a teenager sitting at the wrong end? It is late-term abortions that are terrible. There is nothing terrible or gruesome about popping the morning-after pill, for instance.]
@ Colin Vassallo: I am putting on the balance the right to live of an innocent person with the right not to go through an ordeal of a pregnant woman. Actually its not forcing the woman to bear the child,its giving the baby the right to be born.
I assisted my wife in the birth of my three children … at home. After the pain there was the joy .
No hell and brimstone please , we are not talking religion here..
@Corinne Vella: no i never said an unwanted pregnancy is a punishment for wrong doing. As you said, its not the best start in life. After all, I myself was severly shocked by how tough motherhood is, and I came to it aged 330 with a fulfilled life behind me. However, I don’t see why a foetus should have to pay the final price. If it came into being without asking to, why shouldn’t the responsibility be shouldered by the parent/s? Why should abortion be the answer? And if it`s a case of post-partum depression as Daphne always points out, there are very reliable means of avoiding pregnancy and I’m not even talking of coils and condoms.
Daphne , I dont think that teenagers are being put off by videos of births since the only increase in birth rates its theirs.And giving birth is PAINFUL but natural process ,having an abortion isnt.It leaves the women scared for life.
[Daphne – You’re not quite right there. I know of several women who swore they would never have another child after having the first one, and didn’t, because they never wanted to go through the experience again. Many women are now choosing to have their babies by Caesarian section in private hospitals – in North America and many parts of Europe – just to avoid that trauma. This is the ‘hidden truth’, the kinds of things that women never talk about except in moments of candour among themselves, because they don’t want to be thought bad, unfeminine, or unwomanly. I am a grown woman who has had three children, but whenever a birth scene is shown on television, as part of a film, I switch channels or leave the room. It is beyond horrible, but we have been programmed to think of it as ‘beautiful’, which it isn’t. In earlier centuries, people took a more circumspect view: birth to them was what it really is – an ugly, extremely painful and very dangerous experience, a necessary evil for the acquisition of a child. Giving birth is not just painful, it is outlandish. If it were a form of torture, only the worst kind of sadist could have invented it. Not all that is natural is good (earthquakes, famine, floods, disease) and likewise, not all that is invented by man is bad (I can’t even begin to list them, because if we relied only on nature we would be living naked in caves and foraging for food and water). And no, abortion does not leave a woman ‘scared for life’. Most women who have had an abortion just proceed with their lives. The same cannot be said for those who have a baby and give it up for adoption, or who have their lives derailed by having an unwanted child. You know that 17-month-old boy who was beaten to death a few weeks ago in England? How in heaven’s name can you say that the result of his mother not having had an abortion was better or more moral than the result of her having had one?]
Having a baby by a caesarian isnt an easy way out ,or less painful or without any consequences anzi quite the other way round.Women are opting for more caesarian section due to misinformation.and no giving birth isnt easy but it is much safer for both mum a nd baby. And as I said before I wouldnt have an abortion myself but I still believe that therE should be proper clinics where women are counselled before and after and proper procedures are carried out.BUT this wont make it right for me .and I think that probably the mother of this child never thought of having an abortion.From experience women ,becuase they are not mothers, who abuse their children keep having more.
{Daphne – Having a baby by the normal channels is not more painful than having it by caesarean section? I take it you’re joking. Even if the operation were performed without anaesthetic, it would still be less painful.]
[Colin Vassallo – So for Moggy abortion is immoral and wrong while forcing a woman to continue with her pregnancy against her will is the moral and right thing to do. ]
Yes, abortion is immoral and wrong in my books. It may not be the “in” thing to be saying in this day and age when everything and anything goes, but that’s it.
“Forcing” a woman to continue with her pregnancy and tying her to the bed is neither on (let’s not be facetious!). A woman in that position needs lots and lots of support and counselling – and believe me, most women will opt to keep the child if they are supported. Let’s not forget though (once you’ve chosen to play the gender card), that a large percentage of women are pressured into terminating their pregnancies by partners (i.e. men) who do not want to bother with children after they’ve had their fun, and by the fact that they feel that they are facing a difficult time in their lives alone (usually because they are desserted by yes, you’ve guessed it, their “man”). So much for women’s rights!
Few (very few) pregnancies are actually the result of rape or find women in a situation where their life is in such danger that an abortion must be considered – and the latter is becoming even rarer as SCBUs all round the World manage to save younger and younger premature babies using new technology. The latter is also the only situation where I find abortion to be acceptable.
Most (and here I am refering to a sweeping majority) unwanted pregnancies are really the result of thoughtless casual sex ending up with a positive pregnancy tests, when everyone starts panicking because baby will be in the way, and cramp their style – the “men” involved included.
Citing psychological or mental distress as an excuse is also somewhat dodgy: a woman who is not strong enough psychologically to go through with a pregnancy and a delivery, won’t be strong enough to go through with the psychological repercussions of having aborted her own baby. Doing the right thing, with the support of others and lots of psychological counselling, paired with sound plans re what’s to happen once the baby is born (most women, with support, will keep their baby, others may opt for adoption or fostering) will probably be kinder to them psychologically than having them pass through the ordeal of having an abortion – because it is an ordeal, no matter what the men of the World think about it.
I am all for women’s rights, until they begin to trample on the rights of other – others who are in no position to defend themselves, and who have literally everything to lose i.e. a chance to live life. I also think that women and men who find themselves in this position have their responsibities to consider, before their rights. In every other sphere of life we are expected to face our responsibilities and carry the consquences. This situation is no different – we only think it is different because the “problem” here is a voiceless, right-less (according to some), human life which is easy to annihilate.
[Colin Vassallo – If it is true that a woman who commits an abortion will burn in Hell, well so will those who force women to remain pregnant against their will.
As I have already said on this blog under a previous thread on the same subject, I was present when both my two kids were born. I witnessed the whole ordeal twice. There is no way anyone can force a woman to go through all that against her will and claim sainthood.]
Oh, so we’ve got a squeamish man here…….
A woman who is adverse to having a child is an unsupported, desserted woman. A woman facing an ordeal alone. Give a woman support and she’ll choose to become a mother with very, very few exceptions.
[Daphne – Moggy, I completely disagree with you here. There are as many women who are squeamish about child-birth as there are men. Indeed, the effect on the average woman of having to look at a baby popping out in full graphic detail on some horrible ‘educational’ film is pretty much the same as the effect on a man of having to watch in full graphic detail somebody being bludgeoned in the bollocks – or rather, having them nicely mutilated. And no, not all women who are averse to having children are unsupported or deserted. Plenty of single mothers have children happily without a man around, and plenty of women in relationships refuse to have children for a variety of reasons that are their business and no one else’s.]
[Daphne – In most countries, yes, they can. As for your last point, nobody who sees live births ever suggests that birth be banned because it is a form of extreme cruelty to women, and I imagine that not many people would want to see any other surgical procedure, either. Do you know how many children, especially young girls, are horrified and put off childbirth by being shown birth videos as part of their education – precisely because it is so gruesome and horrible, especially to the eyes of a teenager sitting at the wrong end? It is late-term abortions that are terrible. There is nothing terrible or gruesome about popping the morning-after pill, for instance.]
Showing birth videos to teenagers may not be a good idea. Re “gruesome” – that is the way it is, unfortunately, and there’s no easy way about it. However most women go through the pain because at the end of it all there’s the baby to look forward to and, love it or hate it, most women go through a phase in their lives when they yearn for a baby.
The late term abortions may be gruesome – well so are the early term ones – and popping the MAP may take the horror out of abortion and make it neat and squeaky clean, but is it the gruesomeness which we are afraid of here, or is it the fact that we are taking life which should be preoccupying us?
[Daphne – “However most women go through the pain because at the end of it all there’s the baby to look forward to”. But according to Gift of Life and those who support its views, a woman should be made to go through all that even if she doesn’t want the baby. No, it isn’t the ‘taking of life’ which bothers people like me, because that’s not how we see it. It’s the cruelty and gruesomeness, which is why the morning-after pill doesn’t bother me at all, but late-term abortions do. How many women do you know who sit on the lavatory and scream and cry with grief at the loss of their child’s life, when they’ve missed one period and it comes back with a rush the next month? The odds are that they’ll be crying with relief, not grief – unless they are in their 30s and trying with difficulty to conceive. We all know what’s happened there – an abortion, a natural one.]
[Pepprina – there are very reliable means of avoiding pregnancy and I’m not even talking of coils and condoms.]
What are you talking of? Don’t tell me it’s some form of natural family planning method.
Moggy: I think Pepprina’s talking about abstinence.
Moggy: “The latter is also the only situation where I find abortion to be acceptable.”
If abortion is unacceptable as a matter of principle – the right to life – then abortion is unacceptable in all circumstances. If abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, then the defining principle is not the right to life.
What I m saying is that caesarean section have a higher mortality and mordity rate and regards pain they dont joke either plus you have a longer recovery period .
[Daphne – If a woman dies during a Caesarean section, I think you’ll find that she would have died giving birth by natural means, and that the Caesarean section was a last-ditch attempt to save her. Why else would anyone die after a Caesarean section?]
[Daphne – How many women do you know who sit on the lavatory and scream and cry with grief at the loss of their child’s life, when they’ve missed one period and it comes back with a rush the next month? The odds are that they’ll be crying with relief, not grief – unless they are in their 30s and trying with difficulty to conceive. We all know what’s happened there – an abortion, a natural one.]
are you also a gynaecologist and psychologist?
[Daphne – No, but the last time I looked, I was a woman…….with several women friends.]
Movements as ridiculous as GoL are a rarity. Their obsession to introduce an anti-abortion clause in the Maltese constitution continues at a time when, post-Lisbon treaty referendum, the Irish prime minister is touring EU capitals informing the relevant EU leaders (not Gonzi as he has long capitulated) that Ireland is ready to hold a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty PROVIDED they would be ready to consider introducing Declarations on EU commissioners, neutrality, defence, taxes and abortion.
Why abortion? Because, as I had pointed out in a recent post, the Lisbon treaty, with its annex, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, secures European citizens under the complete jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which would be empowered, at the first opportunity, to rule over abortion rights and establish precedence for all member states. Such an eventual decision would overrule whatever is provided in the Maltese constitution because the Lisbon treaty, its Charter and ECJ decisions hold primacy over national laws and constitutions.
But instead of opposing the Lisbon treaty, GoL embarked on a quixotic campaign on the home front. This proves that GoL haven’t a clue of what is going on at a European level, making a fool of themselves to the extent of sending a letter some weeks ago to the head of the PL insisting that the party’s delegates be made aware that two MEP candidates have at one time or another acted in a way that could mean they favoured the introduction of abortion.
That requires plenty of gall.
So Moggy, since you’re against forcing women to remain pregnant against their will, but all for support, what shall we do to women, who after all the support in the world still want to terminate their pregnancy? Shall we force them against their will at this point? Pro-life is after all misogyny by another name. And John Schembri, how can you give the baby the right to be born to a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy without forcing her against her will? One more thing. My mentioning of hell was sarcastic. I think you should have noticed by what I write that religion is not my thing. In fact, I was poking fun at religion in that post.
This is an extremely complex issue. I have no doubt that abortion can be beneficial, even to the aborted. I’ve had close experience of this. I’m in favour of abortion in certain circumstances and under certain conditions and for this reason I feel it would be better to legalize it than drive it underground. The circumstances and conditions are highly debatable – one can write a book about them and I have no intention of doing so here.
I do believe that there must be valid and cogent reasons for an abortion, and not that it should be performed on demand, and certainly not in late term. Once the foetus reaches the stage where it has a chance of survival outside the womb (also highly debatable and difficult to pinpoint) and can be considered to be an unborn baby then I think it is definitely time to draw the line. At that stage the parents may opt to abandon the child but not kill it. Even then, complications may crop up. What if only one parent wants to abandon? What if neither progenitor is capable of being a parent (e.g. due to drug addiction or psychosis)?
You say that giving birth is ‘beyond horrible’, ‘a form of extreme cruelty to women’, ‘gruesome and horrible’, ‘an ugly, extremely painful and very dangerous experience, a necessary evil’, ‘not just painful, it is outlandish’, ‘If it were a form of torture, only the worst kind of sadist could have invented it’. For women who view it that way (let me add that you are fully entitled to do so and I mean no disparagement – the adage that perception is reality holds good here) and if that is their only reason for wanting to terminate, a planned Caeserean delivery would probably be a better solution, preceeded by sensitive counselling and full information about all its benefits, disadvantages and implications.
However, I think that your key statement is ‘plenty of women in relationships refuse to have children for a variety of reasons that are their business and no one else’s’. It could go deeper than that – some women may refuse to allow a pregnancy TO BECOME EVIDENT (sorry no italics) for a variety of reasons that are their business, as for example a woman who is normally content in a relationship who gets pregnant after a one-night stand, a pregnancy which could and almost certainly would have catastrophic results on the mother’s, father’s, their children’s and possibly others’ lives if allowed to go to term, or even allowed to become known. This is the big question. This is the kind of scenario that has to be experienced before anyone can even start to claim to be in a position of real understanding of the situation. There are other, different pregnancy situations which may also have catastrophic consequences too.
In essence this is the problem with GOL. They claim righteousness when they are not aware of what they’re talking about. However they conducted their survey, I’m fairly sure that their survey’s respondents weren’t either.
I am.
At the moment I’m kicking myself for having spelt “deserted” wrongly – twice. Unforgivable!
[Daphne – I usually correct mistakes like that, but I was in a bit of a rush and didn’t notice.]
[Daphne – Moggy, I completely disagree with you here. There are as many women who are squeamish about child-birth as there are men. Indeed, the effect on the average woman of having to look at a baby popping out in full graphic detail on some horrible ‘educational’ film is pretty much the same as the effect on a man of having to watch in full graphic detail somebody being bludgeoned in the bollocks – or rather, having them nicely mutilated. And no, not all women who are averse to having children are unsupported or deserted. Plenty of single mothers have children happily without a man around, and plenty of women in relationships refuse to have children for a variety of reasons that are their business and no one else’s.]
I am aware that not all women who have unwanted pregnancies are single. Yes, some of them are in relationships – some of them are even pressured into getting abortions by their husbands and partners. It’s not as rare as you would think. For those who aren’t, maybe they should spare a thought for the life they are killing before they start counting the many reasons why their baby would interfere with their lives (once they are lucky enough to have one, that is).
[Daphne – How many women do you know who sit on the lavatory and scream and cry with grief at the loss of their child’s life, when they’ve missed one period and it comes back with a rush the next month? The odds are that they’ll be crying with relief, not grief – unless they are in their 30s and trying with difficulty to conceive.]
You really have no idea. Sorry.
[Daphne – Oh yes I do. As a doctor, you probably only see the ones who are distraught at that rush of blood in the loo after a ‘missed period’. What you don’t see are all the other women cracking open the champagne, or the equivalent.]
Reading this exchange of ideas on this issue, I get the impression that Malta is a place where cladestine abortions are rampant and that Airmalta flights are full of young mothers to be going to get their unwanted pregnancies terminated.
Jesus Wept! Nothing could be further from the truth. I think we are overblowing the issue, as is GOL…. Let people do what they want. Its their concience that they have to face at the end of the day if they opt for an abortion. I would show them a video of it before they do it though. It will stop many of them happening.
There is a disturbing culture going around our young men and women that money fixes everything, even an unwanted pregnancy, and even if you have sudden passionate bareback sex, its ok. Drajna naghmlu l-affarijiet minghajr ma naghtu kas il-konsegwenzi. Hemm falliet l-edukazzjoni ta uliedna. Ghallimniehom li kollox jghadi, kollox owkej.Hajjimnihom wisq!
We dont let them feel the pain of their mistakes at all. They dont grow unless we do that.
@ Colin Vassallo : .” My mentioning of hell was sarcastic” and I was dead serious }:-).
I don’t give a baby a right to be born , it is one of the basic human rights, it is the first one .I am not stating that the mother is not suffering or that she has no rights.
But the so called ‘non legal ‘ unwanted creature is helpless .
Shouldn’t people shoulder the responsibilities of their actions. And shouldn’t we support (as many are doing) pregnant women/girls who have difficulties?
Being a discussion with a fairly grim tone, may I take a short opportunity for something a bit more positive, while still on topic?
Approximately 10 hours from now my wife will be wheeled into an operation theatre and we will be having our first child. It will be delivered via a caesarian.
My nerves are pretty much all over the place at the moment, but I figured I’ll take a moment to share. I wish I was there with her at the moment, rather than sitting here, but what can you do. Probably the most exciting moment of life is about to come and while I’m sure diaper changes, sleepless nights and a lifetime of worries will at times get the better of me, I still feel nothing but joy at the moment and can’t wait for this next chapter of my life to start.
[Daphne – This is the third Blog Baby in almost as many weeks. Congratulations.]
@ Daphne : you wrote something about the morning after pill and how gruesome is abortion when the baby is formed etc…….and I commented on that.
Did someone hit the delete key by mistake or was I on the wrong thread? I think it was between the comments of Colin Vassallo and Tim Ripard , at around six o’clock.
[Daphne – I can’t find the comment you mention. Can you send it in again, please?]
@ Pat: Congratulations. Rest as much as possible, you will be needed, when wife comes home with your baby. Don’t forget to wash the dishes and leave everything in order. Prepare some decorations if you are nervous.
BTW: aren’t babies being born the ‘normal’ way? All I hear these days is Caesarian. For whose convenience are Caesarians being performed?
Has this ‘phenomenon’ reached Malta also?
Alas John, most babies are born using Julius Caesar as their midwife nowadays
Congrats to Pat and good luck to his wife.
John, stating that from the moment of conception the “unborn child” has a right to be born at all costs to the detriment of the pregnant woman carrying him is effectively the same as saying that she has all her rights intact as long as she doesn’t mess in any way with what is in fact growing inside her. If this is acceptable to you then good luck, for me it ain’t. I am still of the opinion that no one has the moral and should neither have the legal authority to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will even if this means the abortion of a healthy foetus.
The problem I have with most of those who argue against abortion is that they never admit that such a stand is tantamount to reducing the pregnant women to an incubator with no say whatsoever on what is happening inside her body.
The least that I ask is that you admit that according to all pro-life subscribers, forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is the right and acceptable thing to do. For some strange reason you never own up to this simple fact.
“Colin Vassallo Friday, 5 December 0007hrs
The least that I ask is that you admit that according to all pro-life subscribers, forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is the right and acceptable thing to do. For some strange reason you never own up to this simple fact.”
I know of several cases over the years where women demanded abortions for the flimsiest of excuses like having an unplanned pregnancy interfering with a skiing holiday or a perfect body clad in a bikini during the summer months.
[Daphne – If a woman dies during a Caesarean section, I think you’ll find that she would have died giving birth by natural means, and that the Caesarean section was a last-ditch attempt to save her. Why else would anyone die after a Caesarean section?]
Plenty of reasons associated with any form of surgical procedure and not necessarily due to the actual pregnancy itself.
And once again Sybil you just stopped short of declaring that forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is fair and morally right.
A simple yes, I am in favour of forcing women to remain pregnant against their will is all I am after. It seems that no one from the pro-life brigade wants to declare this publicly. One wonders why. Maybe, just maybe, could it be that after all is said and done, you know that it is morally wrong and not justifiable.
Look Colin , Daphne wrote somewhere something about the morning after pill. And about the gruesomeness of aborting a mature embryo.I wrote back stating that no matter how much we legislate and enshrine in the constitution , girls who don’t give a damn of what we are discussing will swallow the morning after pill and end the story there.I wrote that if it is not available at the chemist it is available on the street. I don’t know wether the fertilised egg has any feelings, so I cannot form an opinion on that.
You are always mentioning this’ forcing women ….etc’. , It is a question of priority of rights, actually one’s intention is not forcing the woman but saving the helpless baby. If for argument’s sake the baby is threatening the life of the mother then ,yes it is up to the mother to decide , to remove the baby with the probable consequence that it will die. Their rights balance one another.
L-ghodwa t-tajba
Colin Vassallo Friday, 5 December 0227hrs
And once again Sybil you just stopped short of declaring that forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will is fair and morally right.
Oh , have I ? Now how come I did not realise that?
If a woman is hell bent of having an abortion , nothing on earth -and presumably in heaven- will stop her for having one. This was and is the situation locally.
It is an open secret that when a woman is looking around for a medical practitioner to help her out of her predicament, she will eventually find one via the grapevine (so to speak). Abortions under the guise of a prefectly valid (and safe) gynaecological surgical procedure or another have been undertaken locally since time immemorial.
In other words, “min irid jinqeda jaf fejn ghandu imur” which explains why local women’s groups are not in the front line in the streets agitating in favour of the legalization of abortion .
Abroad it was the women’s rights groups who were the first to take to the streets demanding changes in the legizlation and urging the media to take up their cause. In Malta , for some bizarre reason , the opposite seems to be happening with the media bombarding the women and men in the street into taking a stand about an issue which is hardly on the very top of their agenda at this particular moment in time anyway.
Finally, it is good to keep in mind when discussing this issue that legalizing abortion will simply complicate matters in several ways including officially pressurizing all medics practicing locally and medical students into becoming potential abortionists (irrelevant of their opinion on the issue which may not necessarily be based on religious belief)) with all the subsequent legal implications. That includes sueing for damages a medical practitioner who for reasons best known to him/her may refuse to perform an aborton on demand.
@Mario Debono (Thursday, 4 December 2054hrs)
Exactly. Legalizing abortion is not a priority for Maltese women right now. It is some in the media and the over- zelous GOL who are over blowing the issue out of proportion – for reasons best known to them, and them only.
[Daphne – Sybil, it’s not a priority because Maltese women HAVE access to abortion. You’d find that Maltese women would think differently if Malta were, say, in the middle of a desert.]
I’m always mentioning this ‘forcing women….etc’, because that’s what abortion laws are there for, to force women to remain pregnant against their will.
And for your information, abortion is always illegal in Malta, even when the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother.
[Corinne Vella – If abortion is unacceptable as a matter of principle – the right to life – then abortion is unacceptable in all circumstances. If abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, then the defining principle is not the right to life.]
In such a case, when one has to choose between the life of the mother or her baby, I would choose the mother rather than have them both dead. It is only one, very rare instance, not “some circumstances”. Of course both mother and baby have the right to life, but sometimes (in very, very rare cases) that is impossible.
[Colin Vassallo – Moggy, since you’re against forcing women to remain pregnant against their will, but all for support, what shall we do to women, who after all the support in the world still want to terminate their pregnancy? Shall we force them against their will at this point? ]
No, I would not condone forcing anyone to do anything she does not want. In the end it’s her business and her responsibility. Even women who have an abortion need support, care and counselling. Personally, that’s what I would choose to give.
[Colin Vassallo – The problem I have with most of those who argue against abortion is that they never admit that such a stand is tantamount to reducing the pregnant women to an incubator with no say whatsoever on what is happening inside her body.]
That’s were you’re wrong. The final decision is always the woman’s. Personally I would do nothing to physically prevent a woman from getting an abortion if she has finally decided to do so, although I could never agree with her decision.
Moggy: Even that one circumstance overules the right to life, though only as a matter of expediency since the foetus would die anyway. If we accept that there can be mitigating circumstances, then we accept that the right to life is not paramount.
Please note that this is not a personal comment aimed at criticising your position. The point here is that that position shifts the abortion debate away from the principle of the right to life to the circumstances in which that principle may be overruled. That is the same point raised by anyone who does not share GOL’s unyielding stance.Though the reasons they give differ widely, the underlying argument is the same one.
Gift of Life survey is superfluous. It is no great discovery that the Maltese are pro-life. But so are most of the people around the world! The only difference is that the governments of civilised countries allow their citiizen the right to choose, but citizens of Malta do not enjoy that right.
“Moggy Friday, 5 December 1920hrs
[Corinne Vella – If abortion is unacceptable as a matter of principle – the right to life – then abortion is unacceptable in all circumstances. If abortion is acceptable in some circumstances, then the defining principle is not the right to life.]
In such a case, when one has to choose between the life of the mother or her baby, I would choose the mother rather than have them both dead. It is only one, very rare instance, not “some circumstances”. Of course both mother and baby have the right to life, but sometimes (in very, very rare cases) that is impossible.”
But nowadays ,in the rare and extreme case of having to chose between the mother or child, one can still save the mother by emergency surgery whilst giving the grossly premature infant a very good chance of survival thanks to the splendid job done by the Special Baby care unit.
These dramatic choices may have been the norm in the old days , but are very rare nowadays and it is dishonest of the pro choice lobby to justify their stand by dragging in this classic ” mother or baby” arguement.
@ John Schembri:
Regarding your statement that what irks you is that some people who are “pro-abortion” are also lobbyists against bird hunting, perhaps this should make things clearer for you.
There are various reasons why people would oppose (some or all) hunting. These can be summarised in the following points:
1. Nature is the property of everyone, so hunting is theft.
2. Some birds are (or could become) “endangered species”, so we should protect them for the enjoyment of future generations of humans.
3. Killing is not justifiable unless done out of necessity.
4. All sentient/conscious individuals have the right to life (except in conflict of rights such as self-defence).
As you might immediately note, we can overlook reasons 1 and 2, since they are irrelevant to (and in no way comparable to) abortion.
Regarding reason 3, it would seem to apply in the case of abortion. However, the meaning of “necessity” varies from one person to another. There is no contradiction, for instance, in being for reason 3 (and approving of killing animals for food), and approving of abortion if a woman finds abortion necessary. Of course, people who are for animal rights would generally dismiss eating meat as a “necessity”, which brings us to reason 4.
Regarding reason 4, since an early embryo is neither sentient nor conscious, there would be no contradiction in being “for” early-term abortion (in the case of both humans and non-humans) and also being against hunting, since one may safely assume that hunters only hunt sentient and conscious birds (or other animals). The only contradiction would be if any “animal rights people” who oppose aborting non-human animal foetuses would be “in favour of” aborting human foetuses. Of course, you will not find too many of these.
So no, a complex issue such as this should not be reducible to “if you are against hunting, you should also be against abortion”. Pro-choice people may be as much against hunting as anti-abortion people may be in favour of hunting.
@ Moggy:
Even those who hold that non-human animals have rights (like I do) will tell you that rights, to make any sense, are only owed to “persons”. Personhood necessarily entails that the individual in question has to have a concept (no matter how primitive) of a self. This requires as a minimum a developed brain linked to a nervous system, thus disqualifying an early foetus (human or non-human) from being a person and having rights.
[Corinne Vella – Even that one circumstance overules the right to life, though only as a matter of expediency since the foetus would die anyway. If we accept that there can be mitigating circumstances, then we accept that the right to life is not paramount.
Please note that this is not a personal comment aimed at criticising your position. The point here is that that position shifts the abortion debate away from the principle of the right to life to the circumstances in which that principle may be overruled. That is the same point raised by anyone who does not share GOL’s unyielding stance.Though the reasons they give differ widely, the underlying argument is the same one.]
As I said, situations of the mother-or-baby sort are very, very rare (and becoming rarer), and one must also examine the exact circumstances. For example, if one kills a foetus when the main aim is treating the mother (as a side-effect, so to speak, of treating the mother), one is not deemed to have done anything morally or ethically wrong. For the sake of exactness, even the Church admits this.
These sort of cases, for example, present themselves when one is treating women in the case of ectopic pregnancies, when the Fallopian tube containing the embryo is removed, the embryo dying as a result. Another instance is when a pregnant woman is being treated for cancer of the cervix, which may very well result in the miscarriage the embryo/ foetus in the uterus.
To sum up, some forms of treatment may therefore mean that a baby will be miscarried or born prematurely, but as long as the baby is not directly killed (and that is not the aim of the procedure), but that the death happens as a result of the procedure, this is not considered morally wrong.
This, of course, means that although the right to life remains there, this does not necessarily always translate into life itself.
As Sybil said, bringing up these rare and serious life-or-death situations (which are not strictly speaking even considered to be direct abortions and are morally/ ethically permissible) as justification for abortion, with the myriad frivolous reasons people come up with in order to resort to the latter, is highly objectionable. The two cannot be compared.
[@ Moggy:
Even those who hold that non-human animals have rights (like I do) will tell you that rights, to make any sense, are only owed to “persons”. Personhood necessarily entails that the individual in question has to have a concept (no matter how primitive) of a self. This requires as a minimum a developed brain linked to a nervous system, thus disqualifying an early foetus (human or non-human) from being a person and having rights.]
Firstly, non-human animals are not “persons”. Whereas Germany was the first country in the EU to grant rights to animals in its Constitution, in 2002, it did not grant legal personhood.
The possession of a brain linked to a nervous system means nothing. Cows and pigs have brains connected to a nervous system and they are slaughtered every day so that we can eat. So are chickens. Human animals have a brain linked to a nervous system, and their are laws in place which prohibit the killing of any human. If one of us ignored these laws he/ she will have to pay for it some way or another (presuming he is found out). Humans do not eat each other, or rarely do, and there exists a natural abhorence to cannibalism, as there is to murder.
In other words, it is not the presence of a brain or a nervous system which human beings, all over the World, took into account when they went about thinking of laws on which their society would function. The most important factor was deemed to be the fact that an animal was “human”. Humanity gave a creature rights and its humanity saw to it that other humans would generally respect the value of its life and abhor consuming its flesh.
Once we start giving too much weight to the presence of developed brains linked to nervous systems we start treading a mine-field of problems. Children born without brains and with malfunctioning nervous systems, or children who are not aware of themselves because of neural, genetic or metabolic defects may be killed with impunity. Same goes with adults in the same position. It becomes totally permissible to kill anyone who is anaesthetised or anyone in a coma. It can be argued that even normal neonates (after all only hours away from being a foetus) do not have a mature enough nervous system to be self-aware, and may be included in the disposable list. And on and on we can go.
However we all know that the laws of most civilised countries protect the right to life, amongst others, of human beings who may not, due to the fact that they are afflicted by some condition or other, strictly qualify as “persons” in the legal sense. In other words, apart from legal personhood, the legal systems of most countries take into account the fact that an individual is “human”, and this is all-important for that individual to acquire a right to life.
@ Moggy:
Definitions change. Non-human animals can be described as persons (not people – which refers to humans). Not too long ago, black people were not considered as persons – I say this just to show you how definitions do change. However, if one is to change (or try to change) definitions, one should explain one’s definition. So here goes. To me (and for my purposes), a person is a conscious and sentient individual whose life may fare better or worse depending on circumstances and the acts of oneself or other persons.
Regarding Germany “granting rights” to non-human animals, it did no such thing. If anything, it gave certain priviledges to a few species. Property, by definition, cannot have rights (an analogy would be the case of human slaves). All non-human animals are presently legally either private or collective human property. The reason why Germany did not grant legal personhood is that if it did, it would in effect have abolished non-human animals’ property status, thus banning all use of non-human animals.
Regarding the possession of a brain linked to a nervous system meaning nothing, I am surprised that you make this claim. It is exactly the brain linked to a nervous system that makes one an individual who experiences unique experiences that are not exactly shared by anyone else.
The fact that non-human animals are killed despite having a brain and a nervous system does not prove or disprove anything.
Regarding laws that humans make, making it an offense to kill or mistreat humans, well, first of all it is humans who make human laws; secondly, laws change (institutionalised human slavery has been abolished); and thirdly, when debating morality, laws are irrelevant to the debate.
Also, rights are not granted – they are acknowledged and may be enforced through laws.
Regarding children born without brains, this is poses no moral dilemma, since children born without brains do not survive.
Regarding malfunctioning nervous systems, I never claimed that a nervous system must be perfect to be of moral concern. All that matters is that the individual is unique and is capable of having unique experiences.
Regarding comatose people (and other similar predicaments), even comatose people are not totally brain-dead, and there have been cases where comatose people, when they got out of the coma, recalled things they heard while in a coma.
In any case, it was not my intention to switch the topic to animal rights. All I wrote was that personhood necessarily entails that the individual in question has to have a concept (no matter how primitive) of a self, which requires as a minimum a developed brain linked to a nervous system. Any”one” without a brain connected to a nervous system (implying an individual with unique conscious experiences) would be a thing.
As an American living in North Carolina, USA, I have to tell you that your pro-choice positions are in error. Once you grant the right to abort — whether it be through a controversial court case like we had here, Roe vs. Wade, in which the pro-abortionists won despite the fact that Jane Roe is pro-life now or through parliamentary legislation — there is no turning back. We have just elected a president who is sure to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which will supercede any state laws banning late term abortion. You MUST NOT allow your government to offer freedom to abort. As time goes on, it will only lead to further and further problems. I’ll give you one example. Here in the U.S. we now have teenagers giving birth in school toilets and trying to flush their babies down. We find babies in dumpsters. Before you say this could be avoided with early term abortion, let me remind you that our teens have total access to abortion throughout pregnancy. What we are now seeing is a callous disregard for human life. That is the end result of allowing abortion. Make no mistake about it. All your discussions here are interesting and valid points have been made on all sides. But until you have lived as a pro-life woman in a country where abortion is perfectly legal, you have no idea what gruesome really is. Look up partial birth abortion. The ban on it will almost surely be lifted. Our newly elected president has been quoted as saying he was against this procedure’s ban. I am horrified. And to tell you the truth, we are considering moving our family to Malta.
[Daphne – Here we stick to abusing children after birth; we find it more convenient that way.]
Daphne, Malta really doesn’t need another rabid pro-lifer especially one coming from the USA where they kill doctors and nurses who work in specialised clinics. I am a London-trained SRN who worked on a gyny ward in 1968, one year after the abortion act was passed. Young girls from all over Europe flew into London for abortions and the wards were full of them. I’m not going to get into many details here but it was quite traumatic. Just after the gyny ward I was sent to the children’s ward. And there I saw some more horrors – babies with cigarette burns or with the mark of a hot iron. That was really and truly awful. Then I thought that perhaps if they had been aborted it would have been better, but even now after 40 years I’m still not sure.
What I do know and what is not talked about very often on your blog is to me the most important thing: contraception. I am not sure about contraception in Malta. Is it easily available? Are condoms easily available for young men? (Forget the ‘you must wait till you’re married’ lark) Is it easy to obtain the pill?
p.s Thanks to you I now know why my Geneva-Malta direct flight stops in Catania…
[Daphne – Contraception is widely and easily available. Condoms are sold everywhere, by dispensing machine in bar lavatories and even in supermarkets. You need a prescription for the pill, of course, but it’s sold at every pharmacy (the importers and distributors make sure of that; a good example of how religious control is broken by the profit motive, which is often the only thing strong enough to beat it). All you do to get a prescription is go to a doctor. And now they’re promoting contraceptive hormonal implants for women over 40, for whom the pill is too risky. But no matter the amount of contraception, women and girls are still going to get pregnant, because accidents happen and the only way to avoid those accidents is to take the pill religiously at the same time every day. Though there are no restrictions on the pill, there is a widespread mental block about it among women here. The months and years of horror stories have made them fearful of it, and the fear runs deep.]
I think it’s strange that Fanny, without knowing anything about me whatsoever, considers me a “rabid pro-lifer.” That’s the sort of inflammatory talk that keeps everyone polarized. In reality, I’m a moderate mom who wants to help fix this problem. I am writing a book with a dear friend from childhood who is a pro-choice atheist. We intend to find solutions that both sides can come to terms with so that fewer babies will die. I don’t consider that rabid. And I think it’s sad that rather than sit down and discuss the possibility of instituting broad education initiatives and freely distributing contraceptives among young people, Fanny prefers to mouth off about people she doesn’t know.
For those who are irresponsible with their sexuality and get pregnant, and especially for those who have been raped, we need to offer support — financial, physical, mental, and emotional. We need to stop arguing and start assisting. I’ve taken someone to get an abortion. I listened to the rhetoric at the clinic. They were using soft marketing, speaking in terminology that lessens the blow. If you have to create a marketing plan and an environment in which women will be convinced what they’re doing is not morally wrong, maybe something IS morally wrong. When one has to lie about developmental stages and when, as has been shown on youtube videos, young women are encouraged to lie about their ages so they don’t have to report a rape but can dispose of the evidence instead, there’s a problem. When a fetus is called a blob of tissue instead of a developing child, there is a problem. We’re being duped.
Interesting that Fanny called abortion clinics in the US “specialised clinics.” Sounds to me like she’s fallen for the rhetoric, too. It is, of course, wrong to murder abortionists. And a few HAVE been murdered. Because I am pro-life, I am appalled at ANY loss of life. From turtles and polar bears to butterflies and babies. The abortionist who is murdered has no chance of changing his mind. My friend and I cannot reach him with our book or our quiet mentoring because he’s been killed by a murderer. Silenced forever like the many babies he’s aborted. That’s so sad!
I sure hope that if we do move to Malta the folks there will welcome us with an open mind and come to know us as people — not call us names. We’re just a family trying to live life as best we know how. We’re kind of artsy and kooky and creative and different. But I don’t think we’re rabid. : )