No wonder I love Eastenders
Give me strength. Paul Vincenti is on television again with his illogical arguments. Women get depressed after abortion. Therefore abortion is bad.
Women get depressed after giving birth (and I know more of those than I know women who get depressed after an abortion). Some of them even kill themselves or try to kill their babies. Or their husband. They spend the day in their nightdress and refuse to wash their hair or take a bath. They cry. They scream. They wish they could send the baby back and then they beat themselves up with guilt for wishing that. Sometimes they even drive into the sea with the baby strapped into a car-seat, and both drown. Remember that?
Using Paul Vincenti’s reasoning, this makes child-birth a very bad thing which should be banned immediately, by means of the Constitution if necessary.
But why is he talking about abortion (again)? The discussion on Bondiplus is about the morning-after pill. Not the abortion pill, you understand, but the morning-after pill, which is something else entirely.
Thank heavens for Donald Felice, who has put the man in his place a couple of times without doing all that religious equivocation and moralising beating-about-the-bush that the other speakers feel constrained to do biex ma jghidux bihom in-nies.
The amazing thing is that Paul Vincenti thinks he knows more about conception and a woman’s reproductive system than one of Malta’s most experienced obstetrician-gynaecologists does.
The show is marked AO, because presumably nobody under the age of 18 has ever heard abortion and sex discussed, and shouldn’t start now.
I am finding it really difficult to tune in, because it’s like deja-vu all over again. I seem to have been listening to the same discussion, by more or less the same talking-heads, for the last two decades. And why is everybody involved in these televised discussions always middle-aged or old, with middle-aged and old views?
And now it’s over, and I don’t have to listen to the same arguments being rehashed as though Malta is at the beginning of this debate rather than at the end of it.
I don’t know why they bother discussing the morning-after pill at all. This government is most unlikely to approve it for sale, and Progressive Muscat has ruled it out already, four years before he becomes prime minister so that we are well prepared, on the grounds that he and Michelle had trouble conceiving a child naturally, so he is ‘obviously’ against anything like this but in favour of in vitro fertilisation.
Is there a word for an egocentric approach to policy-making?
Something tells me there’s going to be a black market in morning-after pills before long. That’s what happens.
25 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
“And why is everybody involved in these televised discussions always middle-aged or old, with middle-aged and old views?”
And why are they always men? Don’t women have opinions and views to put forward in this country?
[Daphne – Dammit yes, that’s another reason why those discussion panels are so unappealing. If you’re going to put people that age on television, they should be wearing eyeshadow and chic outfits.]
For once, I agree with you 100%.
The black market already exists. Only it isn’t black, but shining bright, and over the counter. You see, it is not illegal to IMPORT the morning-after pill. So any pharmacist with more than two brain cells stocks up on the stuff. Then when some customer asks for the ahem chrrrm pill, they make sure Paul Vincenti isn’t nosing about, and sell the stuff, plus receipt. Easy peasy poo. Just like childbirth, eh, Vincenti?
Can’t Mr Vincenti get a life himself to start off with? I can understand the point of view of those that argue against abortion of a few weeks old foetus – even though I don’t necessarily agree – but for Christ’s sake, if we are considering a few hours old fertilization as being a baby, and hence abortion if interrupted, then all men should be accused of genocide for aborting soon-to-be babies.
And women for menstruating? That’s no argument.
“I am finding it really difficult to tune in, because it’s like deja-vu all over again. I seem to have been listening to the same discussion, by more or less the same talking-heads, for the last two decades. And why is everybody involved in these televised discussions always middle-aged or old, with middle-aged and old views? ”
You forgot to mention that it is usually just men discussing, too ….
I once heard that whenever an American ship was in harbour, St. Luke’s Emergency Dept. used to be inundated with requests for the morning-after pill by (Catholic) Maltese girls. Whether they were actually supplied, I do not know.
Daphne,
You say that the morning after pill and abortion are separate matters. The main subject of debate is that there exists a possibility that the morning after pill can prevent a fertilised egg from attaching itself to the uterus. Isn’t that abortion?
[Daphne – No.]
If I’m not mistaken, that’s precisely why the government considers it to be illegal.
OK .. fair enough if you don’t think it is. But can you explain why?
My point is not to contest opinions but rather to really clear the air since there are too much of them around. I’m under the impression that a human being is defined from day 1 of fertilisation. Any process that kills off further growth of such an egg is considered an abortion.
What is your view about this? Do you disagree with the point in time during pregnancy which defines the fetus as a human being?
[Daphne – At law, human beings ‘start’ at birth, not conception. Before conception we are not legal persons but foetuses. It is human life which some – but not all – think of as starting with conception. I am one of those who think it is more than a little ridiculous to vest a fertilised ovum with a personality and rights. Practically every woman on earth who has had sex regularly and is fertile will also have had one or several ‘missed periods’, and will tell you that it’s nothing. Women who were scared they were pregnant will be enormously relieved. Women who wanted to be pregnant will be sad. But none of them are thinking in terms of a dead person, because it quite patently not one.]
It’s not a question of the definition of a “human being”, or when, at law, that human being “starts”. It’s a question of the definition of abortion. The crucial words used in the medico-legal definition of abortion are: “the expulsion of the products of conception”. That means from the time immediately following conception. Abortion can be spontaneous (miscarriage) or it can be induced medically or surgically. All forms of medically or surgically induced abortion are illegal in Malta.
OK good point.
One question remains then. If, by law, a human being “starts” at birth and not conception then on what grounds does the government deem the importation of such a pill illegal. Is it because of the simple fact that it wishes to adhere to the views of the Catholic Church? Using the same reasoning, even the importation of condoms should be deemed illegal.
[Daphne – The Maltese state is committed to protecting life from conception, not birth. Condoms prevent conception.]
In conclusion and to be totally honest, I am against abortion. Not because it’s the Catholic Church’s view but simply because of the fact that I find it brutal. That said, regarding the morning-after pill as a form of abortion is stretching it.
Oh my god, you cannot imagine how angry this whole thing makes me. WHY do we even have discussions like this if it’s obvious there’s no chance of this pill, let alone abortion, ever being made available and legal in this country? It’s such a waste of time.
And if life starts at conception, then why don’t they just go ahead and make pregnant women register for their foetus to have a conception certificate. We have BIRTH certificates because BIRTH is when human beings are recognised as ‘alive’.
Also, there have been some studies saying that the morning after pill only works on fertilised cells (zygotes) and not on those that have been implanted in the womb. After implantation, some say it just doesn’t work.
For god’s sake WHY are panels on these shows usually made up mostly of men? It’s disgusting and a stark reminder of just how patriarchal our society still is.
These people miss the whole point of ‘pro-choice’ completely. Of course people like me are not in favour of abortion – it IS a trauma and is not positive, but CHOICE is.
It makes me sick.
That’s what YOU say, Daphne. At exactly what point, in your esteemed view, in the course of his/her passage along the uterine canal, does said non-person become person.
And, again, in your esteemed view, once this point is defined (presumably by yourself) what exactly is the difference between this point and 1 second earlier, 2 seconds earlier, 1 minute earlier, 1 hour earlier, 1 day, week, month, etc?
[Daphne – You righteous people are so very trying. Personhood begins at birth. And apparently it’s not just me who says that, but also the law of Catholic Malta, which can be sensible at times.]
I’ve heard of the Panama canal. But where’s the uterine canal?
I think it’s in Germany. It must be an extension of the Rhine or something.
P.S. Here’s something for Andrea or Pat or whatever her name was (the German blog reader)
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/8243/wurstkoffer.jpg
[Daphne – Pat is a Swedish man. Andrea is a German woman.]
Hmmm, we’re not the only ones who are trying, it seems. Nice try, to toss in a remark like ‘personhood begins at birth’ as a given but it won’t work. A living human being is a person and a person is a living human being. The attempt to separate personhood from the definition of a human being is an exercise in deception, designed to de-humanise targeted sectors of human society. It has been practised forever. Probably, the instance people will identify with most easily is the classification of Jews as non-persons by Nazi Germany, as a warmup to the attempt to eradicate that entire sector of humanity. There are, actually, even worse examples than this but the strategy is invariably the same . In this case, the idea is to de-humanise the pre-born sector of human society (ie. of living human beings), using tortured reasoning to separate the definition of human-ness (sorry :-) from that of personhood, prior to giving the green light to going ahead with their extermination. The whole point is to make something intrinsically wrong acceptable to society at large. Additionally, I suggest you re-visit the Law of Malta, Catholic or not, more carefully.
[Daphne – This is not an argument I am interested in having. If you want to believe that Malta is some kind of last bastion where wheels can be reinvented and centuries-old debates rehashed in the belief that they will result in new thoughts, go ahead. I find it all pathetic and dull. I am no longer 17 and at sixth form college, and earnest debates about when life begins and ends make me glaze over. The argument that interests me is not that, but the one about Malta joining the real world.]
Sorry you suddenly find it all so very dull. What it comes down to, as with most arguments, is truth vs untruth (whose truth, whose untruth ? ). Illogical arguments being your jumping-off point for this discussion, I assumed you would be interested in seeing where it may lead. Clearly, I was mistaken.
As to what is and what is not the ‘real’ world, that would be a discussion worth having – maybe you could use it to catch up on your sleep, at the same time ?
Did you know that s_ _ t must taste good ? 20 million flies can’t be wrong !
[Daphne – I found St Aloysius College-type ‘wit’ deeply boring when I was there, let alone now.]
Do you still watch Eastenders? Possibbli? It’s become pathetic!
I had a termination in the UK at 9 weeks gestation.
Immediately the procedure was done I cried – with relief!
I already had two children, I had watched both my brothers suffering immensely, and eventually dying, of multiple sclerosis.
Had I carried on with that pregnancy, I would be utterly depressed at present, and so would be my older children, watching their parents struggle with the difficulties such a family member would bring along.
Whoever wants to condemn me is free to do so. Those who choose to judge are the very last ones who would have lifted a finger to help – so their opinions do not count. I am at peace with myself, and that’s ultimately all that counts.
OK. Have a good day.
[Daphne – Guess I was right about the school, then.]
Nope, not quite. But, clearly, treatment of a meaningful subject by uncontested and poorly thought out throwaway remarks is more your milieu. And that’s where I get bored in turn.
[Daphne – That evens things out.]
I guess :-)
John Dalli should push for the after-morning pill. It would solve a lot of problems with payments to single mothers who have children from unknown fathers.
Ok, Daphne, get ready to be grossed out. About the argument on when human life starts. I have witnessed ultra religious people encouraging women who have just been through a miscarriage to choose a name for their child and to offer a mass as a funeral service for the miscarriage. This obviously always helps the grieving mother . . .