Maltese men sing about the horrors of abortion
Published:
March 20, 2009 at 6:55pm
Din wahda ghall-Ewrovixin. Gift of Life commissioned this band to compose and sing a song against abortion. I wish somebody would answer this question: why is the abortion ‘debate’ in Malta dominated by men, and why do the men at Gift of Life think it’s perfectly all right to commission a band of men to sing about whether women should abort or not? Meanwhile, the woman features in a speechless, voiceless cameo, hand on bulge with downcast eyes and a meek demeanour. Oh, please.
183 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Another little pointer to the fact that Catholic fundamentalism is alive and well (and gaining momentum)…
Check out the Pope’s latest pearls of divine wisdom on condoms…….it’s on all media.
Also, check this out:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090320/opinion/anything-but-divorce
Well argued, methinks.
I’m in favour of abortion in cases of rape and if the baby has some form of acute deformity and when the health of the mother is at risk (something like in Brazil/Portugal/Spain)……but totally against abortion in cases where the mother puts her career/free time first/
[Daphne – I can’t agree with you. If the wrongness of abortion is derived from the fact that it is killing, then you can’t justify it on the grounds that the foetus is deformed. Otherwise, by the same token you can get rid of handicapped children and adults. If it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to kill, full stop. If, however, aborting a foetus does not constitute murder, then you can abort any foetus, whether handicapped or not, whether the mother was raped or not.]
It mejd mi kraj.
Mhux kompletament EV: apparti l-kliem u l-immagini tal-mara, il-muzika mhux differenti hafna minn dik fuq MTV.
From a psychoanalytic point of view: did you notice the close-up insertion of the audio jacks at the beginning? That’s what presumably caused the pregnancy in the first place.
Thanks for the exposure!
http://www.youtube.com/user/art17ist
Yes, that’s right. Girls having sex at “Christian rock concerts”. If they’re banking on snazzy riffs to convince the masses, then their argument must be very lame indeed. Or it wouldn’t need any of this 21st-century “cool packaging”.
daphne what do you think about this video.. its not related to abortion though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNUqLztI4mQ
[Daphne – Thanks for the link; I enjoyed watching that. Two cultures that simply cannot understand each other, and which regard each other with mutual suspicion. I found it particularly striking that the way Gaddafi spoke about Muslims v. Christians in Europe is so similar to the way many European leaders speak about Christians v. Muslims in Europe: the exact same view from the other side of the fence. He’s not very well informed about Albania, Bosnia and the EU, is he, though?]
Daphne you’re so biased and so pitted against the Catholic Church that it is almost useless to try to reason with all your irreverent attitudes. No wonder only thistles surge on your lawns. You started it when you didn’t want your children to attend id-duttrina which you blasted it to smithereens. The results are there for all to see.
[Daphne – I have no lawns. Your support for the Catholic Church is pointless in the eyes of your god in view of your hatred for one half of humanity. As for my sons, yes, the results are there for all to see: one was among 40 selected from among many hundreds of applicants the world over for an Erasmus Mundus post-graduate programme, another will be a postgraduate student at the London School of Economics at the age of 20, and another will be reading for a second post-graduate degree. And they are all very good conversationalists and have perfect manners, to say nothing of the fact that they are good-looking too. They are probably cringing at this, but I couldn’t resist rubbing your face in it. Troglodytes like you pale into insignificance. You are an unsocialised, inept, uneducated and inarticulate nobody, and the only reason you hate and fear blacks is because, finally, you think there’s somebody about who is inferior to you. And of course, you’re wrong. You should try looking under stones instead. You might find something there.]
Re the Gaddafi video: I note “strategic” editing and suspect not quite “precise” subtitling. Whoever posted this video seems to have a specific agenda. May I suggest that this agenda could be that playing on fears and prejudices in order to increase the cultural divide you talk about. Granted, Mr Gaddafi provides great “material”.
[Daphne – The subtitles seemed to be quite accurate to me, at least using knowledge of Maltese. Obviously, because the inflexion is so very different, it isn’t possible to pick everything up. Maybe there’s an Arabic-speaker on this blog, who can help out.]
I think, as you know, we have to make a clear distinction between Christian and western secularists and the people and their leaders.
Contrary to the general perception, it would be much easier for a Christian to bond with a Muslim than a western secularist with a Muslim. Maltese Christians would find it even easier than continental Christians. The same goes for Christian, Muslim and secular leaders. However in fact the opposite happens.
Western secularists (people and their leaders) are maybe more open towards Muslims. The irony is that Muslims feel more comfortable with Christians and their way of thinking than they do with secularists.
The snatches of French translation that can be heard correspond to the English subtitles.
As for the video itself: what are the odds that it *won’t* be used as ammunition by the ‘they’re coming to get us’ hysterics?
Ghaddafi doesn’t believe in frontiers. I think I read it in his Green Book. What was said was said by him: what he couldn’t do with bombings he’s doing with this silent invasion. I can never compare this dictator with an elected European leader. As far as I know the latter bend over backwards (if you want call it diplomacy) to get some drop from his huge surplus of cash. I recall the ungentlemanly manner in which he treated Condoleeza Rice when she visited Libya, and the butt-licking he got from Blair, Sarkozy, Berlusconi and Frattini. Oh I nearly forgot Fenech Adami, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and last but not least Joseph Muscat. He who pays the piper calls the tune, and he’s got a lot of cash. Anyone who drills for oil for Malta can consider himself an enemy of the Libyan Jamaharija. In the meantime the silent invasion continues.
[Daphne – Silent invasion of what and by whom? I don’t think you realise that very many people feel more threatened by Christian/Catholic fundamentalism than they do by Islamic fundamentalism – for the simple reason that Christian fundamentalism meets with acceptance in Malta.]
Well done for giving support to these guys. That is why we always move forward in this country. Because the people doing really bad things are criticising the good ones to cover their ass. From my side, well done, guys.
[Daphne – ?????]
If I’m not mistaken the band-members belong to the happy-clappy, talk-in-tongues brigade.
Daphne, how many women did you see in that crowd? Islamic culture and religion are very much integrated. Problems arise when the proponents of one culture set out to impose it on the others – a bit like what the US has tried to do in Iraq to some extent but is being more actively sought by the Islamic world. This clip is an example. [Daphne – There were no women. In fact, the scene reminded me of the many conferences, congresses, business breakfasts, seminars and so on, at which I have been either the only woman present, or the other woman in a sea of men. I was once at a conference of 200 people at which all the speakers and attendees were men in grey suits. I fled after half an hour.]
Of course I’ll treat with suspicion someone who I know will wipe away my freedom of thought and expression and who will try to ram his beliefs down my throat. Some people who post on The Times website would feel at home with Sharia law, but does anyone in his senses want this? Yes, I do feel threatened by Christian/Catholic fundamentalism in Malta. But I can stick my middle finger at its proponents. With Islamic fundamentalism, I’d be lucky to keep my hand.
Gaddafi’s a megalomaniac who has always craved international attention. When he went down the violent route he was ostracised, politically and economically. Then he realised there was another way, brought the Lockerbie mess to a close, made friends with the EU and the US and this year got himself elected chairman of the African Union. I won’t be surprised if he has his eyes set on the post of United Nations Secretary-General.
The western world has a lot to answer for, from making huge amounts of money from the sale of armaments to not doing enough to help those in need. But let’s keep things in perspective.
Gift of Life are highly manipulative. Their capo may be soft-spoken, friendly and all smiles, but that’s his exoskeleton. This male jihadist movement takes its crusade seriously. They’re now proceeding to move from their more recent covert action to their new overt battle.
[Daphne – I have a question for them: what would their stance be if a nine-year-old girl were to become pregnant with twins, as happened in Brazil? Would they insist that the pregnancy proceeds and kills the child-mother?]
@Corinne, my guess is that it will be used as ammunition by that crowd. However, for a proper discussion to take place, everything should be ‘on the table’ – whether somebody is pro- or anti-immigration. I am not naive and I think this could be dangerous.
However, those who are not afraid of immigration (me included) should not shy away from the fact that there are some crazy people in Africa, just as there are in Europe.
[Daphne – The crazy Europeans have freedom of movement here. And the crazy Maltese are brushing up against you every day.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnJKd8N1hZs
[Daphne – Have you heard the one about the Catholics who said that a nine-year-old child pregnant with twins should be left to carry the babies to term and die in the process, rather than have an abortion? The difference between Islam and Catholic fundamentalism is that Catholic fundamentalists tend to live in countries where the secular state protects against excesses of this nature. But Catholic fundamentalism was the law before the very long and painful process that resulted in the separation of church and state, and ‘enlightenment’. It is not that Catholicism is more enlightened, but that Catholicism was reined in and is still being controlled by secularism, while Islam is not. Tunisia, where Islam has been controlled by a sort of European-style secularism for decades, is an exception. It’s still a long way away from life in Denmark, but it’s not a million miles – figuratively as well as literally – from life in Malta, at least in the city.]
BG: That isn’t a guess. Look at John Schembri’s comment.
From recent events one can gather that the Catholic Church is gaining ground with religious fanaticism and the state is more than happy to accommodate this fanaticism. Sadly we have not learned anything over the years. Minorities, whether in favour of abortion or anything else, still should be given a right to choose.
Yet the Maltese state assumes that we are all Catholic. [Daphne – Even if we were all Catholic, this does not mean that we should have a theocratic state.] I cannot understand where the Catholic Church’s ethics lie today. Is educating people about sex incorrect? Is the Catholic Church scared of free-thinkers? History has thought us that fomenting ignorance is a strategy to avoid having opposition. Perhaps that is why Pope Benedict went to Africa. It is the last continent he can hope to convert.
Yes, Maltese women should have the right to choose, but too many hide behind society’s judgement.
@ Daphne: What would their stance be if a nine-year-old girl were to become pregnant with twins, as happened in Brazil? Would they insist that the pregnancy proceeds and kills the child-mother?
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090318/fr-joe-borg/hug-her-instead-of-excommunicating-her
[Daphne – That article doesn’t give an answer. It is a failed attempt at sophistry: unable to say that the child’s pregnancy should have been aborted, and unable to say that the pregnancy should have been carried to term, killing her. I must add this: it takes a man who has never lived with a woman who has given birth to see a pregnancy purely in terms of a biological process. Every woman who has ever had a child will baulk in horror at the thought of the body – to say nothing of the mind – of a nine-year-old child being made to go through that, still more with twins. Look at a nine-year-old girl. Look at her body, for God’s sake. Look at her mind, still thinking of dolls and butterflies. I feel nothing but revulsion for priests who would make a small child go through that. Vile – there’s no other word for it. An abortion is evil – but forcing a SMALL CHILD to give birth to twins is what – not evil?]
Daphne, my friend Christina has done extensive research into the side of abortion many don’t see — the many women who have died from abortion since it was legalized in the U.S. in 1973, the stories that have been hidden because the media supports abortion rights in our country. This is not a Catholic fundamentalist issue at all. It’s a human rights issue. Just because Gift of Life is a Christian organisation does not necessarily mean they are biased or wrong when it comes to abortion. Just because your government is primarily run according to Catholic doctrine and beliefs does not mean they are wrong when it comes to legalising abortion either. I do wonder about their refusal to allow divorce, but when it comes to abortion, I am very proud of Malta. Here is Christina’s blog:
http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2009/03/9-year-old-brazilian-rape-victim.html
[Daphne – More idiotic arguments, I’m afraid. Far more women have died in childbirth than have died through abortion. My grandmother’s sister was one of them. That’s no argument to outlaw birth, and it’s no argument to outlaw abortion. It’s a particularly useless argument when used against abortion to save the life of the mother. By citing the risk of death of the mother as a reason to ban abortion, you are putting it on the same level as a dangerous sport – and even those are not banned.]
@ Daphne: I’ve been to several Muslim countries. All I can say is that I agree with what Leonard wrote. Gift of Life annoy us; if you hadn’t brought it to our attention we wouldn’t have known they had this song. I’ve never heard it on the radio.
If you prefer Islam you should think about emptying your cocktail cabinet, surrendering your car-keys, wearing ankle-length skirts, stopping your career, wearing a scarf and not voting. [Daphne – You’re talking bollocks, John. Those are not rules of Islam. Tunis is jam-packed with girls and women in strappy tops and tight trousers, fresh from the hairdresser’s and no scarf on top. Millions of Muslim women wear contemporary fashion, don’t wear a scarf and go out to work. There’s one in Sarkozy’s cabinet, and she’s just had a baby outside wedlock, to use an old-fashioned phrase. My Muslim girlfriends wear the same kind of clothes I do, don’t wear a scarf, and have careers. The scarf-wearing, wrapped-up, bossed-about women you see are the equivalent of our ‘rahlin’.]
You wouldn’t stay for a day in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia. In the Maghreb countries they are not that hard.
When one visits a country as a tourist one is only shown the ‘fun’ part of the country. Visiting a country as a worker is totally different; it’s nearer to everyday life. [Daphne – Yes, the immigrant labourers to whom I sometimes give lifts up and down the hill tell what life is like in Malta as an immigrant labourer. And they’re not all African, either.]
Abortion is obviously and patently wrong and I’m against it in all cases. However, I’d probably stop short of a constitutional amendment (on the same grounds that murder is not a constitutional issue).
As far as I know, abortion is extremely rare in Malta (unlike racism). How about a concert to raise awareness of the appalling conditions immigrants are forced to endure here?
Megan, your friend is biased in favour of her lovely quotes from the Bible. Of course she understands that it is fishy, but she didn’t see anything fishy about the incest that goes on in the Bible – hence she doesn’t find a nine-year-old giving birth to twins fishy either. She thought the fishy thing was the doctor who aborted the foetuses and then made up some conspiracy theory about abortion enthusiasts. She’s pretty sarcastic: ‘the real choice’.?Maybe she should rename her blog ‘Free will – and how we want to take it from you’.
I’ve seen this kind of JesusBlog pop up on the internet, you know – and hilariously enough, I knew some of the people working on them and they’re the biggest hypocrites, losers & big-talkers I know.
Christina Dunigan is an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise. Her blog gives you the Catholic Church’s opinion and not her opinion. She has no opinion.
The only touch of originality she has are the Dangerous DIY abortions posts – they would usually occur when the Pope’s busy writing the country’s laws. I wonder what her next post will be called: How to help a nine-year-old give birth – take her from her bad mother and pray really, really hard.
Daphne, you said: “More idiotic arguments, I’m afraid. Far more women have died in childbirth than have died through abortion. My grandmother’s sister was one of them. That’s no argument to outlaw birth, and it’s no argument to outlaw abortion. It’s a particularly useless argument when used against abortion to save the life of the mother. By citing the risk of death of the mother as a reason to ban abortion, you are putting it on the same level as a dangerous sport – and even those are not banned.”
I did not cite the risk of death of the mother as a reason to ban abortion, although I do believe it should be banned. [Daphne – That’s exactly what you did, actually: “My friend Christina has done extensive research into the side of abortion many don’t see — the many women who have died from abortion since it was legalized in the U.S. in 1973, the stories that have been hidden because the media supports abortion rights in our country.” You might have mentioned that just for entertainment’s sake, but it looks like an argument against abortion to me.]
Christina did not say that either. [Daphne – Oh no? Read it again.] Did you read the article on her blog? It was about the illiterate mother of the nine-year-old girl. She did not know she was giving permission for abortion. [Daphne – If you are trying to insinuate that had she known she was giving permission for an abortion then she wouldn’t have done it, you are outright nuts. No mother of a nine-year-old child that I know would ever allow her daughter to endure that, and the God-botherers and their rules be damned. On the other hand, a woman who allows her small daughter to be raped for years by her ‘husband’ should not have her views on the safety of her child taken into consideration as she cannot be trusted. Would you allow your small child to endure the birth of twins? Go on, answer that. If you answer ‘yes’, then you should know that your child can be taken away from you, and given protection by the state, with the decision as to whether the abortion should be performed taken out of your dangerous hands and taken by a judge instead. Do you remember the case of the Maltese conjoined twins in Britain? Those Catholic parents, egged on by the Gozo bishop and some priests, wanted them both to die. Thanks to a British judge and some appalled doctors, they now have a perfectly healthy daughter.]
The girl’s dad was told she would die without aborting the twins, but the hospital stated that that was not true. [Daphne – You are bats, like all religious fundamentalists. Do you know what a nine-year-old girl is shaped like? What her size is? Don’t you know that even if it were physically possible for a nine-year-old to carry even one baby, let alone two, there are other factors to consider, like the girl’s mental health?]
Whether or not you personally believe she should have aborted the twins is not at issue here. [Daphne – It has nothing to do with ‘personal belief’. It has everything to do with basic commonsense, humanity and decency, and the fact that I was a parent to nine-year-olds once and I suspect that you haven’t been – even though, like me, you were once a nine-year-old girl yourself, if you are not one of those men from Gift of Life in false clothes.] Her parents were lied to in order to get the procedure done. [Daphne – Her parents did not have to be lied to to get the procedure done. I’m quite sure that Brazil’s legal system allows for children to be made wards of court or wards of the state when their parents’ decisions pose a risk to their life.]
They have now been excommunicated from the Catholic Church for an abortion they did not even want their daughter to have. [Daphne – Keep up to date. The excommunication has not been applied. Too many big cheeses at the Vatican opposed it. What you should be asking here is why the mother allowed her small daughter to be raped for all this time. Perhaps she thought she could keep her 23-year-old ‘husband’ by feeding him her six-year-old child? She should have been excommunicated for that.] That’s coercion on the part of pro-choice hospital staff and it’s not being reported. Rather, they are reporting the abortion as a victory for choice. It’s sickening. [Daphne – No, sweetheart, you’re sickening.]
But about the above statement you made… These women on Christina’s blog died due to malpractice on the part of their abortion providers. Women who die in childbirth (there aren’t many in our country) do not ordinarily die due to negligence on the part of their physicians but perhaps due to complications of diabetes or aneurism. [Daphne – I don’t get your point.]
Christina is not memorialising these women in order to change abortion laws or using the risk of death as a reason for banning abortion in the U.S. She is questioning why our government refuses to enact legislation that would regulate clinics. Their defiance in this area is causing women to die. [Daphne – “To regulate clinics”…to shut them down, you mean.] That’s a big deal to me. If abortion is not dangerous and clinics don’t need to be regulated and they don’t have to be performed by licensed physicians, they should be offered at grocery stores and malls like manicures are. The fact is they are medical procedures and standing their ground against regulating a medical facility is what’s idiotic. There are many pro-life men and women all over the world with advanced degrees [Daphne – Gosh, advanced degrees, eh? I’m impressed.] who view these sorts of things intellectually rather than emotionally, and we are seeing scandal after scandal take place without a peep from the media. This should not be happening. Commonsense legislation would have kept those women alive. Requiring facilities to be licensed and actually following up to see that they are is a relatively simple process that is not taking place. Do a google search on abortion clinics in Hialeah, Florida if you really want to upset your stomach:
Williams’ lawsuit against Gonzalez and Renelique, who last month had his medical license revoked, also names 11 other defendants.
“…The Hialeah case wasn’t the first time Gonzalez was accused of illegally practicing medical care.
Broward County court records show she pleaded no contest in 2007 to a single felony charge of practicing healthcare without a license.
Her charge stemmed from employing unlicensed personnel to perform abortions at a Miramar clinic she helped run from 2002 to 2004. She was sentenced to five years probation…”
[Daphne – If people are being prosecuted and have their clinic licences revoked, then this means that abortion clinics are regulated. No amount of regulation can stop people breaking the law.] In one recent case, the woman gave birth to a live baby and begged for them to call an ambulance to take him to the hospital. They refused. Her friend called for one on a cell phone and they turned it away. At one clinic, they threw the baby in a bag and tossed the bag onto the roof so the mom couldn’t save it. [Daphne -Don’t be ridiculous.] Once you open the door to abortion in your country, you will see this type of thing. I don’t recommend it. You are entitled to your opinion on the matter, but remember that you live in a country where abortion at all stages of gestation is not permitted. I don’t. It’s quite a horrible thing and in my opinion, anti-woman, anti-feminist. Why are our governments not offering aid to young women in crisis so they can KEEP their babies??? [Daphne – The Maltese government does, which is why around 30% of births are now outside marriage. But still there are going to be cases where abortion is the better option, and that is why so many Maltese women have abortions in other countries. And here’s the thing: it’s not your business.]
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbabort0306sbmar06,0,7764558.story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spaSfx_FhCs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nudr7ykDNbw&feature=related
P.S. I thought that band was pretty good! Why are you against Gift of Life? What have they done that you don’t like?
[Daphne – They are trying to impose their value system on everyone else, using the Constitution to do it. Other than that, there is something distinctly creepy about middle-aged men who are obsessed with women’s reproductive system.]
Dal video ghal MTV?
@ Corinne & BG : We have been reading about and experiencing this megalomaniac for the last 40 years. Bombings, hijackings, supporting the IRA, holding us at gunpoint, and now he’s unable to control his territory. As we say: “Jitfa’ l-gebla u jahbi idu”.
His plan is working. He’s doing “what swords and wars ” were not able to achieve. I hasten to add that I suspect that he’s eying our territorial waters. If we say we cannot save any more boat people, he will suggest that we surrender part of our territorial waters.
I’d rather accept in Malta planeloads of whole families of people who are in distress like Germany did recently with the Kurdish families than have an uncontrolled influx of young men who are being used as pawns and kept in inhuman conditions. Why don’t MSF set up some stations in the Libyan camps?
I’m not saying that we should not to help those who are here, but I would like the root cause of this problem to be tackled.
The question is, who’s going to bell the cat?
@ Daphne
I wrote that the Maghreb countries are the exception. But I also know how Iran changed from the Tunisian style to the Saudi Arabian style. I don’t give a hoot if this is not Islam, but it only takes an ayatollah (or a political leader ) to change your lifestyle. It has been experienced already. That is why the video worries me. [Daphne – We live in a similar situation, John. No divorce, women flying to London and Rome for abortions, no education on sexual health, fights against condoms, priests who prey on children protected by their superiors, parents flocking to send their young children to the Catholic equivalent of a madrassa, the rise and rise of the prayer group….need I run on?]
Once when I was an assistant electoral commissioner, a couple came in to vote in our room. We gave the voting document to the woman and her Arab husband who was not an eligible voter told us in no uncertain terms that he was going to tell his wife how to vote because she was his wife. He ordered her to go out of the room with him (with the voting document) and started talking down at her in the school corridor. We asked for police assistance and after some 20 minutes and some gentle persuasion by the police the woman was left to vote by herself. [Daphne – Do you think there are no Maltese husbands who do this? The difference is that they know the law, so they make their bullying scenes in the privacy of their home. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard Maltese women say: “My husband doesn’t let me work.” I’ve even heard men say: “Jien il-mara ma nhallihiex tahdem barra mid-dar.”]
Megan:
The question you need to ask yourself is who has an ulterior motive? Would all those doctors, working in public hospitals, with no real difference to their lives whether abortion was allowed or not, have fought for the right to abortion, if it wasn’t for humanitarian reasons?
The mother’s view doesn’t interest me in the slightest. If she is prepared to not only let her boyfriend rape both her daughters for numerous years and then put her religious faith above the welfare of her child in terms of importance, I find no reason to even include her in the equation. To claim that the child was safe at the time of the abortion is completely irrelevant. Do you really think this child would not have been severely damaged, probably for life, after carrying twins to full term in her fragile body? You choose to damage a child’s life, rather than stopping the development of two foetuses, with no emotions, no ties, no sentience, no apparent intelligence and with very low viability.
Oh, and..
“Whether or not you personally believe she should have aborted the twins is not at issue here.”
This is the one good point you made. I agree 100%. What you are forgetting is that the reverse is equally true. What you, Christina, some cardinals or the pope’s balls think is completely irrelevant. Here we have medical experts and morally sound legislation making an informed and healthy choice, protecting the life of a nine-year old girl. Thank goodness for that.
Of course abortion IS practiced in the Maltese state hospital (illegally), and has been for decades – for example, in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Probably, nuts like Paul Vincenti don’t know about this, and neither does Steven Calascione. They are at liberty to instigate criminal proceedings against the entire medical team and the mother in such cases. You never know, such a test case might induce the other nuts in parliament to change the law and legalise abortion, though I doubt it.
Megan – I find your attitude pretty disturbing. If your daughter (or one of your daughters), was in the shoes of the Brazilian girl, how would you feel about it? One of my daughters is almost nine years old, making the attitude of people like yourself – not to mention to sorry situation itself – even more shocking to me.
Gift of Life are fighting their crusade the Lilliputian way. By focusing on the Maltese Constitution they’re missing the wood for the trees. With the Lisbon Treaty (waiting for the Irish to say Yes in the second referendum, expected later this year) the fundamental rights of European citizens would fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This is because the Charter of fundamental rights replacing the European Convention on Human Rights (falling under the Strasbourg non-EU court), forms part of the Lisbon Treaty. This means that the ECJ would not only have jurisdiction over treaty interpretation and European Community law (mainly cross-border services within the internal market) but also over anything related to our rights. Irish guarantees or not, when eventually the ECJ is asked to rule in a case related to abortion, it could decide that abortion is a universal right for all European citizens. Remember, both the Lisbon Treaty and the ECJ have supremacy over national constitutions.
I would love to see Gift of Life tackle the ECJ and the Union then, but it would be too late, for they would have wasted their time over a defunct national constitution. The Mullahs at Gift of Life may have plenty of gladiatorial gall, but they’re dealing with the wrong lion in the wrong arena.
There is a twist of irony to all this, and it’s related to their covert manipulations leading towards the European elections… but let us first see how their current action unfolds.
[Daphne – So who are they backing in the EP elections?]
@ John:
Not to mention all those Maltese women using an intra-uterine coil – all murderers, according to Paul Vincenti. Great song, though.
[Daphne – So who are they backing in the EP elections?]
Who are they blackmailing, you mean?
[Daphne – So are you going to tell us, or not, so that we can vote for them?]
John,
Just because I think abortion is wrong does not, by any stretch of the imagination give me (or anyone) the right to pass judgment on the mother or medical team. Your ectopic pregnancy point is so way off topic that I won’t bother to respond.
As I said, it is still in the covert stage. I would wait until they go public. This little saga has been brewing for a couple of months now… and yet, the Ayatollah is unaware that as he stands, lighter in hand, the kerosene leaking from the can in his other hand is streaming down his sleeve.
Steven,
“Abortion is obviously and patently wrong and I’m against it in all cases”
The gynaecology department of Malta’s state hospital, as well as hundreds of millions of other people, do not think that abortion is obviously and patently wrong in all cases. Your statement, therefore, is nonsense. Something that is obvious will be so to the majority of clear-thinking people – which in this case it obviously is not. I tried to point this out to you with a local example. It surprises me that you cannot see the point.
Good song! Prosit guys
Back to the original question: why commission a group of men to perform a song about a subject that’s so close to women? Besides, if I wanted to strike at people’s conscience I wouldn’t have gone the upbeat, happy-ending route; more of a slow bluesy number with some lady singing, “Woke up this morning, (da-da-da-da), and my baby was gone …”.
To avoid misinterpretations: the “blackmail” I mentioned does not relate to anything personal. The issue looks more like a Soviet purge of dissidents, forcing them to publicly retract their opinion and declare their affiliation to the dogma, or else…
Not only ectopics, how about D and C’s? And what about backstreet abortions in Malta? I would be very surprised if some of those didn’t end up in hospital heavily disguised as something else. I can’t imagine that all those wanting/needing to terminate their pregnancies have the money to go abroad. As French women so rightly said in the 1970s, ‘Un enfant si je veut et quand je veux’. By the way has ‘Megan’ got ‘due bene pendente’?
[Daphne – I was wondering that myself. Perhaps her real name is Paul.]
I have to ask GoL, keeping in mind the case of the young Brazilian girl, and considering that according to them the act would have been a violation of the constitution as they want it amended; what prison sentence would they suggest that she be given?
I need an answer.
kev
“With the Lisbon Treaty . . . . the fundamental rights of European citizens would fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.”
Nonsense. The Lisbon Treaty is only referring to something that has existed for the past 40 years: EU law having primacy over national legislation. Is Sharon going to revive that old NO2EU chestnut about Malta being forced by the EU baddies to legalise abortion ?
Does everything have to be a conspiracy, kev?
Xandru,
I understand there are mitigating circumstances in all cases but it’s never right. This is my point, plain and simple.
Here’s the latest from the Crusading Order of the Gist of Strife (COGoS). The Mullahs will this week launch their election campaign in the form of a Fatwa. They are very excited, having for months worked covertly on this latest operation.
It all started last year when COGoS spies reported a dissenting comment by a prospective entrant to the People’s Supreme Council. His Holiness the Ayatollah was furious. The comment was discovered on a TraceBook account belonging to a subversive cell calling for a stop to the glory of religious fundamentalism. His Holiness felt that the district emissaries should be alerted before they approved the entrants, so he wrote a missive to the political faction concerned: Inform your district emissaries on what lurks within their midst, or I will!
The merciful Ayatollah was ready to compromise, of course. He would keep silent provided the dissent is retracted in writing by the malefactor with a declaration of adherence to the Order’s Dogma.
Time elapsed and His Holiness was ignored. What impudence! He wrote missives to the malefactor, giving every opportunity of redemption, but to no avail. By now the district emissaries were out of the picture and all the entrants were approved by executive decree. So His Holiness personally dictaphoned the malefactor demanding that the written declaration be submitted forthwith. Again, He was ignored, as were His subsequent missives. What insolence!
Eventually, after reporting this behaviour to the faction’s principal, a reply was received, but it failed to fulfil the criteria. This will not do! What impertinence! This time he would take drastic action!
He therefore insisted that the faction expel the entrant, or suffer the same consequences. Given that these merciful gestures were dismissed, His Holiness has no option but to fulfil his promise: a Fatwa will be declared! Non-repentants must suffer the fury of the “thousands of followers” of the Crusading Order of the Gist of Strife.
Long live the jihad!
Let the witch-hunt proceed!
Antoine, don’t be ridiculous. Do not show us how little you know and when you quote, quote sufficiently.
@me
I am not a member of Gift of Life, but I support the initiative for the Constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not specify penalties. If the amendment is included it would simply state that the individual has the right to life from conception. The question of imprisonment for the commission of abortion is another matter; there are already laws about that.
Manuel: When does conception take place?
@Manuel
Apart from the fact that as you stated the act (crime?) is already catered for in the criminal code and so any amendment to the constitution is superfluous, that is not the answer I requested. I repeat:
What prison sentence would you suggest that she (or any other girl/woman for that matter) be given?
kev
You are repeating the exaggerations of the eurocriticals (ex-eurosceptics). It is not true that the Lisbon Treaty changes anything in this area: whenever national and EU laws clash, it is the latter which take precedence. The Treaty mentions this in passing because it has long been accepted by member states and there was no need to emphasise it as you do. The fundamental rights of European citizens already fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice
Come to terms with reality, kev: you are now militating in a party which wants the Lisbon Treaty to be adopted and favours strong ties between EU countries.
Read my comment again, Antoine and focus on the Charter. Before Lisbon, today, we have the three pillars, one of which is the Community pillar (the federal level). With Lisbon, the pillars are removed and the term ‘Community’ becomes ‘Union’. Lisbon not only increases the areas falling under ‘Community’ competence, hence ‘Union’ competence, but also increases the occasions where QMV is applied in decision-making in the Council as opposed to unanimity. That’s one point you seem to have missed.
Another more important point is this (and I will cut and paste from my own comment): “[…]. This is because the Charter of fundamental rights replacing the European Convention on Human Rights (falling under the Strasbourg non-EU court), forms part of the Lisbon Treaty. This means that the ECJ would not only have jurisdiction over treaty interpretation and European Community law (mainly cross-border services within the internal market) but also over anything related to our rights.”
And that could mean anything. If you still don’t understand this, then what can I say? But stop being a nuisance with scribblings like: “Is Sharon going to revive that old NO2EU chestnut about Malta being forced by the EU baddies to legalise abortion?” This is not true at all – the abortion issue was never on the No2EU agenda.
@ Corinne: there is some controversy about when exactly it takes place. The amendment may be included irrespective of whether these controversies are resolved or not.
@ me: it is inconceivable that imprisonment should be contemplated in a situation like the Brazilian girl’s. Under Maltese law (as I understand it) nobody under 12 can be arraigned in court and charged with any sort of crime. There should be a range of penalties moving from the nominal to more concrete penalties, while magistrates should have the discretion to apply punishment after taking into account all circumstances. I believe that this is the present position.
[John – Of course abortion IS practiced in the Maltese state hospital (illegally), and has been for decades – for example, in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Probably, nuts like Paul Vincenti don’t know about this, and neither does Steven Calascione. They are at liberty to instigate criminal proceedings against the entire medical team and the mother in such cases. You never know, such a test case might induce the other nuts in parliament to change the law and legalise abortion, though I doubt it.]
Of course you are totally, but totally, wrong although you don’t have the insight to know it. Removing a Fallopian tube which is expanding, and about to burst, because an ectopic pregnancy is growing within it is NOT abortion, and not considered as such – not even by the church, which deems such action to be morally and ethically correct, as do medical ethicists. [Daphne – Moggy, I must point out that John has a very strong medical background, and doesn’t need to have these matters explained to him. I think I should upload the comment in any case for the benefit of others.]
The removal of a Fallopian tube in such a case constitutes a necessary treatment, where the aim is to save the mother’s life, and where the death of the embryo, is a side-effect of such action. [Daphne – The same could be said of the abortion on the Brazilian child, then.] The aim is not, as it is in abortion, to kill the embryo, but to save the mother by removing the offending tube. The embryo has no way of surviving in a Fallopian tube. [Daphne – And twin embryos have no way of surviving in the body of a child.]
A similar case would be when the mother is found to have cancer of the cervix. Treatment, by removing all or part of the cervix, will result in the miscarriage of the foetus or embryo, but again, the primary aim is treatment of the mother’s condition and not the killing of the embryo or foetus for any other reason. Such action is again held, even by the Roman Catholic Church, to be morally and ethically correct. [Daphne – I’m not sure you’re correct there. I remember some years ago the Pope championing a woman who chose to die rather than have treatment that would result in the death of the foetus she was carrying. She died after the baby was born, leaving her husband to cope alone with a brood of motherless children, including a new-born. I was horrified at the sheer irresponsibility of her action, and more horrified still by the Catholic Church’s championing of such deeply selfish behaviour.]
It would be prudent to check the ins and outs of what you are about to utter before besmirching people’s good name, and even that of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. I would think that what you wrote above verges on the libellous. [Daphne -Relax, Moggy. You’ll find that several of your colleagues at the hospital see things the way John does: calling it by its real name is always the better option.]
“Thus, a moral distinction must be made between directly and intentionally treating a pathology (a condition or abnormality that causes a disease) and indirectly and unintentionally causing the death of the baby in the process.”
This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice is likely to bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defence can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).”
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
Manuel: Are you happy with the “laws of imprisonment” for someone who saves a woman’s life?
Further reading:
http://www.all.org/abac/jch003.htm
http://uffl.org/vol12/bowring12.pdf
@Daphne, do you or anyone else remember a film from the 1960s in which a cardinal (?) had to decide whether his sister or her baby should be saved in a problem pregnancy? I had a terrible argument with a Jesuit priest about this at the Sacred Heart convent, because he said that in all cases the baby should be saved. I have disliked men in dresses ever since.
And something else, where are all the women in this discussion, except for your sisters? There seem to be a lot of men mouthing off (not you, John!) on something that should essentially be a woman’s decision.
[Daphne – I don’t know about this film. As for the ‘disappearing’ women – women are completely absent from the divorce debate in Malta, for as well as against.]
@ John
Could you clarify? I’m not sure I understand your question. Where is it contemplated in our criminal code that people who save wome’s lives are to be imprisoned?
[Daphne – The same could be said of the abortion on the Brazilian child, then.]
In fact, Rino Fisichella, the President of the Church’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences wrote an article for the Vatican newspaper decrying the unseemly haste with which excommunication of the medical team and the girl’s mother was proclaimed by the Brazilian bishop, when the situation called for different responses, at least initially. His article reflected a groundswell of opinion within the Catholic Church that the whole affair had been mishandled, precisely because the Brazilian bishop’s knee-jerk reaction had been legalistic rather than charitable.
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=12377
Funny how this article was missed by those who regularly slag off the Catholic Church in this blog and others.
[Daphne – It shouldn’t even have been an issue.]
Daphne, I was not aware that John has a strong medical background. I am even more surprised, therefore, that he cannot seem to distinguish between direct abortion, and performing a total or partial salpingectomy which causes the death of an embryo as an effect.
You will notice that I have not, as such, commented on the case of the Brazilian child – a very awkward case. As a mother, my first instinct would probably have been to go along with an abortion. As a Catholic, though, it would have been my belief that the life of those two 16 week-old (if I remember correctly) foetuses were lives which were just as precious as that of my child. It would have been a dilemma – a great one – but NO, one cannot equate a salpingectomy carried out in the event of an ectopic pregnancy with intentional and direct killing of two foetuses, and any specialist in medical ethics will tell you as much. [Daphne – I don’t think so, somehow. Neither of us can presume to know what a specialist in medical ethics will decide, but purely on the basis of logic, the two cases are identical: a foetus has no chance of developing in a Fallopian tube and if the pregnancy is allowed to develop, both mother and foetus will perish, so on this basis a decision is taken to remove the foetus and save the mother; twin foetuses have no chance of developing in the body of a nine-year-old child, and if the pregnancy is allowed to develop, both mother and foetuses will perish, so on this basis a decision is taken to remove the foetuses and save the mother. The logic which the argument follows does not derive from the medical procedure involved, but from the foetuses’ inability to survive/ability to cause death.]
I am more than correct when I speak about the example of cervical cancer. Yes, the woman you speak of would have been morally right to have gone ahead with treatment for her cancer, but she chose not to in order to save her daughter’s life, which was pretty heroic – something which I would never have had the courage to do (so don’t worry, you’re not alone!), and it was this heroic act which the Pope championed. Yes, the woman left her husband to cope alone with a brood of children, as she deemed this a lesser evil than taking her unborn child’s life. I’m sure that her last child is immensely grateful to her. [Daphne – The reason I would not have followed her example has nothing to do with lack of courage. I would not hesitate, and I am sure you wouldn’t either, to push one of my sons out of the way of a speeding car even if I knew for certain that I would be mowed down myself. No, it’s because as a rational human being rather than a religious one, I know that there is more to life than mere life itself. Depriving existing, real young children with emotions and needs of their mother, which exposes them to all sorts of risks and unhappiness and deprives them of the kind of protection that only a mother can give, just to allow a speck of a foetus to develop into another child without a mother, is appallingly irresponsible and shows no care or concern at all for the living children, still less for the unborn one who will have to live with that knowledge and burden of guilt. I described her action as selfish because essentially that’s what it was: religious people have a tendency to put their religious duty, as they perceive it, before the interests of human beings, which is why they are so very often lacking in basic compassion and humaneness. You know that Russian boy who drowned? What struck me about his foster mother’s interview is that she refused to eat the last meal he had spent time cooking for her, because it was Ash Wednesday and the meal contained meat. Imagine – your child lovingly cooks you a meal and you say “No thanks. It’s a fasting day, I can’t eat that.” What’s the greater ‘sin’, to look at it in Christian terms – to throw away perfectly good food and reject a young person’s careful efforts, or to break a pointless rule?]
Another instance in which it is morally and ethically legitimate to apply the double effect principle is, for example, when there is serious, intractable uterine bleeding during pregnancy – it is here acceptable to go to the extent of performing a hysterectomy to save the woman’s life even if it results in the foetus’ death as an effect.
Daphne, the double effect principle is a bit of a tricky one to understand, but I’m sure that you’re more than capable of doing so. When you have grasped it, you will see the difference which lies between the actual, direct killing of a foetus with “malicious intent” (which incidentally the Criminal Code specifies) and the indirect, unintentional killing where the primary intention is save a mother’s life. [Daphne – I do understand it. And that is precisely why I tell you that the Brazilian case is a case in point.]
The same principle applies to other instances as well: the separation of conjoined twins [Daphne – Yes, but despite that, the representatives of the Catholic Church in Gozo preached that both conjoined twins should be left to die “as God intended” in that infamous case.], the withdrawal of treatment in cases were life is in a precarious state and the administration of drugs like morphine to relieve pain, even when the morphine itself can bring about death.
Moggy: You clearly do not know the medical definition of abortion. The Roman Catholic Church, side-effects and other slippings and slidings do not feature in it. On the other hand, you seem familiar with Papist teaching. Are you perhaps a nun?
I think you’d be surprised at my connections with the Department of O and G.
Going to the funeral tomorrow?
Another thing….my experience has always been that doctors, in Malta – both those working in hospital and those who don’t – are generally against, rather than in favour of, abortion. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but let’s be fair enough not to make the “exception” appear to be the “rule”. It’s not.
[Daphne – Whether doctors are in favour or against is neither here nor there.]
kev
“This means that the ECJ would not only have jurisdiction over treaty interpretation and European Community law . . . but also over anything related to our rights.” And that could mean anything.”
The EU is such a scary place, isn’t it? “And that could mean anything” sounds so ominous. I have to annoy you further (I love it) by pointing out that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is simply meant to protect us from, for example, abuses by the police like those of the 1980s but the ECJ cannot make up new rights and impose them on member states. The Lisbon Treaty does NOT extend the jurisdiction of the EU beyond what already exists.
I’ve actually made an effort and sought information from non-political websites (you should try it). I won’t bore Daphne and everyone else with quotations but if you’d like to learn about the Lisbon Treaty from a knowledgeable source, try http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/guide_to_treaty_of_lisbon.pdf. . . . or wait five years and learn by hindsight.
[Manuel – there is some controversy about when exactly it takes place. The amendment may be included irrespective of whether these controversies are resolved or not.}
Conception (or fertilisation) takes place when the two gametes (male and female – sperm and ovum) fuse to form a zygote. Before fusion of the two gametes fertilisation has not taken place.
Manuel: I am referring to a doctor who carries out an abortion to save a woman’s life.
As regards Archbishop Fisichella, he said “Excommunication is incurred automatically the moment abortion is carried out.” No fine words can alter that.
[Daphne – And if you kill, rape or torture a baby or child, you’re not excommunicated automatically. You can go to confession and be absolved of your sin. What a religion, honestly.]
@ John
If a doctor operates in the circumstaces very accurately described by Moggy, and, as a consequence of the the intervention, the foetus dies, I do not think any authority would even dream of prosecuting him/her. The question of imprisonment would not arise.
Re excommunication: direct abortion does incur automatic excommunication, but once again, operating on the mother with an intent to save her life does not amount to abortion, if as an inevitable consequence, the foetus dies. There is obviously no excommunication in this case.
@ Fanny
The film you mentioned is called “The Cardinal” (1963). I remember watching it way back in the late 1970s. Of all the issues portrayed in the film, funnily enough that’s the one I remember – the priest-brother choosing the baby’s life over that of his sister.
[Daphne – http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056907/ ]
@ john
“Moggy: You clearly do not know the medical definition of abortion. The Roman Catholic Church, side-effects and other slippings and slidings do not feature in it. On the other hand, you seem familiar with Papist teaching. Are you perhaps a nun”
Don’t mind Moggy. I doubt Moggy is a real doctor, or even a nun. Moggy’s probably a troll, or a priest. So first Moggy says conception takes place when the two gametes (male and female – sperm and ovum) fuse to form a zygote. Then Moggy says that killing an embryo is not always abortion. Which is it, Moggy? Make your mind up. The pope has nothing to do with this. And don’t try and blind Daphne with fancy phrases like “double effect”, which means absolutely nothing and is pure hogwash.
[Daphne – http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/doubleeffect.shtml ]
@Daphne [Daphne – http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/doubleeffect.shtml ]
Exactly. Complete hogwash.
[YOUR OWN QUOTE]
1. We are responsible for all the anticipated consequences of our actions:
2. Intention is irrelevant.
[UNQUOTE]
And what if Stuart could talk? What would he say?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOJpejum7sE
John,
On the contrary, I am fully aware of the medical definition of abortion. However, words have the habit of meaning different things when one is not using purely medical jargon, but rather discussing laws, morals and ethics. I’m sure you can see that.
Lino Cert –
Utter codswallop, as usual. Trying to blind Daphne, indeed! I’m sure that it takes much more than that to blind a woman like Daphne. On the other hand, yours seems to be a different case altogether.
@Manuel
[@ Corinne: there is some controversy about when exactly it takes place. The amendment may be included irrespective of whether these controversies are resolved or not.]
So you are pushing for an amendment on situation on something that your good self claims is still in the realm of controversy. Apart from that, I did not ask what is the present position but what ‘you’ would suggest to be the penalty once this act (crime?) is enshrined in the highest law of the land.
Here are some more questions for which I request an answer, with no beating round the bush and hiding behind a judge’s discretion. I request your opinion and answers as a person who has claimed to support this amendment and should have all the arguments at his disposal.
1. What would be the penalty for Maltese citizens who commit this act in a foreign country?
2. If it is a known fact that a Maltese citizen has committed this act whilst abroad, should she be brought before the courts on returning to Malta?
3. Should the law consider as criminals foreigners who are known to have committed the act in their homeland and for some reason are at the moment residing in our country?
‘[Daphne – I don’t know about this film. As for the ‘disappearing’ women – women are completely absent from the divorce debate in Malta, for as well as against.]’
Since when has this become a debate about divorce? Zlaqt hawn, Defni.
[Daphne – Lanqas xejn. Women are absent from the divorce debate, let alone the abortion debate is what I meant. The interesting thing, though, is that abortion seems to excite the obsession of men far more than divorce.]
@Sisi. Thank you. That’s exactly it. And it’s the only scene I remember too, and arguing with the priest afterwards. As I’m nearly an old wrinkly I saw it before 1964..
@ Moggy: It is always helpful to respect views which differ from one’s own views.
As you remark, “… words have the habit of meaning different things when one is not using purely medical jargon, but rather discussing laws, morals and ethics”.
You also wrote “….. the difference, which lies between the actual, direct killing of a foetus with “malicious intent” (which incidentally the Criminal Code specifies) and the indirect, unintentional killing where the primary intention is to save a mother’s life”. I would prefer to also regard latter instance as “direct, intentional killing”, of course without any element of malicious intent. As such, the (latter) procedure could be referred to as “therapeutic” abortion.
An eminent philosophical clergyman in Malta has also spoken about letting frozen embryos die, should they not be needed for IVF purposes.
In my own professional life, I have seen, day in, day out, “(D&C) biopsy” specimens from legions of “abnormal uterine bleeding” where the query addressed to me was very often “incomplete abortion?”. My last such appointment was in a hospital owned and run by the Roman Catholic Church.
@ Lino Cert: I can confirm that Moggy is a very, very Catholic (Maltese) lady doctor, who strives to make better contributions than the contributions of a certain Lino Cert.
MOGGY
Glad to see you’ve calmed down. Do you always get so excited when discussing surgical procedures? Although what you have written above belies it, I will take you at your word and accept that you know the medical definition of abortion. In that case, you will know that removing the products of conception (by means of partial/total salpingectomy as you describe it in the case of ectopic pregnancy), constitutes abortion.
[Daphne – Isn’t the medical term for a miscarriage also abortion? So in religious terms, God performs abortions too, when he doesn’t like the way some of his foetuses are developing, though he doesn’t always get it right.]
You will also know that there are other examples of performing an abortion in order to save a woman’s life – for instance, without getting too technical, a woman with a very dodgy heart condition and other medical complications. The extra burden of attempting to carry the pregnancy to term would be enough to send her to kingdom come. An abortion in this life-threatening situation would not entail the embryo “dying as an inevitable consequence of some other procedure as a side-effect.” There is no pathology of the Fallopian tube or uterus. It is a straightforward honest-to-goodness abortion. No fancy irrelevant “side-effects” can be claimed here to ease one’s conscience. The idea is to abort the foetus to save the woman, just as in an ectopic pregnancy.
@ Leo Said “I can confirm that Moggy is a very, very Catholic (Maltese) lady doctor”
Thank you. That explains a lot.
Daphne: Abortion can either be spontaneous (miscarriage) or induced (medically or surgically). A high proportion of pregnancies end as spontaneous abortions, often passing unnoticed, sometimes being put down to a bit of a heavy period.
Daphne:
Yes, but that is for God to choose, not us.
I love playing God’s advocate.
And if I remember correctly it’s called a spontaneous abortion. Been through that and I don’t see why God, as some states, had a right to kill my baby, when others who don’t want their babies don’t have that right.
Antoine – I was going to reply to each part of your nonsense a la Daphne – but decided to waste less time. But where do I begin? I lack the patience.
You say the “The Lisbon Treaty does NOT extend the jurisdiction of the EU beyond what already exists.”
Jurisdiction is a small word, Misterr. Let’s use the term ‘competence’ for it’s the EU term describing political and legislative power. Now, if you actually try to read the link you sent me you will discover that Lisbon establishes new EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, such as the EU foreign minister (Union High Representative), the European Defence Agenzy, the European Public Prosecutor and Europol… (11 have been identified). There are other new competences, such as the legal personality that the Union gains, and comptences in the area of CSDP (common security and defence policy) – the solidarity clause (which allows the Union to dispatch troops (go to war) in relation to the ‘war on terror’; and many, many others, such as in judicial cooperation in criminal matters and the CFSP (common foreign and security policy). 37 such new competences have been identified. Then you also get new competences of EU institutions, such as the competence of the Council to set the European Parliament’s composition without treaty amendments (24 such competences exist in the LT).
Then there are areas which are moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the EU Council and Council of Ministers. Removing the veto is an added competence to the Union, where the EU collective of states decides by majority vote. There are 19 added competences from unanimity to qmv in existing legislation, and 49 areas in new or extended legal bases. There are also eigth instances where the “passerelle” applies, which means that the Council could decide to change decision making from unanimity to QMV – forever. They decide unanimously of course, but if a state does not use its veto at this stage it will lose it forever. The passerelle is found in the areas of common security and defence, and criminal justice, among others.
This may all sound trivial to you. Your sarcastic remarks tell me where you stand, such as: “The EU is such a scary place, isn’t it? …sounds so ominous.” To me, you are no better than Joe Mifsud, the one who “read the EU Constitution” and found “nothing contradiciting the Maltese constitution”.
The problem here is that I fully understand you Europhiles because I have been there until the late 1980s/early 90s. I do not come from the nationalistic fold. I come from the deep red of the 70s. Internationalism and all that globalist crap, remember? The federalist project sprung out of this vein and was only adopted by the Christian Democrats of the time. But I moved on. Today I cherish small government and small statehood because that is where true freedom can prosper (I do agree with international safeguards for democratic and human rights though). Globalism, collectivism, centralism – these all create highly expensive supranational goverments that grow and grow, and keep on growing until they collapse, after sucking dry the intellectual and financial wealth of the people (yes, Daphne, the people – not the ones you know absolutely nothing about).
To me this is not a case of defending Malta’s traditions and heritage, it is about stopping an unwanted bureaucracy from taking over as the third layer of government, costing us wealth – great wealth – with a thick layer of accumulating bureaucracy. I have developed from being a Europeanist to becoming a (decentralisationist) social libertarian. The European project is supposedly a federalist project, but federalists have complained that it is moving towards a unitary state. For those who follow American politics, these past 15 years we have witnessed a complete take-over by the federal government, now accelerating at breathtaking speed. Even the states’ ‘national guard’ under the command of the state governor has now been taken over by the Department of Homeland Security (now that, Antoine, is ominous).
If you think central planning and supranational governance is good, Antoine, it is because you live inside that box.
For the past five years I had wanted to write something like “EU Constitution for Dummies”. Yet I gave up because when the dummies think they know it all you cannot keep it brief and simple… Take this comment here… I have not even started, yet you lost me after the first sentences.
So, Antoine, to close, when I say the Lisbon treaty is a vehicle for the introduction of abortion in Malta I say it as a fact. It should be of interest to both sides of the argument. Not even a smartass like you knew that. I happen to be on the pro-choice side of this argument, but I don’t believe we need to sell our underwear for the privilege of having an ECJ straighten out remnants of our moralistic past.
@ me
1, 2 and 3. Maltese legislation has no jurisdiction over acts committed in another country, when these acts are permissible in that particular country. I certainly am not of the view that parliament should extend our courts’ jurisdction.
Regarding Maltese citizens who commit abortion in Malta, my position is that the current provisions of the Criminal Code, and which allow discretion to the magistrate (who after all is the one who has a commanding view of the events and its context) are more or less adequate.
@ John:
Moggy always seems to be excited when one contradicts her. She fights for her vows.
Manuel:
Since you commented on it maybe you know. What is the norm in general in countries legislation in terms of acts commited by its’ citizens beyond its’ own borders? In Sweden, just a few years ago, legislation was passed allowing for the punishment of residents travelling to their home country performing infibulation on their girls. In such cases the resident can face a quite severe jail sentence (severe by Swedish is a bit of a joke though) on return to Sweden, in cases where they have been involved in the acts, or allowed the act in cases of legal guardianship. This is something I agree strongly with, as infibulation is something which has to be stopped by all means necessary. It seems in Malta nothing can be done as soon as it’s done abroad.
I know I’m thinking in the same lines as Gift of Life here, suggesting that the women/girls can be punished on return, something which I only disagree with on the terms of disagreeing with punishing people performing an abortion, but at the same time I can’t motivate why it should be different.
@Manuel
Am I to understand that you would give immunity in our country to a person who has committed a criminal offence in another country? [Daphne – You’re confusing matters. People who have committed a grave offence, like murder, in another country can be extradited by that other country, if there is an extradition agreement in place, but they cannot be prosecuted in Malta for a murder committed in France.]
In your books it is a very grave criminal offence which we are debating because you want it entrenched in the Constitution.
Are you of the same opinion if say, a foreigner commits a first-degree crime in his home country and then comes to Malta? Again I repeat, stop beating around the bush, it is your opinion I am asking. What do you consider to be a just penalty for a woman who has committed an abortion? I was going to write ‘be a man’, but I say ‘be a woman’ – give me your opinion.
@ Manuel
Does the Attorney General not have the power to override magistrates’ views? Cannot the Attorney General say “nolle prosequi”?
[Leo Said – An eminent philosophical clergyman in Malta has also spoken about letting frozen embryos die, should they not be needed for IVF purposes.]
Oh yes, and we have had the opportunity to discuss amongst ourselves what we thought of the eminent clergyman (in this instance), and if I’m not mistaken our thoughts coincided exactly. Further to that, again if I am not mistaken, a few days later the Maltese Curia had issued a statement about the eminent clergyman’s views regarding the frozen embryos.
[Leo Said – …. I would prefer to also regard latter instance as “direct, intentional killing”….]
However, those who concern themselves with ethics and morals do not see things completely as you do. In the treatment of a tubal ectopic, for example, they cite a very precise difference between removing the offending Fallopian tube and indirectly bringing about the death of the embryo, and performing (for example) a salpingotomy, through which the embryo is sucked out. The first is held to be morally and ethically correct, and is not referred to as abortion (I’m not using the medical nomenclature here), whereas the second is held to be the direct killing of the embryo, and therefore an abortive procedure. You can read all about it in the links I have posted.
The case of the nine-year-old Brazilian girl is NOT (as Daphne says) identical to the first instance above, but to the second one, where the direct killing of the foetuses took place to save life. [Daphne – No, Moggy, it is not. The child would have died if the pregnancy was allowed to develop. Hence the pregnancy was terminated to save her life, and not only because forcing a child under 10 to go through with a double-pregnancy is obscene and hideously grotesque. No amount of sophistry is going to change that.]
However, I must say that in such a difficult case, such killing may have been, if in no other circumstance, legitimate.
Who said I am excited, dear John? You are not distinguishing between medical jargon and the meaning which moralists give to the word. OK – let’s call the removal of an embryo with malicious intent CRIMINAL ABORTION [Daphne – It is not necessarily criminal, Moggy, so your choice of description is wrong.], as opposed to SPONTANEOUS ABORTION and INDIRECT ABORTION. Do you think that the removal of a swollen Fallopian tube (containing an embryo) is criminal in any way? [Daphne – The problem here, and I feel I must butt in, is that you are using highly subjective value judgements which are in direct conflict with the medical facts. That the removal of a Fallopian tube which contains an embryo is an abortion is an indisputable fact of medicine. Whether it is right or wrong, or comparable to the abortion of a foetus in the womb is not a fact but a value judgement, and like all value judgement, it is open to agreement or disagreement. On the other hand, whether you agree or disagree that the abortion of an embryo in a Fallopian tube is ‘killing’ or even ‘an abortion’ is neither here nor there. It is irrelevant. The fact remains that the pregnancy is terminated and the embryo is killed.]
John, you wrote: “You will also know that there are other examples of performing an abortion in order to save a woman’s life – for instance, without getting too technical, a woman with a very dodgy heart condition and other medical complications. The extra burden of attempting to carry the pregnancy to term would be enough to send her to kingdom come. An abortion in this life-threatening situation would not entail the embryo “dying as an inevitable consequence of some other procedure as a side-effect.” There is no pathology of the Fallopian tube or uterus. It is a straightforward honest-to-goodness abortion. No fancy irrelevant “side-effects” can be claimed here to ease one’s conscience. The idea is to abort the foetus to save the woman, just as in an ectopic pregnancy.”
This instance is totally unacceptable to the Catholic Church, and morally speaking, would be wrong. [Daphne – But Moggy, you just don’ get it. Only Catholics give a damn what the Catholic Church thinks. And incidentally, there is a groundswell of opposition to abortion that has nothing to do with Catholic teaching.] It involves the direct killing of the foetus, just as the sucking out of an embryo during a salpingotomy would involve direct killing in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.
Can you see the difference? [Daphne – I can’t, because I am not a Catholic, and so I am not driven to hunt for sophisms in the discussion of abortion rights and abortion wrongs.]
[Leo Said – In my own professional life, I have seen, day in, day out, “(D&C) biopsy” specimens from legions of “abnormal uterine bleeding” where the query addressed to me was very often “incomplete abortion?”. My last such appointment was in a hospital owned and run by the Roman Catholic Church.]
As I have already had occasion to tell you, two wrongs do not make a right. I have also been long under the impression that you objected to such practices, especially coming from a Catholic hospital.
[Daphne – There are those who believe that sometimes, imposing a child on a woman who neither wants it nor is able to care for it is a greater wrong – to the woman as well as to the child – than allowing her to have an abortion. Unfortunately, the Catholic rule book was written exclusively by men, most of them celibate and many of them misogynistic, who were literally incapable of understanding this.]
[Daphne – No, Moggy, it is not. The child would have died if the pregnancy was allowed to develop. Hence the pregnancy was terminated to save her life, and not only because forcing a child under 10 to go through with a double-pregnancy is obscene and hideously grotesque. No amount of sophistry is going to change that.]
Daphne, oh but it is, although you cannot (yet) see it. In both cases (salpingotomy and sucking out of products of conception and the Brazilian case) you have the direct (as opposed to the indirect) killing of the embryo/ foetus, whereas with the case of a salpingectomy the death is the result of another procedure. You may call this sophistry but this is strictly the way the double-effect theory works. Now my describing, and pointing out the difference does not mean that I would not have gone for abortion in the Brazilian case. I would have, and the very difficult situation is why the Vatican is now back-tracking and some talking of mercy. I like to say that I oppose abortion in every case but one – I only start budging when the pregnancy becomes a danger to the mother’s life. It does not make it morally right to kill in these circumstances, but at least it’s understandable and excusable.
[Daphne – You see, this is where you lose me. If killing a foetus is equivalent to killing a human being, then what you’re doing is killing one person to save another, in the exception which proves your rule. Would you then find it permissible to kill a child after it’s born to use its organs to save its mother? No, I imagine you wouldn’t. And when you say ‘no’, you are acknowledging that – even if you don’t admit it to yourself – a foetus is a whole other class of being to a baby, a class of being whose killing can in exceptional circumstances be understandable and excusable.]
@Moggy
“This instance is totally unacceptable to the Catholic Church, and morally speaking, would be wrong”
For the zillionth time Moggy, some of us don’t care zilch what the Catholic church, British Ethical Society or Association of Maltese Happy Clappies say about these matters. Why do you find that so hard to swallow? Why do you feel compelled to force your dubious morals down other people’s throats?
[Daphne – The problem here, and I feel I must butt in, is that you are using highly subjective value judgements which are in direct conflict with the medical facts. That the removal of a Fallopian tube which contains an embryo is an abortion is an indisputable fact of medicine. Whether it is right or wrong, or comparable to the abortion of a foetus in the womb is not a fact but a value judgement, and like all value judgement, it is open to agreement or disagreement. On the other hand, whether you agree or disagree that the abortion of an embryo in a Fallopian tube is ‘killing’ or even ‘an abortion’ is neither here nor there. It is irrelevant. The fact remains that the pregnancy is terminated and the embryo is killed.]
Of course: the pregnancy is terminated and the embryo is killed. But the way it is killed is open to “value judgments”, as you put it – that is, if you happen to have any values where the killing of embryos and foetuses is concerned. What you are saying above is synonymous to saying that any person killed is dead and gone, and that therefore it is not important to assess whether the killing was actually accidental, first-degree murder or manslaughter, because dead’s dead and that’s good enough for you. Now I do realise that you have no sympathy to waste on aborted and killed foetuses and embryos, but there are those of us who do – and those of us who do know that one abortion (medically speaking) is not like another, although all the foetuses/embryos end up dead.
[Daphne – Your analogy to different classes of murder is inaccurate. A more accurate analogy would be to murdering a baby after birth for its organs to save its mother: after all, your basic argument is that there is no difference in the status of a baby and a foetus, and that both should be equal in terms of the law and morality.]
Firstly I cannot for the life of me understand why it’s mostly men who are against abortion. Wouldn’t abortion be a convenient excuse for them to wave even more vehemently their “bandiera bajda” in the event of an ‘accident’?
I saw (though ultrasound scanning) my kid looking like a little peanut with flailing limbs when I was just 11 weeks pregnant. It’s hard to even think about abortion after seeing such images. But at which moment in time does a human being start to exist?
Of course the die-hard Catholic-holier-than-the-Pope guys say that it’s the moment of conception i.e. the moment when a single microscopic cell called a spermatozoa penetrates another single larger but still microscopic cell called an ovum………. The result is ONE cell. Can a single cell be considered a human being?
I come from a Catholic family. My mother, who’s 60 by the way but who can distinguish the reasonable from the ridiculous, used to tell me how when she was a kid, the Catholic Church used to preach that any sexual act (which obviously had to occur only in wedlock) had to be done always having in mind procreation. Ergo, if you don’t want more kids don’t have sex.
I don’t know what the teachings of the Catholic religion are right now, because I quit 20 years ago, but I’d be ready to conclude that if they’re still against all contraceptives and not just the ‘questionable’ ones like the IUD, then they’re still teaching that sex = kids and not that sex is the ultimate expression of love between the couple concerned.
Apologies for the digression. To continue, I consider myself very immature on the topic of abortion that’s why I strive to learn more. What confounds me is the exact moment when one can decide that there is a human life. A baby. I can’t for the life of me solve this.
[Daphne – I can’t, because I am not a Catholic, and so I am not driven to hunt for sophisms in the discussion of abortion rights and abortion wrongs.]
So finally – admission that you cannot see the difference between the two instances?
[Daphne – That’s what I’ve been saying all along: there are no factual differences. The differences are based only on value judgements, and those value judgements are important only to Catholics and fundamentalist Christians.]
[Daphne – There are those who believe that sometimes, imposing a child on a woman who neither wants it nor is able to care for it is a greater wrong – to the woman as well as to the child – than allowing her to have an abortion. Unfortunately, the Catholic rule book was written exclusively by men, most of them celibate and many of them misogynistic, who were literally incapable of understanding this.]
Forget the celibate, misogynistic men – after all I don’t even agree with them in most of what they say! I find that I agree with what they say on abortion though, because I put the highest value possible on life. To me, all problems pale in comparison to the loss of a life – especially the capricious loss of a life. [Daphne – That’s the trouble, Moggy: you place high value on life itself and no value on what sort of life that might be. Your argument is ‘better a miserable, cruel, terrible life than no life at all.’ I beg to differ. There are some of whom it has to be said that it would have been better if they hadn’t been born at all – and I mean people who suffer and not people who make others suffer. And I have also known girls and women whose lives have been ruined by having babies they didn’t want when they shouldn’t have had them.]
If a woman feels that she is not inclined towards the bringing up of children, there are other solutions apart from doing away with the child and denying it life. [Daphne – Why are committed Catholics unable to understand human nature? I have tried to explain this before and I am going to explain it again: a woman would rather abort an embryo than grow a baby to term, deliver it, give it away, and then spend the rest of her life wondering where that child is, what sort of life he’s had, what kind of man he is now, whether she has grandchildren she doesn’t know about. An abortion is over and done with. You grieve and it’s gone, like any loss or death. Give a baby away and you’re stalked and haunted for the rest of your life – as is the child you give away.] I personally know many persons who were adopted, and I know for a cert that they’d choose being brought up by another mother any day rather than not having lived at all. [Daphne – If they were aborted they wouldn’t know about it, would they? You’ve asked the people who were adopted, but you haven’t asked the ones who grew up on the streets or in orphanages. And you haven’t asked the women who gave birth and gave up their child, but of course, nobody factors the women in.]
Dear Moggy,
I thought we had something going between us. There was so much more I wanted to tell you, but horrible Daphne went and butted in and spoilt it all. She is a pain isn’t she?
The bald truth is, I suppose, that we come from different planets, and our minds could never meet. Still, we gave it a try. I don’t believe I’ve ever come across anyone quite like you. You seem like a nice enough girl though. Try not to let the inflexible dogmas of others get in the way of your humanity. Don’t forget – you are paid to serve your patients, not the Pope.
Till we meet again,
John.
[Daphne – That’s what I’ve been saying all along: there are no factual differences. The differences are based only on value judgements, and those value judgements are important only to Catholics and fundamentalist Christians.]
And those who are pro-life but not Catholic, or even Christian?
[Daphne – Introduce me to some, because I haven’t met any non-Christian-fundamentalist, non-Catholic pro-lifers who are dogmatic in their opposition to abortion. Many people decide to leave the Catholic religion in great part because of its fundamental lack of humanity – or rather, because it doesn’t let empathy for human beings get in the way of rigid adherence to dogma. I was one of them.]
@ Pat
I’m no lawyer, so please do not consider this an authoritative response. I would think that it is pretty unusual for Western countries to prosecute their citizens for crimes committed abroad. I stand to be corrected.
With regard to Gift of Life, as far as I’m aware they are not in favour of prosecuting Maltese women who procure abortion abroad. I personally think it would be be wholly inappropriate to charge anyone in those circumstances.
@ me
I thought my responses were clear enough and did adddress your questions. I’ll try to be clearer: the scenarios involving abortion which can be envisaged are almost innumerable. To give one a single answer about what sort of punishment the law should give which would be fair in all of these cases would be grossly arrogant, superficial, insensitive and stupid. Since I try to do my best (with varying degrees of success) not to behave in ways which can be qualified by any of the preceding four adjectives, I cannot come up with a single blanket answer. I repeat: in the circumstances, the fairest solution would be to provide the magistrate with a range of options she or he would be able to apply after evaluating all the circumstances of the case. I believe that imprisonment would be the least appropriate of all the options available.
@ Dr. Said
If you mean that the AG may decide not to prosecute someone who has had an abortion in Malta, I think that yes, that is in the AG’s power. If that was not your question, could you please clarify?
[Daphne – ……………. You’ve asked the people who were adopted, but you haven’t asked the ones who grew up on the streets or in orphanages. And you haven’t asked the women who gave birth and gave up their child, but of course, nobody factors the women in.]
You doubtlessly have objective evidence of this which you will share with us? My own experience – it’s worth as much as a little as yours – is that very few women who gave up their children ever come to believe that they would have been better off had they aborted them.
[Daphne – That’s because the women who thought they would be better off if they had an abortion had an abortion.]
If indeed all women who decided they’re better off having an abortion actually committed one, what is the point of agitating for the legalisation of termination in Malta? [Daphne – I don’t think anyone’s doing that. The status quo appears to be adequate: a quick trip to Catania. This started off as a post about Gift of Life, remember.] And, please, do not come up not the hackneyed answer of back-street abortions, which, almost certainly, do not take place here. [Daphne – Precisely because there are flights to Catania and a daily catamaran service to Sicilian ports.]
Secondly, what about those women who mulled over abortion, and finally decided not to carry on with it? Once again relying on my experience – seeing you’re only shoring up your arguments with yours – none of these have ever actually said they rued the decision not do away with the foetus. [Daphne – Right, you know a lot of those, do you? In my experience, and remember that I’m a woman and so have more women friends and associates than you do, no woman who has ever given birth then goes on to say: “Actually, I thought about aborting that one, but you know, I don’t regret having him/her.”]
[Daphne – Your analogy to different classes of murder is inaccurate. A more accurate analogy would be to murdering a baby after birth for its organs to save its mother: after all, your basic argument is that there is no difference in the status of a baby and a foetus, and that both should be equal in terms of the law and morality.]
My analogy was made to explain the way you would be reacting to the different classes of murder if you reasoned out the same way that you are as regards the different ways a foetus/ embryo may be killed.
Oh Johnny – what a shame! *swoon*
Dear Moggy
Please ignore John, you deserve much better. I am the right man for you. First of all I am pro-life. Very, very pro-life. Probably even more than the Pope is. I can assure you that we would not miss out on any opportunity to pro-create. I am willing to make sure you’re pregnant for the remainder of your child-bearing life if you wish. Also, as you well know, I have never visited an STD clinic. So you know that I must be clean. Although I am not a believer I am willing to convert to whatever religion you wish. So Moggy, please ignore John and let’s work things out between us. After all I met you first, well before John came along. Do you feel the chemistry between us?
But hey, Johnny, one more thing before you bolt – my patients pay me to serve their interests, yes, but they’ll never twist my hand and convince me to do their dirty work for them. I once took an oath to save life and not to snuff it out…..and that is precisely what I plan to continue doing.
@Manuel
“To give one a single answer about what sort of punishment the law should give which would be fair in all of these cases would be grossly arrogant, superficial, insensitive and stupid.”
At least you have insight. Now please answer this question.
I would gladly attempt to answer any question I can actually read…
But one can “be grossly arrogant, superficial, insensitive and stupid” enough to shove down the throats of present and future generations an amendment on a situation that “there is some controversy about”.
Many of the entrenched provisions in the Constitution are controversial. I would think this particular one would be among the least controversial, at least in terms of the popular support it would carry. [Daphne – Things don’t become right because they have popular support. It’s one of the conundrums of democracy: balancing majority rule with minority rights. I am quite sure that ‘most people’ would like to have a ban on blacks entrenched in our Constitution, too.]
By the way, I take it you are aware that a two-thirds vote in Parliament would be able to remove that (or any other entrenched) provision? [Daphne – As simple as that!]
Daphne, you’re twisting my argument. I did not say that the amendment is right because it carries popular support. I merely pointed out that that fact that it might be more or less controversial should not in itself preclude entrenchment, given that many other entrenched provisions are more contentious. [Daphne – I didn’t understand you. Now I do understand, but I don’t agree. The presence of controversial clauses in the Constitution does not justify the inclusion of another one. It only justifies their removal.]
Secondly, yes. If future generations care enough to remove it they can, provided they garner enough support in parliament.
[Daphne – Sure, just as we can remove the bit that says Roman Catholicism is the state religion – easy as pie.]
Daphne:
How can you forsee who will have a miserable life and who will not? I know people (children unwanted by their mothers but adopted by others) who have lived, and are living wonderful, fulfilling lives, and others who were brought up by their own parents (who wanted them dearly) who went on to live miserable lives. What you say just doesn’t add up because you’re generalising. [Daphne – Of course you can foresee what’s to come in many situations. In your assessment, you’re only factoring in those situations in which all depends on the element of chance: will I, won’t I get run over by a bus today. I’m talking about those cases which are equivalent to walking out into the road in front of a speeding bus, deliberately. Also, like all those who are dogmatic about abortion, you focus exclusively on the child and never factor in the mother. Yet there are two lives in this question. Just off the top of my head I can think of at least two women I knew well whose lives were literally ruined by inopportune pregnancy when they were very young. One of them ended up committing suicide. Of course their children are lovely, and of course nobody can look at them and say that they should never have been born – not now that they are born – but the fact remains that their mothers lives were ruined.]
As regards the ladies whose lives were ruined by having a baby – doesn’t say much about their coping skills, I’m afraid. If they didn’t want a baby in the first place, they shouldn’t have asked for it, should they? Simple. We are all responsible for our actions, even in instances such as these. [Daphne – You see what I mean? Dogmatists just don’t understand human nature and compassion gets in the way of religious dogma, and when that happens, it’s compassion that’s ditched and not religious dogma. I imagine you’re one of those women who started having children after spending long years at university and then some more years working, so that you were around 30, married and with a fully-equipped house by the time you had your first? Then how in God’s name would you know what it’s like to cope with a baby at 20?]
[Daphne – Why are committed Catholics unable to understand human nature? I have tried to explain this before and I am going to explain it again: a woman would rather abort an embryo than grow a baby to term, deliver it, give it away, and then spend the rest of her life wondering where that child is, what sort of life he’s had, what kind of man he is now, whether she has grandchildren she doesn’t know about. An abortion is over and done with. You grieve and it’s gone, like any loss or death. Give a baby away and you’re stalked and haunted for the rest of your life – as is the child you give away.]
Human nature is selfish, and what you describe above is the height of selfishness.
[Daphne – Some women have abortions for selfish reasons. Others try to stop them for reasons that are also essentially selfish (“I want to live in a society where there is no abortion”). But there have also been countless cases in which the decision to abort is not selfish but the opposite. If you are going to talk about selfishness, then the most selfish act of all is insisting on having children when you are not a fit parent. Why do people choose to have children? For selfish reasons, not unselfish ones. But unlike you, I don’t interfere. If a couple wants to spend tens of thousands of euros and jump through mad hoops to try and conceive their own child when they are almost past child-bearing age, then fine. I’m not going to campaign for laws to force them to adopt an orphan who needs a home instead.]
@ Lino Cert – get a life and stop showing all and sundry what a ridiculous person you are.
In-topic or off-topic depending on one’s point of view:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article5970842.ece
Manuel
The last time you expressed an opinion about whether a doctor who saves a woman’s life should be prosecuted, you did a Moggy and slipped out of it with her sophism.
The Supreme Pontiffe herself has now decreed that it is CRIMINAL ABORTION, direct killing and morally wrong to save a woman’s life in the case of the “dodgy heart” (and there are numerous other such examples).
What is your opinion on this one? Should a doctor who saves a woman’s life be prosecuted?
I am not conversant with medical procedures, and can only state my views based on my understanding of moral law. If it is not possible to perform an intervention based on the principle of double effect, my opinion is that any direct act on the life of the foetus would constitute killing, and that the doctor should be legally answerable.
Daphne. What is the record for your blog? 109 responses for this post, and still going strong, seems pretty good to me.
[Daphne – I have no idea, but there have been a few posts which generated in excess of 100 comments. One of them was also about abortion, as I recall.]
I’m quite sure nobody wants to kill babies so the whole controversy about abortion revolves around whether the zygote/embryo/foetus is a person – a baby – or not. Some believe it becomes a person at conception, others insist that one is not a person until actually born. Both are extreme views and scientifically it is extremely difficult to establish a specific point because the concept of person is not a biological but rather a philosophical one.
Just as, biologically, a fertilised egg is considered a chicken, a zygote may be called a human being but that does not necessarily make it a person, although there are those who disagree. The question is complex because development occurs gradually: the original mass of cells does not become a fully-formed baby all of a sudden but grows a little every day so it is next to impossible to state categorically when the tranformation from tissue to baby occurs.
Even where the foetus is recognised as a person, I don’t think the ban on abortion is total, even in Malta. As far as I know, when the life of the mother is in danger, the foetus may be aborted legally as this would be considered essential life-saving therapy. Personally I think abortion should be allowed if there are valid reasons though I realise it’s not easy to agree what such reasons might be. What I do know however is that “I’m not ready to have a baby just yet because of my career” is not one of them.
John – The one that generated most responses must be the Vella Gera “weatherman” one ( http://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2008/04/23/it-was-the-weatherman-mark-vella-gera/ )
Daphne – wrong. I was married by age 23 and had my first baby soon afterwards. I had already qualified by then.
[Daphne – There’s a big difference between having a baby in your mid-20s when you are qualified as a doctor, married and set up in a home, with a steady income, and getting pregnant unexpectedly when you are 19 or 20, not with the man you wish to marry, and without a steady job or income that you can retain after birth – and no home of your own, either.]
[Antoine Vella – What I do know however is that “I’m not ready to have a baby just yet because of my career” is not one of them.]
Well done on having the courage to say so.
[Daphne – I’m sorry, but I’m not with the logic on this one: if killing a foetus is a crime and a sin, then killing a foetus is a crime and a sin. The wrongness of it is not derived from the reason why it is done, but is essential. In other words, whether you kill a foetus to carry on with your career or kill it because you cannot support a child, then it is just as wrong. If it is wrong to kill an old, bedridden parent, then you cannot argue that killing an old bedridden parent because you have neither the money nor the stamina to care for that parent is acceptable, but killing the old bedridden parent for the sake of your career is not. The trouble with people who are dogmatically against abortion is that they cannot square the circle. They can see, if they are honest with themselves, that there are some circumstances in which it is by far the better option, but they have trouble justifying this because their argument against abortion is rooted in the belief that it is murder. Because it is murder, then it is essentially wrong, so how on earth can it be right sometimes? And if it is right sometimes, then surely….?]
@ Antoine:
Yes the ban on abortion is total. It seems that there was a legal exception for abortions carried out in order to save a woman’s life, but the law was amended in 1981.
@Antoine Vella
This is what the Maltese Criminal Code has to say about abortion.
241. 1) Whosoever, by any food, drink, medicine, or by violence, or by any other means whatsoever, shall cause the miscarriage of any woman with child,
whether the woman be consenting or not, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from 18 months to 3 years.
11) The same punishment shall be awarded against any woman who shall procure her own miscarriage, or who shall have consented to the use of the
means by which the miscarriage is procured.
242. If the means used shall cause the death of the woman, or shall cause a serious injury to her person, whether the miscarriage has taken place or not,
the offender shall, on conviction, be liable to the punishment applicable to willful homicide or willful bodily harm, diminished by one to three degrees.
THAT IS IT. The ban is TOTAL. There is NO PROVISION for saving the woman’s life.
Daphne: You are a sexist. I’ve a good mind to report you to whatever Commission it is that deals with these matters. Somewhere above you said that it’s practically only men who are involved in the abortion debate (such as it is). Just seen the news. Gift of Life, represented by a whole bunch of women, have presented President Fenech Adami with their man of the year award.
[Daphne – In-nisa ghal cerimonji biss; meta jigi ghal kliem u negozjati, jitkellmu l-irgiel: typical Maltese scenario. And I’m so glad they gave it to the outgoing president and not to the prime minister, who’d have been damned if he accepted it and damned if he didn’t.]
I didn’t know the law was so adamant and have to say I find it most unjust. Our MPs must have been inspired by the Iranian and Saudi criminal codes. In our legal culture there exists a right to kill a person in self-defence so, if the pregnancy is putting the woman’s health in serious danger, she should have the right to terminate it in order to save herself irrespective of whether the foetus is a person or not. I’m very curious to know the motivations for the amendment – will look up the parliamentary debates when I have a chance. I cannot imagine an MP standing up to say that a woman does not deserve the right to save her life because the unborn foetus is more important than the woman.
I’m glad that, from what I’ve gathered from the exchange of views on this blog, doctors apparently take a more pragmatic and reasonable attitude, obviously without drawing attention to themselves. I agree that a person should take responsibility for their actions (including the father, of course) but getting pregnant should never be a death penalty.
It’s probably significant that the law was changed for the worse in 1981 because that seems to rule out any pressure by the Catholic Church. I cannot imagine Mintoff doing something on the prompting of Archbishop Mercieca.
I’m sorry. I didn’t notice. There’s more. It gets even better.
243. Any physician, surgeon, obstetrician, or apothecary, who shall have knowingly prescribed or administered the means whereby the miscarriage is procured, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from 18 months to 4 years, and to perpetual interdiction from the exercise of his profession.
@Antoine Vella
Abortion to save the life of a woman is legal in both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Would that our abortion laws be modelled on theirs. It would make Malta that much more humane and enlightened. You don’t know just how draconian we are.
Daphne –
And isn’t this what the whole argument here has been about? Yes it is wrong – always. It is always morally wrong to kill. It is never right – but it all the more reprehensible when the killing is done for a capricious reason than when it is carried out in desperate circumstances (like the 9 year old Brazilian girl for example).
[Daphne – That’s because you see it as killing. I, on the other hand, find it impossible to regard swallowing a morning-after pill as killing, or even an early abortion as killing. With late abortions, I don’t hold the same view.]
@ Antoine – if you do find anything about the reason for the 1981 amendment, would you please post it here? I, too, would be interested to know what spurred such an action. Thanks.
[Daphne – That’s because you see it as killing. I, on the other hand, find it impossible to regard swallowing a morning-after pill as killing, or even an early abortion as killing. With late abortions, I don’t hold the same view.]
It is not possible to see it in any other way than “killing”. If there was life, and that life was extinguished, then there was an act of killing. If the embryo consisted x cells, which were living, and they are no longer alive, then the embryo has been killed – no other word for it, I’m afraid. I prefer to look at an early embryo, a foetus, a neonate, a child etc., as a continuum of human life, one merging into another as time passes – but human life it definitely is IN ALL CASES, and snuffing it out at whatever stage IS “killing”, once there was life before death. [Daphne – Yes, well, by the same token a heart kept going until it is transplanted is a living thing.]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kill
Destroying something which is dead/ inanimate – on the other hand – that is not killing. But taking life – that is killing, even if we refer to a unicellular animal or plant, or the simplest plants or animals, which consist of a few cells only.
What we are discussing here is NOT whether destroying an early embryo is “killing” (because it is without a doubt), but whether it should be considered murder, and whether it should be illegal.
Once I choose to respect all human life, from its inception to its end, at whatever stage, then I consider my point of view as being more consistent than yours – which chooses to respect that human life only in certain stages, and especially not during the stages where it is at its most vulnerable and helpless
[Daphne – The problem is with your definition of ‘respect for human life’, which is very narrow indeed: killing or not killing.]
Article 243. ” The Physician… who shall have knowingly prescribed the means whereby the miscarriage is procured ….”
After the Nadur carnival a teenage girl comes to me in tears and I give her a pill. For that I am chucked in jail for four years and struck off the Register.
Article 241. ” Whosoever … BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER … shall cause the miscarriage of a woman….”
O.K. The next time it comes to my ear that Moggy is up to her salpingectomy tricks again (and even though she’s my favourite person on this blog), I’ll clap her in jail for three years.
OK John – you may have a point – now answer my comment about doctors regularizing their position, MAM and the ever-possible “nolle prosequi”…..
Moggy: I’m glad you’ve come round to seeing the point. I’ll happily answer your comments (but do try not to order me around).
1. “doctors regularizing their position” This is precisely the point I originally made when you jumped in waving law suits. We have a draconian inhumane abortion law that needs to be changed. A doctor’s duty, nay, vocation, is to do his best for the patient, not least of which is keeping her alive. A doctor should not be hampered in his duty by the ever present threat of imprisonment and loss of warrant hanging over him. It is in the patient’s interests for the law to be changed so her doctor will feel free to give her the best possible treatment.
2. “nolle prosequi” I’m no legal man so I can’t help you on this one.
[Daphne – There’s a big difference between having a baby in your mid-20s when you are qualified as a doctor, married and set up in a home, with a steady income, and getting pregnant unexpectedly when you are 19 or 20, not with the man you wish to marry, and without a steady job or income that you can retain after birth – and no home of your own, either.]
Ah, but then it is up to us not to be stupid enough to commit certain mistakes. I’m sorry, but engaging in irresponsible behaviour and then making an innocent life pay for it (by killing it) is just not on in my opinion – and, without a doubt, for many others who seem not to have the gumption to contradict you and your friends.
[Daphne – I dislike the use of the word ‘innocent’ – whether a person is innocent or not does not change the nature of murder, if that is how you see abortion. Secondly, I imagine that most people who did not have their powers of empathy truncated at some point in their early life are able to say: I can’t judge, because I haven’t been there. You have children, right? Then I would put a zip on the hectoring about abortion, because they might grow up to have one themselves, and not even tell you about it. It’s invariably a bad idea for a parent to be dogmatic about homosexuality, drugs, adultery, abortion, and the rest of it.]
Another thing – if doctors are finding that there is a lacuna in the law, which does not provide for double effect actions (although the Chairman of the Bioethics Consultative Committee – Michael Axiaq – is on record as saying that these actions are not illegal), then shouldn’t the concerned doctors be bringing this to the attention of those concerned with changing the laws of our country, in order to regularize their positions? What about the MAM?
What function has the Attorney General’s [i]nolle prosequi[/i] in all of this? In other words, if the case arises where doctors are actually arraigned before a court charged with willfully causing the death of a foetus, when (in fact) the case was rather the death of the foetus occuring during the saving of the mother’s life – does not the Attorney General still have the power to declare “nolle prosequi”? We’ve seen this happening, quite recently, in a case of alleged professional negligence.
@ John: I hope you’ll go ahead and discuss seriously now, rather than playing the fool.
I am deadly serious (see above). It is rather you playing the fool, alleging that the treatment for an ectopic is not abortion.
[Daphne – Yes, well, by the same token a heart kept going until it is transplanted is a living thing.]
A beating heart can never develop into a baby…..a zygote/ embryo will (if it is allowed to).
[Daphne – I thought we were talking about life, not about potential.]
Moggy, a beating heart can never develop into a baby, but a beating heart has obviously been removed from somebody who was still alive … albeit presumably brain-dead. So your argument was …?
And what exactly are you getting at? What does one do with beating hearts removed from brain-dead people? Are you somehow equating a beating heart to a foetus?
We are talking about life – life with potential.
On behalf of all forms of life with no potential, I am offended.
“If there was life, and that life was extinguished, then there was an act of killing.”
A woman then “kills” an egg once every month. Also imagine the genocide in every dorm room, once the student figures out how to surpass the porn filter of the universities firewall. A tissue is now a weapon of mass destruction.
That kind of argument is detrimental to human value. To see all potential human life as a fullblown person removes the value gained from experience, emotions and human relations.
A woman does nothing of the sort every month, and neither do dorm-room masturbation sessions. A totally silly argument, excuse me. An ovum, unless fertilised, has no chance of becoming a full grown person, and neither does a sperm if it does not fertilize an ovum – no more than Daphne’s beating heart, sitting in a surgical tray, does.
I think that what is really detrimental to human value, rather, is the millions human foetuses which are killed every year – now that is human life, lost.
[Daphne – The opposite is true. Human life is valued most in those countries with the highest incidence of abortion – excluding the anomaly of China, with its single-child policy. The more births there are, and the bigger and more teeming the population is, the less value is placed on human life and the cheaper it is, to the point of people being considered entirely disposable. I would say that more value is placed on human life in Sweden than in India. This is because in the west, the thinking that brought about abortion legislation is rooted in respect for the dignity of the individual person – in this case, the woman. Where human life is cheapest, women are the least valued members of society, they have no dignity, little autonomy, and their wishes just don’t come into it.]
Now you divert from your argument that it’s a matter of life or no life. A sperm is living. An ovum is living. It also contains the complete set of DNA to form a human being. A sperm is human life. What you are referring to is viability. A sperm cannot form a complete human being. Then again, neither can a fertilised egg, unless a woman actually allows it to grow in her womb to full term. A woman choses to give viability to a foetus, just as someone has to choose to give viability to a sperm by letting it fertilise an ovum.
So are you suggesting that we get more abortions done so that we can actually treasure life all the more? Very weird reasoning, if you don’t mind me saying so.
[Daphne – Of course not. I’m just pointing out that human life is valued most in those countries which legislated for abortion for reasons that have to do with the dignity and autonomy of women. It appears to me quite obvious that the two are interlinked: not that abortion brings about respect for human life, as you suggest with heavy irony, but that respect for human life – women – brings one to the conclusion that abortion is necessary. Malta is able to respect human life and still not have abortion because in reality we do have abortion, thanks to our neighbours. If we had no planes and no catamarans, the situation would be very different.]
Daphne, being against something does not mean that one cannot empathize. Yes, one appreciates that some find themselves in difficult positions – very difficult positions – but that does not mean that they solve them in the correct way. Abortion is the easy way out, so it is the method which most will precipitate towards when faced with a difficult personal situation. Although I may be steadfast in my belief that abortion is wrong, I can still see the desperation that leads some to resort to it. I am not blind to it, and I do believe that anybody who actually goes through with abortion should receive nothing but support and understanding (not a prison sentence – and no, not even in Malta).
Yes, my children may resort to abortion one day. One thing, though – I would never tell them that what they did was right. I would love them and support them still, but I would still be totally truthful with them about what I consider to be a grave mistake.
[Daphne – Moggy, what I’m trying to tell you is this: that with your attitude, believe me when I say that they are never going to tell you and you are never going to find out. You might prefer not to know, but then it will remain the great unspoken thing between you. Several of my contemporaries who were raised by dogmatic parents put on a completely false front at home and had a ‘secret’ life of which their parents knew nothing. Among today’s generations of young adults, there are several who are ‘out’ to their friends and contemporaries but who find it impossible to explain their sexuality to their parents. Why? Because they have grown up hearing that homosexual acts are sins and that homosexual men are ‘pufti’. Remember this: if you raise your children to have a mind of their own and strength of character, you can help them acquire integrity but you can’t transfer your values to them and you have to come to terms with the fact, at some point, that they are not you and that they don’t think as you do.]
Daphne, I accept that there will come a time when children have to do their own thing, and that what they do in their lives, when older, will really be none of my business. They may choose to tell me, or they may not. They know I will love them whatever happens, but they also know that I am totally true to my values when it comes to giving advice or my opinion (if and when they want it).
God, you seem to have loads of spare time to comment here! Would that I, as a fellow doctor, be equally gifted. But then, as a lapsed Catholic, it’s been a while since the almighty has gifted me anything.
I work on my terms and in my own good time. I’m sorry you’re not that lucky.
[Daphne – This is getting confusing. Who are you speaking to here?]
@Pat. “It also contains the complete set of DNA …”
Moggy is going to squash you on this one.
I suppose we all have our little slip=ups and I really have no medical training. Saying that, I suppose you are referring to the ovum only having an unpaired set of chromosomes, but doesn’t it still contain the full DNA? I’ll gladly admit error on this, as I would definitely learn something new. I’m not sure how a slip-up like that changes my argument though.
Pat – No, it does not, and the reason it does not is that when fertilisation (fusion of gametes) takes place, we want to end up with a zygote having the full compliment of human DNA – half from the mother, and half from the father. It changes your argument completely. A cell with half the complement of human DNA can never be equivalent to a zygote which has the full complement and is programmed to develop into a fully-fledged person.
I’m sure it was necessary to answer me twice on that error. No, it does not change the argument. My claim is that viability is still not reached until a foetus can survive on its own. Sure they are not equivalents, but they still can’t grow into a human being without further viability added (a womb). So are you saying that in each sperm only half a human dies, while after fusion it’s a full life? Yes, now it all makes sense to me.
We’ve veered way out of point. If Gift Of Life’s argument were self-evident, as they claim, they wouldn’t need snazzy rock bands to dish it out.
I agree, actually. The rock-band idea was in totally bad taste. I’m not even sure I agree with Gift of Life when it comes to its proposal to emblazon any anti-abortion law into the Constitution. I think that they’re taking things too far.
[Pat – A sperm is living. An ovum is living. It also contains the complete set of DNA to form a human being. A sperm is human life.]
Oh, dear God! This is what happens when people want to discuss something they know next to nothing about. A sperm and ovum live, yes, but they have only half the amount of DNA which an embryo/ foetus/ baby/you/an old woman possesses in each and every one of their cells. Left in a receptive womb – in isolation (no gametes of the opposite type to fuse with) these gametes could never ever hope to develop into anything, but they die away after a few hours.
How condascending! Pat was right. An ovum still has a full set of DNA. Whether an embryo has two or three sets of DNA is irrelevant to what Pat said. The life-span prognosis of a gamete vs embryo is also irrelevant. An ovum can sometimes live longer than a gamete, so you cannot make such absolute declarations.
An ovum is a gamete and does not have the full number of chromosomes (which contain the DNA) of a normal adult cell.
This is how it works:
An ovum and a spermatazoon are gametes and each have 23 chromosomes.
Boy meets girl – spermatazoon+ovum= zygote .
A zygote is a fertilised egg which now has the full human species complement of 46 chromosomes (animals vary in the number of chromosomes they have).
2 of these chromosomes are sex chromosomes. If they are XX you are female. If they are XY you are male.
The gametes only have one sex chromosome. That of the ovum is always X, and that of the spermatazoon can be either X or Y.
Obviously it is the spermatazoon that determines what sex you are going to be. An X containing sperm that wins the race will produce a female, and a Y a male.
Further proof that you can never have had any medical training. “An ovum still has a full set of DNA,” you say. Really? And what about an ovum sometimes living longer than a gamete – when the ovum is a gamete itself? Pure sacrilege.
“An ovum can sometimes live longer than a gamete”
Sorry about that, I meant to say “An ovum can sometimes live longer than an embryo” , and in fact most do live longer.
This is how you can have four sets of DNA and still have a full life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtZgxsAkA3s
@John
A dinner set is a dinner set, whether you have four side-plates or one. It’s still a set if you have one of each.
What on earth are you getting at with your dinner set?
“What on earth are you getting at with your dinner set?”
I am saying that if you have at least one of each then you have a complete set, therefore a gamete has a complete set of DNA.
You still haven’t understood it. Re-read what I wrote above.
A gamete only has half a fork, half a knife, half a plate etc. It is still at half cock.
Firstly, I would like to state that a wrong cannot be “adjusted” with another wrong. Rape/abuse is wrong. Abortion is wrong. It’s a pity that respect doesn’t exist any longer. The child’s father didn’t respect his own child and only looked at himself and his pleasures. In my opinion, this has become a characteristic of today’s world, where everyone considers his own comforts and pleasures.
I don’t consider myself as strongly practising the Catholic religion. However, rape in the first place is against this religion [Daphne – I hate to disabuse you of the notion, but actually it’s not. The sin is in the sex outside marriage, and not in the absence of the woman’s consent. You can rape your wife. You could even rape your wife under the state law until a couple of magistrates/judges woke up and saw sense.] Maybe one of the reasons why so many rapes, abortions, abuses, etc are taking place is because we are ignoring religion, and preferring to live as we please just as long we are comfortable.
Laws are being manipulated and changed to reflect modern times…because they need to be updated. However, I think that they are being changed so that everyone can be comfortable and be able to state that what is being done is fine, it’s legal. Isn’t this why the Protestant church was set up? Primarily so that people could be able to divorce? [Daphne – No, no, no, no, no! That’s the propaganda and misinformation that Maltese children are taught at school, and they grow up to repeat it. Did Martin Luther wish to divorce? Protestantism began in Germany, and not in England with Henry VIII. All Henry VIII did was hive himself off from the authority of the pope and make himself the head of the – till then, and in his mind – still ‘Catholic’ Church in England. It was the Roman bit that bothered him. He didn’t have any theological views, and in fact strongly resisted the influence of the religious reformer William Tyndale.]
Now, instead of setting up a new church, the Catholic church is being ignored, agnostics are increasing and we’re going along with these amended regulations.
Moggy, you say: ” A zygote has the full complement of (of DNA) and is programmed to develop into a fully fledged person.” At what stage, do you reckon, is the programme completed?
Dedicated to Antoine Vella – some facts which should be known (at least for the sake of knowing): http://www.sharon4malta.com/uploads/file/ad-4-MT-en.pdf
It’s “The EU Council for Dummies” – but the subject is too complex to sufficiently compress and simpler words would only trivialise an otherwise important piece of information.
“Now, instead of setting up a new church, the Catholic church is being ignored, agnostics are increasing and we’re going along with these amended regulations.”
Yeah I know. It’s great, isn’t it?
@ Pat: If you think it’s great, good for you. I think it’s a pity.
I’ve been out of town and have no time to read through all the comments after mine, but clearly you have missed my points. Perhaps I wrote too quickly and was not specific enough.
I am the mother of four children, aged 18, 17, 15, and 12. So yes, I have had four nine year olds, two of them girls. I do not know the specifics of the woman in Brazil’s situation, so perhaps that was not a wise example to use to make my point about how people will lie to do what they want when it comes to abortion. What I was trying to say is that death from abortion is not being covered by the media in the United States in any significant way. They try to shove it under the rug. Finally, after many years, the clinic in Hialeah, Florida, is being regulated — and by regulated, I mean inspected and forced to have licensed nurses and doctors perform the abortions rather than office managers catching the baby as it slips out while the woman waits in the waiting room as happened in a recent abortion facility here. Prior to this recent turn of events, abortion facilities went largely unregulated and that is why Christina’s research is so important.
Daphne, you are too quick to judge the people who are taking their valuable time to write to you. You should listen more than you jump to conclusions. Read what I am saying, not what I am not saying. Late term abortion is legal in my country. It is not legal in yours. You do not know what I know. You have not counseled grieving young girls who felt they had no options and were forced to abort by their parents. I am thrilled that your country does not have the same laws regarding abortion as mine does. I’m considering moving to Malta for that reason alone. You’re not hearing what I’m saying. Until you have watched helplessly as your future president votes against legislation called the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, you don’t know what this is like. (Why should there even have to BE such a thing? Does not a child born alive after a botched abortion deserve recognition automatically by law? Not in the U.S.!) Our president does not believe a baby born alive should stay alive. He has said it would “undermine the woman’s initial decision.” And the woman made the initial decision because she was not informed correctly about gestational age, fetal development, etc., because our country does not force abortion clinics to offer women this information. Well, actually, that may have changed this week. I can only hope the legislation passes or did pass while I was out of town.
I can’t convince you that abortion is immoral because you don’t seem to believe it matters whether something is moral or not. But if you lived in my culture, you might feel differently. I am just suggesting that you consider other people’s points of view. Others who may be older and wiser. Were you even born in 1973 when Roe v. Wade occurred in the U.S.? I was. And my friend Norma was Jane Roe. She is now pro-life and says she was victimized by choicers in ’73.
Believe what you like, blog about what you want. It’s your choice to do that and that’s fine. But when you tell me you think I’m some Maltese man from Gift of Life or that I’m delusional or whatever else you said, you are just wasting your breath. Insulting me does not convince me that you are right to welcome abortion to Malta. Come up with a decent reason for late term abortion, please. Tell me why George Tiller performs them on perfectly formed seven month fetuses for no reason other than nervousness on the part of the mother. Explain to your nine-year-old child why women are allowed to kill their babies for no reason in the third trimester in Kansas, USA. What possible reasons could you come up with? There are none. While I’ll give you that the nine-year-old girl in Brazil was caught between a rock and a hard place, the types of situations we face here in the U.S. are much more clear cut. Abortion for convenience at any stage gestation. That is just not right. If you want Malta to go that direction as you seem to suggest you do, all I can say is that you will be sorry when you’re 45 and watching your country’s morals shot to hell. It’s not a pretty sight. Not for me or for my children. I only wish Norma had foreseen this and not allowed herself to fall victim to an idealistic group of former hippies that had the wrong ideals in place.
Think what you like of me, you will probably be wrong. I came at this with a very open mind. I began as a pro-choicer who took someone to an abortion clinic to have an abortion. Somewhere along the way, after listening to pro-life people over coffee and reading, reading, reading — articles in medical journals mostly — I realized we were all being duped by feminists (and I AM one!) and by men in the U.S. who, as a group, find it makes more sense to offer abortions than prenatal care and maternity leave to the women who work for them — a quick fix to a problem rather than a long term solution that offers life to a child.
One more thing. This is not a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue. You don’t have to be a Catholic or Christian or Muslim or any other religion to believe abortion — especially third trimester abortion — is abhorrent.
Megan:
Whether the Florida abortion doctor’s are properly vetted or not is a side issue. Of course these things should be regulated, which is something I take for granted they are in general. I can’t relate to the case you are referring to as I don’t know about it, but people avoiding rules, having bad medical outcomes is an argument for increased control and supervision, not an argument against abortion.
You also bring in grieving young girls, being forced into abortion. Again, why is this an argument against abortion? There are numerous girls being forced to go through the entire pregnancy against their will, for either their peers values, or the values of the society they live in.
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was voted down due to being too unspecific. If a foetus is aborted and there is actually a muscular contraction while being extracted, the Act would have deemed it manslaughter. To vote in that act, the entire chapter on abortion law would FIRST have to be completely restructured.
You also challenge to come up with a reason for late term abortion. Why late term? I can’t speak for Daphne, but personally I’m against late term abortion (I’m not medically trained and hence can’t give you a defining period for that) except in life threatening cases.
Abortion is an incredibly sensitive subject and there is no doubt that it is (and possibly should be) extremely emotional to go through with. I think every normal woman going through with an abortion are going through a difficult and despairing choice, but there is no reason why we should make it even harder. Make sure they make an informed choice, make sure they have all the facts and make sure they have the proper knowledge to properly plan their future family.
Pat, that isn’t true. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act of Illinois was identical to the federal law which passed unanimously. Obama didn’t vote for it because (his own words) “it might undermine the woman’s initial decision to abort.” Yep, ending up with a live baby might indeed do that.
I don’t know why anyone would wait so long that their baby could be born alive in the first place — perhaps a fetal abnormality that only showed up late in the game? But in any case, the act was not vague or unspecific at all. It contained the same clear language as the federal one.
Also… I mentioned the grieving young girls being forced by their parents to get abortions as an example. We allow them to get abortions without parental consent, and clinics even encourage them to lie about their ages to avoid detection by their parents or the law (that’s been caught on video). But we don’t offer them the same protection when they want to carry to term. I’d like to see equal protection for those women who want to keep their children. And perhaps some sort of support like France has where leave from work is extended and aid offered for women who want to have children. France is probably doing this because their birth rate is so low, but I’d still like to see it in the U.S. Or maybe we should be doing this ourselves as one Jewish group in Israel does. They offer to pay for everything for the first year for women in crisis. I admire that.
It’s not a matter of waiting long for a foetus risking being born alive after a failed aborI doubt we will agree much on the abortion question, but we definitely agree on the support for mothers. Being a father of a four month old baby I’m very well aware of the lack of support offered for young parents, especially in terms of daycare facilities. In our case we have been lucky in the sense that my wife got allowance from her work to stay home for the first year before going back to work and I have a salary which we can live on (although purchasing a property just before conceiving was very ill-timed), but many parents don’t. Maybe I’m spoiled coming from a country with very well functioning welfare functions and a long maternal and paternal leave, but I can’t think of many arguments against it.tion
The last comment is an example of what happens when I try to make a coherent argument on a Monday morning. Just ignore the first sentence completely, please.
Just read a little of the “gamete/zygote” conversation…
The point I’d like to make is that whether a zygote is or is not a human yet is not the point. Once you determine that abortion is allowable, you will eventually end up where we now are in the U.S. Third trimester abortions being performed for the sake of convenience. And let me define convenience in this instance. Yes, it’s a painful, three-day ordeal, but women are getting them in Kansas because they’re scared of the labor process and a little depressed, not because their babies are deformed or their health is at stake. Once you open the door to abortions that seem reasonable like first trimester abortions for rape victims, it’s only a matter of time before you end up where we are now. That is why I want to warn you against allowing it in Malta. Let women go to Italy or elsewhere if you must, but DON’T change Maltese law. A constitutional amendment is not such a bad idea from where I stand, having watched 35 years of supposed “progress.”
I think that people criticising these men about something they believe in and at the end of the day what we all should believe in terms wth our own religion, should occupy their mouths more with figolli and easter eggs rather than with stupidities such as the above.