Some news for the pregnancy police
The progressive violation of human rights
I have news for the deputy leader of the Labour Party, Toni Abela: he has been a willing participant in human rights violation.
Not bad for a progressive politician.
The action of which he boasts – that he is the only lawyer ever to have succeeded in preventing a pregnant woman from leaving the country, at the request of her former boyfriend – is just that: a human rights violation.
I have news for the deputy prime minister, too – but then as a human rights law expert, this would have dawned on him by now.
Any amendment to our laws which would allow men (or anyone else, for that matter) to prevent pregnant women from leaving the country on the grounds that they might have an abortion is asking for big trouble.
Any such amendment will guarantee a major beating if challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has decided already (Boso vs Italy) that abortion is a decision which belongs exclusively to the mother, and that the father has no say at all in that decision.
The ECHR has upheld Italy’s abortion law, which gives the sole say on whether to abort or not to the woman.
77 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Daph, x’ghamilnilek ahna biex taghtina xokk bhal dan naraw ir-ritratt ta’ Toni Abela t-Tnejn filghodu? You’ve increased my Monday Blues.
Anzi. Jien nara lil Toni Abela u f’salt wiehed inhoss li ghallinqas minhiex bottom of the pile fil-good looks department. Dan ikecci mill-ewwel il-Monday Blues.
Post a pic, H.P. Baxxter.
Get used to it. Three more years and he will be forced down your throat every single day by TVM.
jaqqq selfish femminists. We give you equal rights and you demand for special rights just becuase you bear the child for 9 months does not give you the right to decide on the child’s fate. If it was for me yes every women who goes abroad for abortion would be charged with murder imbaghad tnehhuh l qziz. Life is not a commodity or a mcdonalds meal. Life is a right.
“We give you equal rights”
Rights are recognised, not given, though it is clear from your statement that you think rights are the default prerogative of men to be granted to women at men’s discretion.
“If it was for me”
Well, thank heavens it isn’t but I must ask what you would do in the case of men who pressure women to abort against their will.
I would throw him in prison also. This is another argument like the unknown father issue. If we had to force the unknown fathers to show their faces I bet loads of marriages would fall apart. 1 out of 3 are unfaithful. So you can imagine the mess. First you mess up, you date married men, you go for the hot shot guys etc. Then when you get in a mess you decide to fix the problem by aborting right? wrong
La Redoute
I believe Mark C has exercised a presumed right, that of men giving rights to women. Which is not the case and I agree with you. If anything women were prevented from exercising their rights by men.
However I do see a point in what he says, not only see but feel it, and as a man with children even more so.
My point is – the courts have in time come up with strange decisions, quoting a court decision does not mean that the decision is correct or that in future it will not be over-ruled. There are many old court cases where the court established some women were witches (evil) and were burnt alive. Does that mean they were correct? No.
Where does the right of women start and stop? Nine months? If women are omnipotent beings able to take a life or death decision over an offspring, then why does responsibility get shared once the child is born?
[Daphne – Precisely because the child is born, Marcus; it is no longer part of the woman’s body and the father is obliged to exercise equal responsibility for it, something which he cannot do – because of biology – before the baby is born.]
Why do omnipotent rights and decision powers last nine months? Surely not because of nature’s role in women to carry a child for ca. nine months?
[Daphne – Yes, exactly because of that. If ever a way is found to literally grow babies outside the woman’s body, then I think you will find that the father has equal rights to the mother as to decide what to do with it.]
Do parents have rights over children if they have a life threatening disease and the children refuse life saving medication? Who gets those rights?
[Daphne – Children cannot refuse life-saving medication because they are not enfranchised to take decisions like that. You must be over 18. Parents cannot refuse life-saving medication for their child, because they do not ‘own’ the child’s life but conversely, are guardians of it. Hence, in such a situation the child is temporarily made a ward of court, and the court rules that doctors should do what they can to save the child’s life irrespective of what the parents want. We saw this most famously in the case of the conjoined babies from Gozo.]
Do you know some courts, even in the US (if we’re in vein of quoting court cases) have removed rights from parents over to the state when the parents refused medication for their children on religious pretexts?
[Daphne – It’s not ‘some courts’, Marcus. This is a universal principle of law, at least in the developed, democratic world. Parents do not have rights over the life over their child. They merely have the duty to preserve that life.]
If the situation is life threatening to the mother, I have no problem with the termination of pregnancy. Bitter as much as it may be. However, I do not extend rights for Godly decisions to mothers, when clearly the child being borne is not hers only but of a father as well.
I should think that the father should have a right to open up a case in court against the mother who decided on her own free will, pretending to have omnipotent rights for a child’s life.
[Daphne – Of course the father has a right to sue the mother. But then the court has to apply the ECHR’s decision, so the law suit would be, ultimate, time-consuming, expensive and pointless.]
The state should not allow arbitrary abortions on a woman’s (or any man’s) presumed right to terminate a life.
This argument is beyond religous connotations. I am not religious.
There are arguments thrown about, involving rape cases. The last person who can take a decision on whether to terminate an offspring’s life is the woman who’s been raped. She is emotionally unfit to take a decision.
[Daphne – Marcus, this reasoning is making me very nervous. ‘She is emotionally unfit to take a decision’. Nobody has any right or duty to take a decision for anybody else who is over the age of 18 (unless it involves contracts and a power of attorney), unless that person has been committed due to insanity or is of sub-normal intelligence. The implied equation of pregnant women with children or animals is one of the most worrisome in this entire debate.]
Unless the baby (innocent victim as much as the mother) is a threat to the mother’s life. Women or immediate families of women victims of rape are the last people who can take a good or bad decision.
Boiling blood, anger at the situation, picturing the rapist and his seed in the woman, but always forgetting that the person inside is a totally different person from the rapist. Kill the child to get back at the rapist?
Think you will forget the rape after you’ve terminated your half-child? I stand to be corrected, but I think, the answer to both would be, no.
Another aspect of giving final decisions to women to unilaterally terminate a life they bear is that, how do I know, that the woman in question is not affected by some blues?
Maybe she is mentally not fit to take a decision.
[Daphne – Here we go again. Funny how women are always mentally fit to have sex, but then not mentally fit to take decisions over whether they want to be pregnant or not.]
Should we wait for the life to be terminated and then establish this after? Should the court prevent the woman from immediately terminating a life, to establish if the woman is fit to take such a decision?
Looking at this subject from a very scant angle would give me the impression that we might be living in modern-day Iran where the state and men dictate what happens. However, delving deeper into the subject, one immediately starts seeing various points of view, even those of an innocent, unborn child.
A court should never act on feelings (like a mother would) but on what is best for ALL concerned.
Marcus: You’re assuming rather a lot about men’s fitness to take any sort of decision, let alone one about another person’s life. And, no, I don’t mean the life of a foetus.
Daphne
Sex is an instinct, decisions power to terminate a life is not an instinct.
[Daphne – Sex is not an instinct, Marcus. It is a decision, unless one is blind drunk. We are not dogs in the mating season.]
I was not trying to undermine women’s decision-making capabilities.
Apologies if I came across to you (women) as doing that. But your point that having sex is OK- deciding the fate of a child is not, was not what I meant.
Even a 12 year old can have sex but does she have the cognitive abilities to take such life or death decisions.
[Daphne – Actually, most 12-year-olds CAN’T have sex, still less bear a child, without physical and mental damage, which is why they must always be coerced into doing so. That is one reason why it is against the law.]
I would always (with reservations of life or death to Mother) err on the offspring’s side, because it is a silent innocent person who’s life hangs on a fine line.
[Daphne – A foetus is NOT a person. A foetus is a foetus, an incipient human being, but not a human being. It does not follow on from this that abortion is morally acceptable, but the distinction is crucial. All the legislative systems of the developed, democratic world, including our own, are rooted in the consensus that a person starts at birth and not at conception. Granting a foetus ‘personhood’ under our Constitution undermines our entire legal system, though those who are getting carried away by this nonsense cannot see it. If you give a foetus equal status to a ‘born’ person then by definition, that equal status is in all things, which means that registration of the person would have to be made at conception, and not at birth as the situation is now.]
A victim of rape is passing through emotional turmoil. Would you want to be under the knife of surgeon who’s just been raped? Anybody who is related to a victim of rape knows that the victim knows what I mean.
The point about once the child is born than it’s OK to share responsibility is dangerous, because I don’t know on what basis you make that assumption.
[Daphne – This is not about it’s being ‘OK to share responsibility’ after birth. It is legally mandatory to share responsibility, which is why so many women prefer to register the father as unknown: they would rather not have him breathing down their necks and making life difficult for the next 18 years.]
Is it because there is a visible persona? Doesn’t an ultrasound scan show what’s inside the womb?
Is it because the child is developed? I assure you, according to well respected scientists on a BBC documentary, they state that a child is developed at least 8 months after birth, but physically it would be impossible for the cervix to withstand a birth of a child’s body 9 months + 8 months.
I am not trying to win any argument here. It’s not my life being terminated. But who stands up for an unborn child’s life? The mother? No – she’s too implicated. Well at least for such a decision of terminating life.
Daphne
Smashing, ask any anthropologist, biologist, psychologist etc. About whether sex is an instinct or not (in humans). You will get a straight yes. Sex, as part of nature, is only a means to an end, pro-creation.
[Daphne – More illogical thinking. The fact that something may be governed by the impetus of ‘instinct’ – and actually, anthropology does not speak in terms of instinct – does not divorce it from the decision-making process. When you have sex, you don’t do so because you are driven by instinct. You do so because you have taken a decision to have sex. ‘Instinct’ if you wish to use that word, is what makes you want it. A conscious decision is what makes you do it.]
12 years old
I did not ever state if they can mentally handle sex, but hello, we get a lot of 12,13,14,15 year old mothers every year. Are they emotionally OK to choose the future of their child? After all, it is them carrying it for 9 months not me, you, their parents or anyone.
[Daphne – We do NOT have a lot of mothers in that age group every year, and 12-year-olds cannot by any stretch of the imagination be equated with 15-year-olds. A lot happens in those three years, mentally and physically. There is a very famous bit of case law that deals with just this issue – the Irish case of a minor girl whose parents wanted to take her across to England for an abortion – with her consent. Google it. If it is wrong to ‘impose’ an abortion on a schoolgirl, then it is equally wrong to ‘impose’ pregnancy and a child on her. If the consequences of an abortion are permanent, as Paul Vincenti likes to say, then what in heaven’s name are the consequences of birth? Your fallacious point of departure, as with Vincenti, is that the consequences of birth are incontrovertibly felicitous for all involved, including the child. Hence it is better to be born than not to be born at all.]
A foetus is not a person. Says who? Legislation.
Shall we quote Middle Ages legislation about burning of women with tarot cards? Come on, this is not about law which can be (and have been) changed over time. It’s like saying children are not future women or men. We can agree to disagree on this subject, but at least let’s be factual and fair.
[Daphne – Oh come now. If and when laws are revised, it is to move society forwards and not backwards. That is why laws about the burning of witches were done away with, and also why laws permitting abortion will never be.]
Again, you quote legal responsibility – then I cannot but play your own tune. It is illegal to abort – well, at least in Malta – so subject closed? Mmmm not my type of argument and therefore my (repeat) next question would be:
A child fully develops 8 months after birth – what are you basing your arguments on? A legal aspect? Surely women are not fighting for abortion over legalistic matters but beyond that?
[Daphne – What is this business about ‘eight months after birth’? What do you mean and where did you get it from?]
Should it be a legal aspect whether we should re-introduce capital punishment in Malta?
[Daphne – You undermine your own arguments with such hopelessly illogical comparisons.]
Daphne
Just to clarify. “illogical thinking” is according to you. Just because you don’t understand an argument or are lost for words to answer it – does not constitute illogical thinking in my regard.
[Daphne – I have so many shortcomings that I could spend all day listing them, Marcus, but an inability to understand arguments or put them forward is not among them. Logical and illogical reasoning are not matters of opinion, but subject to proof, using the measuring tools of – wait for it – logic. Some people are born with the ability to think logically, others are raised to think logically, and still others learn logic at school or university. But if you were neither born that way, nor learned logic along the way, then you cannot assume that you are a logical thinker just because you say so.]
Where have I seen that of children not fully developed before 8 months after birth – Please read before you reply, I’ve already stated my source, BBC ? But for more info it was Lord Winston – here is a link to who he is:
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nyt.co.uk/ProfessorLordWinston.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nyt.co.uk/professor.lord.winston.htm&usg=__–86AZ6xSCblQBjs41JzEupUfWQ=&h=439&w=316&sz=12&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=Ga4X459uR5_XvM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlord%2Bwinston%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
[Daphne – I know exactly who Lord Winston is because I am an assiduous follower of his work, and I can assure you that he would be the last person on earth to lend credence to your reasoning. There is no way on earth that he would have made the assertion that ‘children are not fully developed before eight months after birth’, because he is a scientist over and above being a logical thinker. That statement begs the question: fully developed as what? The human body is in a constant state of development from birth to death.]
Um Daphne,
About Lord Wilson. you are not making sense. If you are an ardent follower of his works, assure you so am I – and what I said he stated as a fact on a BBC documentary. If you don’t agree with it – tough – get a shower, go to bed, suck a thumb and sleep crying :) Obviously this is all tongue in cheek. But thank you for trying to discredit that argument as well. Hence people can judge who is NOT writing sense.
[Daphne – Well, Marcus, you have certainly proved me right in my assumption – made on the basis of language and argument – that you are not my contemporary, not married and not a father. Come back when you are all of those and have grown up a little.]
Right Mark C, the logical response would be: if life is a right, then why don’t we ask the foetus?
Because your reasoning implies that life is a duty, not a right. Big difference.
Jaqq oh jaqqq – men like you! Although I admit I don’t agree with abortion in general, there are certain situations where I wouldn’t condemn it – as for example when a woman is raped. If it was someone who goes around never using protection, then boohoo, live with your mistake. But in rape victims I would fully understand and support their decision. And yes, the decision should be solely of the mother, not just because she has to carry the baby for 9 months (which, face it, no man would be able or willing to do) but because ultimately, after birth, it’s still the woman who has to shoulder most of the responsibility.
Angele .Obviously in cases of rape..the father has no say becuase he fathered the child without consent from the mother. But to simply say women have all the right and the father none becuase they are the ones who carry the child is femminist and selfish.
First you equate the father’s self-interest with that of the foetus and now you wipe him out altogether in cases of rape.
Your argument about the decision being a mother’s alone applies in all cases, not jus the one you mention.
U sorry ta, one last thing – YOU give US rights?
Ghax ma tmurx tinheba, siehbi!
@Mark C
I despair when I read comments like yours. What exactly do you mean by ‘Just because you bear the child for 9 months?’ Sorry imma ma niflahx ma nghidlekx kemm int vojt!
And what about ‘first you mess up and date married men?’ What exactly would the married men be doing then if not messing up? I wouldn’t put it past you to tell me that these married men are martyrs and lured by evil women. It takes two to tango, Mark C.
La Redoute
I am assuming nothing. Men are not immune to emotional errors. This is the problem with chatting/writing – what I assume is not what comes across.
The only thing I am assuming is that the unborn child needs someone to defend it.
Please don’t take this as men over women (in the decision powers sense) I admire (and love) women. I think this world would be a heck of an ugly hell without them, but there are cases where neither men nor women (implicated that is) can take an objective decision.
Am I coming across as a nerd? Ghax nieqaf nikteb!
“there are cases where neither men nor women can take an objective decision”
On this principle, we agree. Where we part company is 1) under what circumstances that may arise 2) who is qualified to decide that about others and 3) that the default position is that all men make sense and that (pregnant) women do not.
You don’t come across as a nerd. You come across as someone who uses the term ‘unborn child’. That says a lot about your starting point and permanent position in this debate.
(1) Examples would be rape. How can a rape victim come to a life/death conclusion when she is emotionally implicated by a violent crime? But this is an example only. As stated, I would never choose the life of a woman over that of a child – if circumstances dictated so. There isn’t space here to go through all possible scenarios, but in most cases, the victim of a crime cannot be the judge and jury. As much as you can judge the burglar of your house?
(2) In most cases it is a court of law that does so. But the point here was that a man has no right over the child being borne by his woman. So if my wife, according to some, decides to terminate her pregnancy, again, according to some, I have no right in this matter because I don’t carry the baby? No, that is wrong. I don’t carry the burden of running Malta, but I have a say in it every so many years with my vote.
(3) No, that is not what I said. I assume this is a genuine mistake of yours in rushing to write before understanding what I said. Men do not make sense more than a woman or vice-versa for all that matters. It is precisely why I said before that ALL aspects should be considered, e.g. if the woman’s life is in danger and the man insists she goes ahead with pregnancy, then I am sure it is obvious who is nuts here.
Marcus: Your arguments are full of holes.
1. A house is not a person. A woman is. Being raped does not deprive her of her adult status. You would never choose the life of a woman over that of a child. That is precisely why a pregnant woman should decide such matters as directly concern her. It might suprise you that some women take that view but then it’s their own life they’re talking about. In your case, neither life would be yours.
2. There is no parallel there. You are a citizen of Malta. That is why you get a say in how it’s run. You do not get to vote in countries of which you are not a citizen. I take it your wife is not a country, so it follows that you are not a citizen of hers, so your example fails on two counts.
3. I agree that men make no more sense than women do, but no I did not rush to write before I understood what you said. I hate to disabuse you of the notion, but yours is not an original view so it is one with which I am more than familiar. I agree too that ALL aspects should be considered and I fail to see why you ignore the most crucial one. The decision should ultimately rest with the mother. It is not at all obvious who is nuts here – not to you, anyway. In the situation you describe, clearly the father is nuts, especially if he is prioritising the pregnancy. But, then again, you had already declared your position in your first point, so by your own definition you’re nuts too.
La Redoute
(1) U ejja, who said a house is a person? Come on. This is taking it beyond a discussion. It was just an example of why you cannot be judge and jury when emotionally implicated.
(2) Sorry, both my wife and myself completely disagree with you on this. But you are perfectly entitled to disregard your husband on such matters. After all, what’s he there for – mhux ghal gost tghid.
[Daphne – Does your wife delegate you to speak on her behalf in a debate that is not about abortion but about treating pregnant women like children? That alone speaks volumes.]
(3) To state that it ultimately rests with the mother is saying that women are judge, jury, omnipotent, Gods, etc.. etc…
Sorry not acceptable. Who cares about the child then right?
[Daphne – In very many cases I know of, certainly not the father.]
Daphne
No my wife does not delegate me to speak on her behalf. Did Le Redoute delegate you to speak on her (his?) behalf? Opps :P
[Daphne – You are definitely NOT 40, married and a father for the last 15 years. You sound to me like one of those single men whose only solace is consorting with like-minded souls in Imperium Europa.]
1. If emotional implication is a barrier to decision-taking, then you can exclude the father.
2. It’s irrelevant whether you and your apparently hypothetical wife agree with me or not – though it is relevant that you presume to speak on her behalf. If she claims to be a country and you her citizen then, then perhaps it’s time to call an ambulance.
3. As I pointed out earlier, plenty of people care, including those women whom you would have removed from the decision-taking processes that directly concern them.
You’re simply coming across as a blinking pedant who wants his/her fifteen minutes of fame.
(My comment was addressed to “Marcus”.)
Have you ever given birth?! Have you ever been a scared 14 year old pregnant girl? Have you ever been pregnant by your rapist?
Who are you to judge and call us feminists?! What does it make you then? A sexist? Thinking that just because you are a man you have all the power in the world?
In NO WAY do I condone abortion but you are not right to judge!
Why oh why do you use this photo? It scares the living daylights out of me. And like Hot Mama said, why increase our Monday blues?
[Daphne – Well, it’s one of his own publicity shots, so I imagine he’s glad I’m using it.]
Mela veru li Saddam irxoxta! Mill-Isvizzera tal-Mediterran se nsiru l-Iraq tal-Mediterran.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3UYExh6ISw
We gazed into the abyss, and then drew back.
Why reduce this subject to a men versus women squabble?
The crux of the question is: does the right to life supersede individual rights?
I think yes, but from this to spin off about a possible abortion police cannot but be described as hype used by certain people who do have and want to impose THEIR agenda. On the other hand biologically for a pregnant woman travelling is a strain especially in the later stages of pregnancy. As a woman Daphne may speak better than me on the subject.
However what perplexes me is how in such a “culturally advanced” continent we are taking this issue for granted. May I refresh your memory with the fact that one of the first regime to impose abortion was Germany during the Nazi Regime where mixed breeds and disabled were being aborted or were going through the process of sterilization and euthanasia.
Prosit, you have managed to make a fantastic minestra – and across history, too. First of all, the Nazi regime killing and abortion have nothing to do with this – those were forced on women.
Also, travelling is perfectly safe during pregnancy. I can vouch for this as I travelled about five times during my pregnancy. In any case, are you saying the police should stop any pregnant woman from travelling lest she miscarries? What a load of BOLLOCKS this morning.
And yes, whether one is or is not in favour of abortion, THE WOMAN is the only one who has a right to decide on the pregnancy during gestation. The foetus depends totally on the mother until it is viable in its own right.
This not only is a biological fact but it is fully accepted in all jurisdictions and not only with respect to abortion.
The same principle applies to, for example, in utero treatment and surgery, amniocentesis and all treatments involving her and the foetus during gestation.
May I refresh your memory with the fact that one of the first régimes to ban abortion was Franco’s.
I don’t think we’re taking the issue for granted. It just pisses me off that the Vincenti posse argument against abortion is something as breathtakingly disingenuous as “the foetus would have developed into a fine, healthy, happy, fulfilled person.”
Reminds me of the recent incident of the star football player in the US, used in an advert by the anti-abortion lobby. What if the foetus had turned into a sad loser slob instead of a ripped stud jock? The pro-life people seem to excel at this sort of Pollyanna propaganda.
Of course it’s all BOLLOCKS for the people who know it all.
I don’t know it all. But I do know that life is not always a “gift”.
@ Baxxter,
Yes sometimes it does happen that a life is given in unpleasant situations. However, it’s a life nonetheless. Unluckily this happens when people want rights but do not bother about duties and responsibilities.
There is a very good reason why the sperm provider has no legal say in the decision as to whether a woman aborts or not. There are plenty of instances where a pregnancy is seriously injurious to the woman’s health, and where it would be fatal to carry the pregnancy to term. As a general rule, one cannot have an individual (albeit one sporting testicles) granted the legal right to determine the medical treatment of another adult, and particularly when the withholding of such treatment is likely to cause the death of that adult.
The protection of life comes first. I agree with what Edwin Vassallo proposed. He explained it well on Sunday in Luqa. I agree with a police order over pregnant women who abuse of drugs, the life, yes we believe in the person’s right from conception, has to be protected.
Mr. Vassallo also spoke of the importance of the united family and the cost on society of broken families. It is not a ‘big bro’ approach, it is based on facts.
“Edwin Vassallo explained it well on Sunday in Luqa”.
U hallina.
If you need such things explained to you, it’s no wonder you think it’s a good idea. You clearly haven’t thought through the practicalities and their consequences, let alone the horrendous implications of violating another person’s rights.
I don’t know what sort of world you think you’re living in but, perversely, the very sort of thing you seek to condemn is often justified as a means of maintaining a ‘united’ family and the kind of attitude you demonstrate is often the reason many are broken.
Rather ironic, don’t you think?
La Redoute, I only comment on things I have heard, not on things someone tells me someone told! If you want to go on a baby killing spree, then that is fine with me, but you need to suffer the consequences as others pick up the pieces.
Don’t give me the human rights rhetoric.
We are all of a sudden calling everything ‘a right’. ‘The right of divorce’ or ‘the right to abort’ … the last I knew there was A Right to Life and A Right to the Protection of life.
Get your facts straight is need referee to the Declaration of Human Rights you all cherish http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
There is a limit to their interpretation, but I cannot get to the ‘right of a mother to remove the life of her child …’ or ‘the right to break up families and cause social disorder…’
Calm down. No one’s going on a baby killing spree here. This is a rational discussion, remember?
It’s really perverse of you to go on about the right to break up families and cause social disorder, when that is precisely the sort of situation your mindset leads to.
The document you quote recognises human rights – not men’s rights to dictate to women.
Why do I get the feeling that you’ve never had a period even though you sound like you’ve got severe PMT?
I dont like your use of the work ‘perverse’ in reference to me. I hold my right not to like that and for you to use it.
As for my PMT, I am a bit under the weather that is why I have spent the time reading your replies.
Daphne, please post something new about Consuelo Herrera before we start worrying about social problems!
Explained it well in Luqa? Where? In front of the monument?
Barring clinically-proven insanity, no-one, anywhere, for whatever reason, has the right to presume to dictate, hinder or prevent, in any form whatsoever, what a woman can or cannot do to her body.
All and any arguments in favour of the contrary, no matter how moral, go straight out of the window in my book, without a second thought.
I understand and wholeheartedly agree with some points made by anti-abortionists, but I cannot place them above a person’s rights over what to do or not with their bodies.
Ever.
Alan
You’re getting the wrong end of it. It is not that women (or men for that matter) can do what they want with their body. Go try suicide or self inflicting pain – it’s your body (and life) no? Wrong – you will be taken to a mental hospital with very wobbly walls. But isn’t it your body?
[Daphne – You are confusing issues. People who try to kill themselves (except where they do so as the result of painful, terminal illness and careful, mentally sound consideration) and who cut themselves or starve themselves, for example, are by definition psychologically disturbed, which is why the social consensus is that they have to be protected from decisions which they are not capable of taking. This is not at all the same as being diagnosed with cancer and deciding, for whatever reasons, that one does not wish to go through the hoopla of chemotherapy/radiotherapy, but prefers instead to let the disease take its course.]
This is not about womens’ bodies but about a body within their body.
Don’t take it strictly as men vs women argument. There are many women against abortion and many men in favour.
[Daphne – It is a men vs women argument for the simple reason that only women can get pregnant and only men can make them so and try to assert parental rights before birth.]
Daphne,
So if I try to terminate my life – it is a mental disorder. But if you terminate the life of a child in your womb it is a sign of mental stability? Sorry, you lost me here.
[Daphne – Once again, you make illogical parallels between a foetus and an adult, so any argument that ensues from this illogical parallel is going to be illogical in itself.]
As I stated, there are many women against abortion as much as men in favour. You lose me again with your last statement that it is a men vs women thing. Where do the women against abortion picture on your argument?
[Daphne – You will find that ‘women against abortion’ have overriding loyalties which eclipse their gender loyalty and at times, even their commonsense or respect for the rights of others: religion, for example, or extreme conservatism. An objective and sensible woman, even if she has strong reservations about abortion, adopts the stance that there but for the grace of God goes she and that she is not in a position to say what another woman should or shouldn’t do. We are all very much aware, and have experience of, situations in which we can honestly say to ourselves, “It would have been a hell of a lot better if she had just gone off and had an abortion/taken the morning after pill” because we can see that the net result of the morning after pill not being available in case X or case Y is years of misery and suffering for all involved, including the child – dumped or ill-treated – and this misery, as misery is wont to do, spirals down the generations. This is the moral dilemma that people with true consciences – as opposed to religious ones – must square up to. Would an abortion have been worse than the suffering that has ensued from not having had one?]
I would hazard a guess that most women in favour of abortion just want the right to it (as otherwise they would feel discriminated against), but once given that right, most would not resort to it whatsoever.
Daphne – It is a men vs women argument for the simple reason that only women can get pregnant .. let’s see you get pregnant without a man then you can have all the extra rights you wish for. Until then keep hoping.
[Daphne – You might not have noticed, but it’s perfectly possible for women to get pregnant without men and even without having sex. Of course there is ultimately a man involved somewhere along the line who’s sold his sperm, but you can rest assured that he’s not going to come knocking on Toni Abela’s door trying to prevent you from leaving the country.]
Daphne
“no one who has children would say that because it is understood”
If you say so. I am of age to remember Giga very well. I am aware that laws are being updated to protect children more.
Can’t you see that you’re making a mess of your own arguments.
Daphne
Sorry you lose me, especially with your answer to women against abortion. I know you want to be on top of things every time – but sometimes, you’re going to have to say hey – on this point I don’t make sense.
[Daphne – Unfortunately for you, Marcus, on this point I do make sense. I rarely pick up topics where I am not in a position to make sense. I do this on a professional basis, unlike those who post comments on timesofmalta.com, make political speeches, or write letters to the editor.]
Why, illogical parallels? I’d like to see you calling your family after giving birth, saying – Oh look I’ve had a foetus! You don’t do that, do you.
[Daphne – Exactly, Marcus, because once it is born it is no longer a foetus. The transition from womb to the world outside it is a fundamental one, marked not only by a change in legal status, but also by terminology and vocabulary. While we’re on the subject of terminology, you might also wish to know that the medical term for a miscarriage is ‘abortion’. An abortion can either be spontaneous or induced.]
Most people, when they get a positive on the pregnancy test, say: “We’re going to have a baby”, or “I’m carrying a baby” and not a foetus.
[Daphne – You would be surprised to learn, possibly because your entire experience is made up of 30-somethings who have left it too late and are struggling to conceive, that one of the most frequent reactions to a positive on a pregnancy test is actually ‘Oh bloody hell, no!’ Happily pregnant women refer to the foetus as their baby because they have formed a bond with it already – an excellent thing. But to everyone else, and certainly medicine and the law, it remains a foetus.]
As stated in another part, we can agree to disagree. At the end of it – I will never understand what you people get by killing an unborn child and you people (pro abortion I mean) will never understand why we try to save every possible innocent life.
[Daphne – I have never ‘killed an unborn child’ nor would I have had the slightest desire to do so. However, what other women choose to do with their pregnancy is their business and not mine. I find something inherently and inexplicably distasteful in these constant attempts by men to sort women out and seize control of the reproductive process, which is all it boils down to, really, and why the debate in Malta is dominated by men, from politicians and priests downwards.]
Rest assured though, that we do mean good and not harm to anyone, that is, women, children and future people of this world, everyone that is.
[Daphne – ‘We’ being who, exactly? First I thought you were Paul Vincenti. Now I suspect that you’re some other agent of the Gift of Life movement, the main clues being the fixation on rape, the use of the term ‘unborn child’ and the relentless hammering home of the same male standpoint arguments.]
We…mmm maybe normal people who just have an opinion and no, I am not Paul Vincenti. Who cares about him anyway.
Problem conceiving? Again, Daphne, read well. I am already a dad and have been so more than once for the past 15 years. I adore my children, thank you.
….and no – you don’t make sense.
[Daphne – OK, Marcus, if you say so. But I must say that an analysis of your language and argumentation suggests to me that you might be fibbing about your marital and parental status. If you have been a father for 15 years, then you would be around 40, but the clues I pick up from your deployment of language is that you are in your 20s, but very grown-up for that age, e.g. “I am not Paul Vincenti. Who cares about him anyway.”; “I adore my children, anyway” – no one who has children would say that because it is understood.]
Marcus says he remembers Giga (the notorious child murderess) very well. That would make him 60+.
http://i.imgur.com/A1BuB.jpg
Here’s a good one for Toni’s manifesto.
Those were the days!
One must be careful: it might be the case that under international law, Maltese citizens by nature of being Maltese are bound by Maltese law and this binds them by jurisdiction even if such behaviour is performed abroad.
[Daphne – All our laws are territorial unless specific measures are enacted to make them otherwise, as with US legislation which makes it a criminal offence, prosecutable within the US, for American citizens to bribe others or offer ‘contract sweeteners’ outside the US.]
Thus one might be in a position to prosecute someone who has an abortion even in a country where it is legal because a Maltese citizen is bound by Maltese law anywhere he or she goes.
[Daphne – I sincerely hope you are not a law student.]
Actually I suggest that you look into international law and jurisdiction with regards to this matter. When I specifically asked about this matter, I was told politely not to go there.
[Daphne – Abortion is not covered by international law, which deals only with very specific crimes and situations, like terrorism, hijacking, piracy and mass murder, war crimes, and so on. It certainly doesn’t get into the business of a lone woman from Malta getting on an Easy Jet flight and having an abortion in Manchester.]
Madonna, tibqa titkellem dwar il-European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg when the EU Court in Luxembourg is now tailor-made for such instances. This is because the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OUR rights), which entered into force on 01.12.2009 with the Lisbon treaty, falls under the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ.
So, learn this please: the ECJ is NO LONGER just a court that interprets and decides over cases involving EU law (which now covers most policy and legislative areas). It now also rules over the human rights of 500 million EU citizens.
Tghallmu xi haga ghax se tibqghu hmir wisq!
And what’s our Kev’s position on Edwin Vassallo’s proposal?
I don’t think much about the man and much less about his proposal.
Isn’t a woman’s maternal instinct a psychological normality?
Dear Daphne,
My I do to you as the Jews did to Jesus? That is catch you on the spot and see if you manage to give the answer the world is expecting?
Are you in favour of divorce? Yes or No.
Are you in favour of abortion? Yes or No.
[Daphne – Yes and yes. I draw a distinction between what I would do myself and what others should be able to do if they want to. I have great moral difficulties with the idea of obliging a woman to have a baby against her will. Those moral difficulties are greater than the ones I have with terminating a pregnancy.
Whether I agree with the decision to divorce or abort in individual cases is completely irrelevant. I am also able to see that blanket statements about abortion and its evils are usually made by people who lack the imagination to assess the wider picture and who might even, when they have their backs to the wall, be the first to abort or encourage their daughter to do so.
This is especially so in a small island like Malta, where ‘what the neighbours think’ has long been a governing principle in deciding whether to have an abortion or not. In fact, most abortions among women my age, when we were younger, were carried out because the shame attendant on being a single mother in the 1970s or 1980s was too much to contemplate. In the cases that I recall, the parents – church-goers in great part – either instigated the decision or colluded with it.
Malta is dealing right now with the terrible social upheaval caused by the absence of divorce. It is not dealing with the terrible consequences of no abortion because Maltese women do have access to abortion, cheaply in Sicily. The statements ‘Malta has no abortion’ and ‘Maltese women have no cheap access to abortion’ do not have the same meaning.]
But still I cannot justify the break up of families and the murder of innocent children. I learn a lot from what you write, but thank God I know how to choose between good and bad, right and wrong. Malta needs more people who call a spade a spade, but please use the spade for what it was meant!
I think the social upheaval is being caused by unprepared and badly planned marriages, and not by the absence of divorce. Divorce is a consequence of failed marriage. It’s not a cause, nor a solution.
Sometimes women amaze me . Please read this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8515592.stm.
Why?
Without taking an ounce of blame away from the perpetrator, many times people do get into situations that they could have avoided.
Dame Mirren said it best!
Well, to me abortion is murder, no less, just like the death penalty and a lot more then assisted suicide.
I believe it to be a crime against humanity and no, I do not believe there is any justification for it, EVER.
Of course neither is there any justification for this “law”, either from a practical and even less from a moral point of view. The idea of it sends shivers down my spine, even if I didn’t think it could be abused, which we all know it would be.
Should it even be illegal? Well, depends, again I would say no, despite my own strong feelings about it, as long as 1. no doctor is ever obliged to carry out the procedure and 2. an accepted “cut off” date is set where it is established that the foetus can feel pain.
Where I really don’t agree with you, Daphne, is your faith in the ECHR, or rather its effect on Malta. I just don’t see Malta taking off the crucifix from schools or allowing abortion (if the ongoing Irish case is decided in that vein) any time soon, no matter what the ECHR says.
I have never read a man (Marcus) being so ridiculed by a woman (Daphne). Not ridiculed because she made fun of him, but because he is so illogical by trying to picture himself the straightest of all, while she is brilliant.
Point of order: if we do get to the (ridiculous) stage where we register offspring upon conception, how do we register identical twins, (who start off as one conception)?
“er, I’d just like to change last week’s registration – Fred is now Fred and Tony”
“sorry sir – ma tistax. Fred gie l-ewwel u hu ghandu d-drittijiet kollha ta’ persuna”
Eventually, it would be settled in a court case where 1/2 Fred sues Tony and 1/2 Tony sues Fred (and vice-versa). I’m not laughing – this is serious.
1) It’s unfair that the father has no say at all in the decision on whether or not to abort, whatever the ECHR says.
2) Just because the baby depends on the mother, doesn’t mean the mother should freely kill it. With that kind of reasoning, a mother can even kill her severely mentally disabled son or daughter simply because it depends on her for survival and cannot take care of itself.
3) Also, John Xuereb, remember that much like not all accusations of domestic violence are truthful, a study from the UK found that of approx 14,500 cases of rape reported in 2005/2006 9% were classified as false allegations.
Oftentimes the accusation of rape is just an abused weapon of defamation.
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/citation/100/7/321
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17606752?dopt=Abstract
1) Yes, the ECHR is certainly not in any position to make any human rights judgement. Who do they think they are, the European Court for Human Rights?
2) No it is not. First of all, there’s a difference between biological and socialisation when it comes to “taking care of”. A foetus needs a mother biologically. It cannot live without her. A severely disabled child, while depending on the mother (or the father, or a caretaker, or an aunt, or Tony that sells me cabbages every morning), is not dependant on her biologically. There lies the difference
3) Ok…9% are false allegations. 91% are not false allegations. 9% is not “oftentimes”; 91% is.
While I don’t agree with everything Daphne has said, it is arguments like these that don’t give credentials to the conservative pro-life movement in Malta. Putting emotions ahead of rational and logical thinking.
[Daphne – From time to time, I wonder why Maltese men, rather than Maltese women, are so very exercised by the subject of abortion, and take it so personally. You would think they were the ones getting pregnant – but that might just be it: they are the ones who are not.]
@Daphne. I don’t think it’s just related to abortion. I think it’s just related to expressing opinions. For some reason there are fewer women ready to express their opinion than there aremen, at least in Malta.
[Daphne – It’s not just that. Abortion seems to bring the men out quicker than football. Hadn’t you noticed?]
Granted, abortion should be something with a larger female “fan-base”, so to speak, since it relates directly to women. But apparently not.
We now know that besides the Luasi judgement on the crucifix, the European Court of Human Rights has given a lousy judgement in the Boso case. This judgement runs counter to the human rights of the unborn child and the father as well as it is manifestly discriminatory against the father.
This case does not apply to Malta as in Malta abortion is illegal while in Italy abortion is legal.
Besides the concept of a person can include the foetus. This is found in the United States Unborn Victims of Violence Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights).
jien haga wahda niskanta daphne jiena malti pur u mhux ha noqod nghawweg b hafna inglizijat ghax malti u kburi imma haga tal iskantament il kliem baxx li tghid kollu bil malti tghidu qatt ma tghidu b lingliz biex tara kemm inti baxxa u ridikola xbajt issa tfaqqa artikli fuq dak u fuq l iehor u tattaka personalment lil kulhadd u tipprova tilhaq salib haddiehor bis ftakar daphne li kieku il gemel jara hototbtu jaqa u jmut zopptu ta daphne hi
[Daphne – Malti pur li ma jafx jikteb bil-Malti, jew mid-dehra m’ghandhux ‘ u – fil-keyboard tieghu.]
malti pur u ma nghawwigx b lingliz u kburi li malti u li qatt am weggajt lil hadd daphne hi
Johnathan:
1) Your argument was a fallacious appeal to authority and you know it.
Also, men may actually be the ones paying to support the baby, which gives men enough reason to want to be included in the decision to abort.
2) You have no knowledge of basic biology, do you? Foetuses and embryos can live without the mother if supplied with the necessary hormones and metabolites by Tony the scientist. The foetus is not a part of the mother but a separate human being. This is not “emotions”. This is a basic scientific fact.
The first title of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by the same ECHR clearly states that everyone has the right to life. To not include foetuses is a contradiction and this has nothing to do with souls or religion.
3) 9% is significant, especially if the repurcussions include a police record or a jail term. Loosely speaking, 1 in 10 allegations of rape are found to be false. That’s not even taking into account the number of false allegations taken to be true.