http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051404.html

[Daphne – Well, we all know women who cried every day after having a baby, not an abortion. But that’s no argument against having one, is it? And what about all the stresses and strains of actually raising them – much of which involves tears before bedtime (the parents’) until the age of 18 and beyond?]

I agree completely. The sadder thing is that teenage students are taught that this is the case, as if it were a fact. In ethics, a topic in philosophy A level and intermediate, the textbook used (which is written by a priest, please note), uses both the “potential person vs person with potential argument” and the “life begins at conception” argument to back it up.

I really think that when discussing a topic such as this, one ought to make a distinction between a human being and a person. The flaw in this kind of logic is that the idea that life begins at conception is used as an axiom ( a self evident truth) upon which the whole argument is then built, made even more complicated with the notion of the “human soul”. Of course, it is not an axiom at all, but an opinion.

I personally believe that human life does begin at conception, but personhood does not.

Then it only boils down to the fact of how much value you actually ascribe to this human life. A harsh example would be to compare the value you give to a stray dog, and the value you would give to your pet dog. Although they belong to the same species, they do not have the same amount of value in a person’s eyes. A harsh comparison, I know, but that’s all I could think of.

Still, the fact that the state actually “models” the worth or value of pre-embryonic and embryonic life to it’s citizens does not mean that all the citizens will share this belief, mostly due to the fact that when it actually happens to them, they give their life and the “control over their future” more value than the pre-embryonic life inside of them.

Therefore, whether the state wants it or not, there is still choice, and choice is being given a price-tag, as some can afford it, while others can’t.

Children who were refused buy their parents and were given for adoptions, will feel refused and wanted for ever, no matter how much the adoptive parents love them.

A mother who gives a baby away will never stop thinking of the child she has abandoned till the day she dies, which is a constant torture for this lady. (I am not saying that a woman wouldn’t also think of the baby she has aborted).

And not to forget the bullying and abuses children suffer in most of the orphanages.

An Italian lawyer told me that her husband who is a magistrate and deals very frequently with cases involving child abuse would prefer to see a child being brought up by a gay couple rather than in an orphanage. In most cases children live in hell.

I also question the ‘few cells’ dismissal of early human life. By the time the girl realises she might be pregnant, takes the test, makes a decision and has the procedure, the foetus has definitely progressed beyond the ‘few cells’ and is already very humanoid in form.

I’m sorry but I cannot possibly look my son in the eye and tell him that I had any right to end his life!

The way forward is to tackle child abuse and neglect harshly enough for it to become a deterrent through strict legislation. Parents who are caught mistreating their children should be shorn of any rights over them.

We cannot punish an unborn child by taking away his life just because his mother is incapable of being a nurturer and provider. It’s like saying, “let’s kill all the vulnerable members of society so thieves and murderers have no one to target!”

Indeed. The debate often revolves around having nice happy children or aborting them.

It should revolve around the choice between having unwanted, unloved children who will probably face a lot of hardship in their lives and not having them at all. These are the children who will probably be neglected, uncared for, be sick, not be given a decent education, etc.

That would change the perception of what is more cruel I think.

P.S. Just to clarify, I myself don’t really know what my position on abortion is, so I am not trying to promote it here. However I am fairly convinced that the “life begins at conception” argument is rather rubbish. Even more rubbish is the “potential person” argument. I am just pointing out here that it is not a simple good vs evil matter.

I don’t think it is quite the same thing. Using that logic, nothing in this country should ever change. If you didn’t like rampaging and sacking back in the 80s, you should have left the country. If you don’t like the roads, go somewhere else.

The reason that that logic works in the whole Eucharist debate is that if you really want to screw around with someone you are not wedded to, you are only a member of that club in name and nothing else.

[Daphne – The comparison of the state with a religion is a false one.]

Surely it makes more sense to change the legislation that permits parents to dump the infant in an institution and block any adoption process so that they can still collect benefits.

Here I am not talking about temporary situations where the parent/s, because of illness or other transient ill fortune, are unable to care properly for their children for some time but those who, as was described above, are truly abandoned.

I cannot agree with those women who believe that ‘it’s my body and I do as I please’ as, except in rape, sexual intercourse is entered to willingly and if an unwanted pregnancy results then it’s not too much to ask for her to carry the new life to term and if the infant is still unwanted, put the child up for adoption.

As for the ‘morning after’ pill, from what I am reading, I believe it will become legally available locally and so creating a solution for rape cases, contraceptive failure and the ‘God, what got into me last night’ situations.

In Italy, where I live, abortion is legal. However it can be carried out only within certain perimeters and in line with very rigid procedures. Very few Italian women opt to go to a private clinic for an abortion, most have it done in state hospitals. This means that they receive proper counselling and psychological assistance.

In this way the woman (often a child herself) is made aware of the true reasons behind her decision and that she is not resorting to an abortion for reasons which she would later regret such as, for example, pressure from the parents which, I understand, is often the case in Malta.

An obstetrician I met here told me that from her experience only a minority of women who walk into hospital seeking an abortion, actually end up having one.

The same goes for the UK. A person I know, who got pregnant at 16, received incredible help from the local social services, to whom she was initially referred by the state hospital where she had sought an abortion. The social assistant explained all the options open, and the material and psychological support which the girl could avail of.

Based on the new information available to her, the girl decided to have the baby. In the meantime the mother was also assisted to finish her studies and eventually obtained a university degree, while keeping her child.

There was no way that a 16 year old girl would ever have been aware that she could have actually had a life “after the baby” and of the options open to her had she not been referred to a social assistant by the hospital, where she had originally gone to rid herself of a “problem”.

[Daphne – It is actually impossible to have a life after a baby at the age of 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, whatever, unless you also have parents who are on hand not in the role of grandparents but of ‘extended parents’, with everything that means, including paying bills, buying things and the rest. I know somebody who had a baby at 17 and whose life and development were arrested – she had hoped to train in a particular field where she had considerable talents – because her mother, still in her late 30s and separated from her husband, worked and had an active social life and a series of man-friends to attend to, while her father was a complete and utter unreliable loser.]

I sincerely doubt that this sort of counselling can be given to foreign women, including Maltese woman seeking to interrupt a pregnancy in an EU hospital. No EU state can possibly get into assisting a woman in difficulty if she is not a citizen of that same state, if only for lack of available information.

I also imagine that Maltese women would normally go to private clinics which, of course, are primarily moved by economical considerations.

Maltese women are therefore in a somewhat more desperate situation than their European counterparts. Nobody is bothering to offer them guidance, counselling or assistance by trying to understand their background and why they are resorting to ending their pregnancy. They are left completely on their own , often battling with a hostile family and with a place ticket in hand. This I find to be very sad indeed.

Finally, I really do not think that any woman decides to terminate a pregnancy with a light heart, or simply in order to avoid using contraceptives. I believe that in any case this is a traumatic life changing decision which requires all the help and support possibly available.

I think that one this point you are wrong. The agreement between the Maltese and British Govt for treatment abroad is not “free”. It is paid by Govt and for one to avail oneself of such a treatment, one has to be referred by the Maltese authorities and for particular conditions and abortion is not one of them.

The British NHS is also free for EU citizens carrying the EU entitlement card – but this is only valid for urgent conditions.

Anything else, has to be paid for – so these 78 (2% of the total pregnacies, less than 1 in 1000 women when compared to the British 12.4 per 1000) have paid the full fee.