No to divorce, but Yes to frozen embryos
Honey, I froze the kids: and in case you're picturing little frozen foetuses, this is what they actually look like.
It’s extraordinary, isn’t it, how personal prejudice against something so fundamental forces us to contort ourselves into all kinds of strange shapes to avoid the obvious.
The wheel cannot be reinvented without making it square, or some other shape that doesn’t turn or which takes a hundred times longer to propel us from A to B.
If we start from the premise that a decision on whether to have divorce legislation must be taken by The People – a mistaken premise, if ever there was one, where this means a majority vote – then the government has to plan for the aftermath of the very real possibility of a No vote.
Yet a society without divorce legislation is not sustainable. Divorce legislation is there precisely to regulate, and not to deregulate, relationships. The absence of divorce legislation does not stop marriages breaking down, new relationships being formed, or the birth of children in those relationships.
One in three children in Malta is now born, to use the old-fashioned but serviceable term, out of wedlock. It should be obvious, but clearly is not to those with their heads firmly in the sand or up some unsavoury part of their anatomy, that the increase can only be exponential. For every marriage that breaks down, there are two people who form new relationships, and possibly two baby-born-out-of-wedlock situations.
What we have is actually rather more disturbing than a rise in the number of unmarried parents: a rise in the number of parents who are married to somebody other than the parent of their child.
Those who think of marriage as nothing but a religious sacrament are unable to see, through the confused haze of hocus-pocus, why marriage and divorce were ‘invented’ in the first place: to legitimise children as the father’s, so that they could claim his inheritance.
People who had little or nothing to inherit never got married – or rather, what they called marriage was what we would call cohabitation today. All others signed a contract before witnesses, and that was the marriage. It was so very much a contract that it could be entered into by proxy, just as you can represent somebody at a contract nowadays by bearing a power of attorney. The spouses did not even have to be present for their marriage.
We still acknowledge this today in our use of the word ‘matrimony’. It comes from the Latin word for mother, ‘mater’. A man took a woman in matrimony because he wanted her to be the mother of his official children. He might have had legions of children by mistresses, slaves and servants, but the only ones who were marked out for inheritance were those born in matrimony.
It’s the same with the word ‘patrimony’. It comes from the Latin for father, ‘pater’. Patrimony is now taken to mean heritage or the material inheritance of a country, but it originally meant the material goods, titles and estates inherited from a father by those of his children who were born in matrimony.
When it all went belly-up, divorce was required precisely to continue regulating this system of inheritance. King Henry VIII was the most famous example of this. His wish to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled – he was a Roman Catholic, something we forget – was not rooted in an obsession with another woman. He was the king, the most powerful man in the country, and he could have had any number of mistresses quite openly, as most kings did. What he needed was not another wife per se, but a legitimate son. Again, he could have had any number of sons with women who were not his wife, but it was only the ones born in matrimony who counted in terms of patrimony.
In centuries gone by, people without property or titles did not need divorce, because they didn’t need marriage either. They simply ended one relationship of cohabitation and set up home with somebody else, a situation to which we are reverting today, with the difference that nowadays, almost everyone has property or goods or pensions of some sort and that’s where the trouble starts.
Of course, most of those problems have been eradicated by contemporary legislation which makes no distinction between children born in and out of marriage, but still. There are always going to be difficulties if people are reluctant to cooperate or do the decent thing.
Divorce is the flipside of marriage. If we acknowledge that marriage exists to order relationships in a structured society – as opposed to thinking of it as merely a sacrament – then we also have to acknowledge that divorce is there to order relationships as well.
The prime minister who refuses to countenance divorce, or who looks forward to a No vote from the electorate which will rule it out, is no different to the prime minister who was firmly against value added tax and promised to ban it. He then discovered that value added tax exists precisely because it is the best solution in a particular set of circumstances, and that trying to reinvent this tax was like trying to reinvent the wheel and coming up with something strangely shaped which doesn’t turn.
We cannot carry on as we are, without divorce, and there will have to be some alternative solution. That alternative can only be, because divorce legislation is the tried, tested and time-honoured solution to that set of circumstances, the equivalent of Alfred Sant’s CET.
It has begun already, with plans for a cohabitation law that will force people who don’t want to regulate their relationship into regulating it whether they like it or not, and creating all manner of anomalous situations in which men will have an official wife and a legal concubine, and women an official husband and whatever the male equivalent of a concubine might be.
And now, too, there are plans to permit the freezing of multiple human embryos made in a clinic laboratory, so that these don’t have to be implanted in the womb all at once as they are now, resulting in twins, triplets and a rocketing rate of miscarriage. This treatment is going to be available not only to married women – as we can’t do that, can we – but to women who are “in a stable relationship”.
So let’s see whether I’ve got this moral confusion completely straight. A woman in Malta can walk out on her husband and set up home with another man. They then try to have a child, while she is still officially married to somebody else and possibly so is he, but because she is no longer in her 20s, she finds she can’t conceive naturally. Both have children with their respective spouses or former companions.
They get IVF treatment because they are in a ‘stable relationship’ and most of the resulting embryos are frozen, just in case she wants to use one of them to have a baby when she’s 45 and possibly living with yet another man. But when this man and woman want to get divorced from their spouses so that they can marry each other, they are told ‘No, because it’s immoral, marriage is forever, and if you divorce you will disrupt the social order.’
It’s enough to make you climb the walls.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
43 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
The proposed CET-like cohabitation law should be abandoned even as an intermediary step in necessary legislation. The rationale for the cohabitation law, as previously presented in the PN manifesto, actually in its rationale already presents the more rational political rationale and logical opportunity for the introduction of divorce.
Perhaps JPO, as a matter of principle, as a matter of conscience, could vote against the bill, or anyone else seeing the folly and fallicy of that legislation. Or, seeing the light, could the PM with sufficient political foresight, himself lead by defeating the bill, and by replacing that bill with proper legislation for divorce?
Daphne, the historical and social logic of your piece is impeccable. If only the PM could take the rational road with proper detachment from emotional personal bias [and he is intrinsically more capable than the opposition for doing so], and lead, then perhaps he can avoid the perverse disaster (for the country) of becoming as misguidedly dogmatic [and intransigent] as the former PM had been.
We don’t need an Alfred Sant II in the PN, too. The political mandate has been given already that the intended social problems be properly addressed. It is not too late, yet, to choose the “wheel” rather than trying to reinvent it.
I would say that JPO SHOULD vote against this shitty piece of legislation.
Amen to that, Daph
Compulsory registration of cohabiting couples – that’s news to me. Are you sure that the proposed law will force all such couples to register with the State? And what pray will the penalty for not registering be? Public flogging perhaps. Are you certain you did not read a law drafted by Peter Sellers when he was Prime Minister of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick by mistake?
[Daphne – It’s not so much registration as rights. If you can prove that you have lived with the person for X number of years, you get rights. This is so wrong, but it is being proposed as a way of ‘protecting women’. My own view is that if women go to live with men and become financially dependent on them without a marriage contract, and do nothing to earn their own money, and what’s more choose the kind of man who will cheat them, then they have only themselves to blame and the law is not there to protect us against our own stupidity, laziness or avarice.]
Maybe Daph….however I believe that the law should provide protection to those who are weaker than the rest.
…and quite frankly I’m not so sure about registration being compulsory…what is this…Iran?
Unfortunately there are also those men who want their wives to stay at home to look after the house and the family on a full time basis, it is said “for the benefit of the family”.
There are women who would agree. When marriage problems come up and the husband has to pay maintenance the first thing he says to his wife “Mur ahdem gbin”.
The bustard doesn’t consider the fact that maybe after 20 years of housekeeping it’s really difficult for some women to return to the labour market and integrate.
For some women being financially depenedant on the husband is considered a status sysmbol. “You see, my husband is rich enough that I don’t need to work”. In 2010 ghandek issib minn kollox.
I wonder what would happen to flatmates under this cohabiting law.
The only flat mates in Malta you would find are the Gozitans who live in Malta for studies or working purposes.
It’s not very likely that the Maltese youths move and share a place. You find those who would like to live their parents’ house but cannot afford it and the ones who are so spoilt and comfortable at their parents’ that they don’t even dream of leaving their mummy’s skirt. Not to mention the fact that when they get married they become even more dependent on their parents. (financial support, babysitting etc etc.).
With some luck they’ll be able to claim tax breaks like a married couple.
Divorce again. Can’t they just legislate and let us get on with our lives?
I cannot understand how Dr Gonzi (who is a staunch Catholic) could even consider a law that ‘promotes’ cohabitation, let alone giving treatment to cohabiting couples who cannot have children to help them in procreating.
Is he such a good Catholic after all? Or is this another political game where we say we’re against divorce because the majority is against it, but go on with other issues which go against our own beliefs because they sound nice?
“the law is not there to protect us against our own stupidity, laziness or avarice”
Some people are more impressionable/susceptible than others. I wouldn’t say that it’s my duty to protect these people, but the sentiment is closely related, if you get my drift.
It’s true that people are responsible for their own actions, on the other hand, if we are a compassionate society, we must take into account that society is necessarily uneven, comprising of strong and weak elements. As human beings, we should not be subjected to the “survival of the fittest” treatment among ourselves.
I know that I’m veering dangerously close to “socialism” with this line, but, you know …
Of course, the argument is valid for both men and women. The case of that 40-something retired soldier who was duped by a 13-year old girl (in England, I think) comes to mind. Is that fair? Should he be held accountable for his actions? the judge – a woman, incidentally – didn’t think so, if I remember well.
There are laws and there are laws. I don’t think that we must be too keen on applying laws that punish “weak” elements. I believe that we should reward the “strong” ones, however. Psychologists have a name for this sort of thing. I can’t remember what they call it.
Great defence for socialism Reuben! To creat some sort of an even society! You gave me new strength in my belief! Prosit!
Albert, I don’t believe in socialism when it means levelling society. Society and nature are necessarily heterogeneous. Evolution has seen to that. It’s the only way we can occupy every available niche.
My point is that despite this heterogeneity – which is healthy, mind you – humans should avoid creating situations where the weak are punished simply for being weak.
A stupid example: you don’t tax somebody who doesn’t go to a gym, but you create incentives for people to go to gyms. People can take up your offer or refuse it. Those who refuse it will “remain weak” and become relatively “poorer”. They can’t reasonably expect to be given extra income to make up for the resulting difference. Neither is it reasonable for them to expect money from the “rich” people for the simple reason that the rich have more money than they do.There are incentives in place, use them.
“Rich” people can even create enterprise in which to employ “poor” people. Both become richer in the process. Obviously, the rich will become richer faster than the poor climb out of “poverty”. But that’s fair as they are both travelling in the same direction.
I know it’s a bit long-winded, but I don’t want to be misunderstood as coming down on the side of something that is intrinsically against nature.
I happen to be in favour of a law giving rights to cohabiting couples but such a law should be enacted independently of a divorce law about which I am in favour. There may be various reasons why people cohabit even if they would rather be married.
Cohabiting married couples who are married to someone else may not be able to obtain a divorce even if divorce is enacted. The divorce law could be restrictive, making it difficult to obtain a judgement of divorce – some cases may be decided against the dissolution of the marriage.
It is already suggested that the divorce case cannot even start unless the couple had been married for at least five years and living separately for four. The cohabiting relationship could have started and ended before the divorce judgement became res judicata. One can imagine that, were divorce to be enacted, it may be many years before all the cases are heard and decided.
Presumably, some may not even afford to start a divorce suit which might cost thousands of euros. One could think of other circumstances where couples prefer to cohabit for reasons of their own – nobody is obliged to marry. The solution is therefore to enact divorce as well as a law giving rights to cohabiting couples.
The law giving such rights to cohabiting couples is not a substitute for divorce. It will solve nothing and may even complicate matters further to come up with a sort of tertium quid between the status quo and divorce. You are right, we cannot reinvent the wheel.
I find it absurd to continue insisting on debating the enactment of divorce when the subject has been debated for many decades in foreign countries. Does anyone seriously imagine that if there were a solution better than divorce, foreign jurists and legislators would not have found it?
What kind of arrogance is it to think that we, a tiny conceited crowd living on this grain of sand, are smarter than the rest of the world?
No doubt the high incidence of children born out of wedlock is intrinsically intertwined with the abolition of the “morning-after pill” from all local pharmacies. How about that for a story?
I would call a male concubine a stud. Coming to think of it, us men should pat ourselves on the back for the sleek titles we give ourselves compared to you ladies: bachelor, playboy, stud. Fill in the female equivelent and you will see what I mean.
I’m so pissed off at the utter stupidity of this so-called debate that I can’t even be bothered to read anything more about it (although I did read your opinion piece). I guess if the PM forces a referendum down our throat I will vote yes to divorce and hope for the best.
It does really make sense to introduce divorce at the expense of extensive cohabitation laws.
‘The wheel cannot be reinvented without making it square, or some other shape that doesn’t turn or which takes a hundred times longer to propel us from A to B.’
Square wheels might do the job…
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/RegularPolygonRollingOnACatenary/
Yes, but you’d need potholes shaped exactly like catenaries. Maltese potholes, it saddens me to say, are fractal.
Dear Daphne
I think that technology and science are playing too much with nature, and very soon they are going to progress human beings without emotions, very soon they are going to make business out of children.
I think that at the moment there is a contagious virus in favor of divorce, and other evil things amoral life make nervous people and sick, lack of honesty and respect brings disaster to our family and to all humanity.
Thank you
Melita Galea
What are you on about Melita? This is 2010 you know, and not the middle ages. Science progresses and thank goodness for that.
The referendum will mean loads of money down the drain. For sure. Utterly useless, in my opinion. I will go vote half heartedly as I know the majority will vote against, unfortunately.
If both the Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party refuse to take a stance, not to mention the church, which is against divorce and tends to influence a large portion of the population, then I don`t think we will ever have divorce in Malta.
I, like Marko, won`t even bother to read anything about this debate anymore. Everyone seems to have washed their hands, like Pilate did, and Dr. Gonzi found the easiest way out with a referendum.
It’s as though we’re asking people to confess our sins.
Daphne, I believe that the subjects of divorce and cohabitation laws are already complex enough to add to them IVF.
I detect in your article some opposition to cohabitation law, which you compare to Alfred Sant’s CET. I am in favour of cohabitation law.
I do not understand why someone who enters into a relationship that may, among other matters, lead to children, should not have some legal obligations, which I suppose the cohabiting laws will create.
[Daphne – I’ll just take a deep breath here. THAT’S WHAT MARRIAGE IS FOR. THERE IS NO NEED FOR MARRIAGE MARK II WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE MARRIAGE MARK I. Besides, our legal obligations towards our children do not derive from whether we live with their other parent or not. You can have a one-night stand which leads to a child and you would still be responsible for that children for the next 18 years.]
I believe we still have to see if the law will create any rights similar to those of marriage, and therefore one cannot conclude at this point that cohabitation will be equivalent to marriage.
I understand that such laws are based on “de facto,” and hence a recongition of a fact. As a matter of fact, the legislator can enhance the status of marriage (if you wish: a measure to strengthen the “family”) by creating significant obligations but limiting the rights in cohabitation.
My understanding is that, since the creation of marriage centuries ago, society has changed significantly, so that marriage is no longer a suitable solution to most modern societies.
[Daphne – Strangely enough, the society we live in is the one that relies most heavily on marriage. Marriage as a contract – the form we use now – originated for people with money and property ONLY. For all others, marriage was just the name used for setting up home together, what we would call cohabitation today.]
Relationships have changed, because urban society is different from early rural societies. Since women work, they are less dependent on the partrimony, and this means they can live in a relationship without marriage.
[Daphne – I think you misread my article. PATRIMONY was what the children inherited from their fathers, and not what wives got from the husbands, to live off. The sort of people who bothered with marriage contracts in those days married others of equal wealth and patrimony, and wives usually had plenty of money and property of their own – sometimes so much that their husbands actually lived off them. Women could always live in a relationship without marriage, and they did: rural people being the most obvious example. And they worked. Very, very hard. You seem to think that women who have a job don’t need or want to marry. How wrong you are. You’re confusing the wish to marry with the wish to marry somebody just right. Having an income of their own hasn’t made today’s women less inclined to marry. It’s made them less inclined to settle for somebody they’re not that crazy about, which is different.]
People are more mobile, and they spend their time in many different places, whether at work or in leisure. Hence, in my view, cohabitation is a more suitable form of family in modern societies.
[Daphne – It’s not, not at all. Human psychology doesn’t change, and families include children, so a changing landscape of parents and ‘friends’ is out of the question.]
I think this is consistent with one of the arguments I heard from the Maltese Church, namely that according to studies, in all countries where divorce was introduced, cohabitation has increased.
[Daphne – There is no such thing as the Maltese Church.]
Now I do not think that the introduction of divorce had any impact on cohabitation. I think it is the modernisation of those societies that increased cohabitation.
Now I agree that if a married person enters into a cohabitation relationship, divorce is necessary to dissolve the previous marriage, although I also think that in this case, divorce is not necessary for the state to recognise the cohabitation relationship.
[Daphne – You can’t claim to be liberal and favour cohabitation laws. People cohabit for one reason only: they don’t want to marry. The state cannot then marry them by default. That is totally out of order. And it is ridiculous, too – for the simple reason that you can conduct exactly the same sort of relationship but under two separate roofs.]
And as you know, I am also in favour of divorce laws.
It makes me sick when I hear about studies undertaken by the Roman Catholic Church about divorce in “other” countries. Other countries = the world – (Malta + the Philippines).
Studies (good ones) work by changing some variables whilst keeping others constant, so you can see the effect on the dependent variable (in this case, strength of family). Can you seriously imagine that such a study is possible in the whole world?
Daphne, am I to take it that your statement “For all others, marriage was just the name used for setting up home together, what we would call cohabitation today” means that the existing form of marriage may after all not necessarily be the right one? If yes, I can agree with that.
In fact, I think you are suggesting that marriage is, after all, only important to regulate property and inheritance. But isn’t it also a legal commitment towards the spouse and the children?
[Daphne – No, not really, because there is nothing to stop you leaving, as we can see.]
In terms of patrimony with reference to working women, what I had in mind was the concept of the wealth accumulated within the marriage. In other words, I was referring to the community of acquests, which if I am not wrong, is, together with the children, the bone of contention of most separations. I do believe that if the wife does not hold an employment, she would find herself dependant on the patrimony.
[Daphne – And spend the rest of her life chasing a man who despises her, and who lives with somebody else, for a cheque every month? I don’t think so, honey.]
As for the liberal comment, I am not sure you were referring to me specifically, but I would not declare myself to be totally liberal. I might go as far as calling myself a liberal conservative, whatever that may mean (we can ask David Cameron!) Therefore, let me clarify that being pro-divorce is not a declaration of being liberal, even though I believe liberals are mostly pro-divorce (we argued this point before).
To some extent, I can understand that since you have positioned yourself as liberal before, you may be against the state regulating relationships out of marriage, but, on that basis, why should the state regulate any relationship at all?
[Daphne – This is the liberal stance: the state may regulate the relatonships of those who willingly and voluntarily seek to have their relationships regulated (in marriage, where the key question is ‘Do you willingly consent….’). It may not regulate relationships between people by default and without their consent. As a liberal you have to respect a person’s desire to live in a relationship without commitment that is regulated by law. If this person wished for a legally regulated commitment, then he or she would make arrangements through notarial deed, companies, wills or, if possible, marriage – voluntarily. The person who does not make such arrangements doesn’t want to, and that wish has to be respected. As for why should the state regulate any relatioship: because not to do so would be illiberal.]
I think that the statement “You can’t claim to be liberal and favour cohabitation laws” can breach some important liberal principles. The first one being that it seems to suggest that the only relationship that can exist, and be RECOGNISED at law, is a marriage. So it gives no choice to people to seek alternative relationships.
[Daphne – No, you are confusing things. There is already a form of relationship regulation, which has been tried and tested by time: marriage. Any attempt at reinventing this will be the equivalent of Sant’s CET. If a couple who live together wish to have property rights over each other, all they need is a contract. They do not need ‘cohabitation rights’. Cohabiting couples are in fact at an advantage over married couples in this respect. The law does not permit the transfer of property from husband to wife or wife to husband, but it does not prevent the transfer of property between unmarried couples.]
I think that argument could also be extended to mean that a FAMILY can exist only through marriage. The truth is that there are other (new) forms of family in society outside marriages.
[Daphne – Again, you are confusing issues. Marriage laws do not enter into the merits of what constitutes a family and what does not. The marriage contract is concerned with the relationship between two people.]
The existence of cohabitation laws should result in (some) benefits, besides obligations, to the cohabiting parties. They should also provide more clarity and social equity in the distribution of state resources. In particular, cohabitation laws would address taxation, social security, pension and social benefits entitlements.
My understanding is that if a married couple separates, the law or the court will provide for separation maintenance, which will cover the children. So marriage is a tool to protect the children.
[Daphne – No, that has nothing to do with marriage. Men are obliged to pay maintenance to their children, and can be sued for that maintenance, whether or not they are married to the child’s mother. Parenthood is considered to be distinct from marriage, as in fact it is.]
I disagree that cohabitation law can be compared to Alfred Sant’s CET and hence the reinvention of the wheel. This is because there are several other countries with cohabitation law (also called common-law marriage, de-facto marriage), recognizing that the form of the family is changing. They include Australia and Canada.
[Daphne – Don’t make rash assumptions based on rumour. You have to consider the actual law, and consider it in the context of other laws governing marriage and rights, including divorce.]
However, I agree that divorce is a requirement, especially if cohabitation laws are introduced. Otherwise, we will end up with a situation where, either the cohabitation law will create polygamy, or a lot of cohabiting couples would still not be in a position to benefit from the cohabitation law.
In fact, I think the government must also tell us at this point what law will provide for the dissolution of cohabitation relationships once they start to be formally recognised under law! So the state must provide not only for the legal creation and recognition, but also the dissolution and derecognition of those relationships!
Although I understand that cohabitations result where the couple chooses not to marry, I understand that the purpose of cohabitation law is to provide for, maybe resolve, a number of disadvantages which such couples experience in comparison with married couples. In terms of resolving those advantages, any cohabitation law is in the interest of cohabiting couples. And I believe cohabitation laws must provide for the protection of the children from the relationship.
[Daphne – At the risk of repeating myself for the zillionth time, the rights of children over their parents, and the rights of parents over their children are COMPLETELY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THEIR MARITAL STATUS. Cohabitation laws can never protect the status of children because the status of children in respect of their parents is inviolate under a separate legal regime.]
I don’t think it makes much sense to have cohabitation laws AND divorce. If there are cohabitation laws you don’t need divorce. simple as that.
I’m married and for whatever reason I leave my wife (chances are that she’d leave me sooner :) ) After that I set up with somebody else. If there are cohabitation laws, my new relationship would be regulated by these laws. What would I need divorce for?
If there are divorce laws, I’d just get divorced from my wife. After that I’m free to set up shop with whatever I like – with the same duties and obligations in my marriage. (Why I would want to embark on a venture that has already caused me great pain and distress is beyond me, but that’s another matter.)
Divorce laws, as I see it, would constitute an off-the-shelf solution for relationships after marriage. One wouldn’t have to bother with notaries and lawyers to draw up contracts of dues and obligations for these post-marriage relationships. It would be extremely simple: Are you in a 1st/2nd/3rd relationship after marriage? File under “Divorced” – all marriage laws applicable.
The reason why the Catholic Church disagrees with divorce and cohabitation is that both make a mockery of marriage as a sacrament. When people marry each other for money, security, children etc (i.e. they see marriage as a contract first and foremost) there was no marriage in the true Catholic sense.
Another ridiculous thing I see about divorce: some people say that they want to marry again to have a second chance. This clearly implies that they’re not getting hitched because they love the other person. They want to have another go on the same ride. Of course, this doesn’t really explain the frame of mind of the person who takes a third, fourth, fifth chance.
Am I right that the proposed cohabitation law is also for siblings who live together, gays in fact any one who lives together.
Speaking of foetuses, can anyone please tell me why none of our newspapers reported the 21 cases of libel that the Chief Justice removed from Magistrate Herrera’s control?
After reading this Telegraph article I wonder whether at Maltastar lies a genius in wait to be discovered.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/8080832/Jane-Austens-famous-prose-may-not-be-hers-after-all.html
Breaking news unrelated to embryos/divorce
New PL emblem
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101023/local/labour-party-selects-its-new-emblem
Designed by Godfrey Grima’s company:
http://www.tbwa-ang.com/pages/home.asp
Rejoice! The waters have broken!
http://maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=12528
Divorce and IVF are separate issues though both have ethical dilemmas. I would say that IV has more serious ethical issues than divorce. There are many risks involved both for the mother and the child with IVF. These include a higher risk of birth defects for children conceived by IVF.
On the other hand regulating IVF is better than the current situation where no law exists.
Poland is now discussing IVF legislation. The Catholic bishops of Poland have issued a rather strong letter condemning this legislation. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/oct/10102002.html
Regarding marriage its history is disputed. The Roman law jurist Modestinus defined marriage as “Marriage is the union of male and female and the sharing of life together, involving both divine and human law (Nuptiae sunt coniunctio maris et feminae et consortium omnis vitae, divini et humani iuris communicatio).”
Do you agree that “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”?
If when I was an embryo, they froze me, I would not be able to write this.
This declaration confirms that on a previous occasion Marlene lied, doesn’t it? http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101023/local/dvorce
She had said she was not aware that Jeffrey wanted to present a Private Member’s Bill on divorce.
Now she says she wanted to co-sponsor it.
Can she be trusted?
She deceived her own (Dear?) Leader, when she didn’t tell him that not only she knew of Jeffrey’s plan, but also wished to participate (actively to boot) in it.
Han-Tibetan, you are right but there is more to it.
If I remember correctly, when Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando tabled the private member’s bill, she said that she was not in favour of divorce legislation. Later she changed her tune on the basis, she said, of discussions she had with friends and a priest.
If she was against divorce legislation, how could she have offered to co-sponsor Jeffrey’s bill? Dan x’ tahwid hu?
She may have separated from her husband but it seems that they still have much in common. Am I right in thinking that they both have a tendency to twist the truth when they’re caught out?
Daphne, the central premise of your argument is flawed because your “proposition” only makes sense on an individual level, as it pertains to an individual’s issues and choices.
What is objectively good and what is objectively bad has to be established before any attempt at discussion is made. Both issues – divorce and infertility – are heavily mired in emotion, and whenever an objective analysis is attempted one always has to fend off the irrelevant “Put yourself in my shoes before saying anything”
Grey areas exist because people would rather sit on a fence than commit themselves either way. Alternately, people want to do something that is patently wrong and try to rationalise their actions, thus creating a grey area.
The example with which you end your piece is a typical outcome of such discussions embarked upon without an objective and clear moral compass.
A new Labour emblem is born http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10cont.asp
Daphne, I think it is only fair to state that the freezing of embryos has been suggested by a committee made up of three GPs – Jean Pierre Farrugia, Michael Farrugia and Frans Agius.
If one had to look a the list of experts that had been consulted, there were very few “real experts” and the one that were present, most had a vested interest.
Also one of the two reasons for freezing i.e. the high number of multiple pregnancies, is flawed. No scientific studies have been performed in Malta to analyse this.
The only statistic that exist is an unofficial collection of data of mothers with multiple pregnancies where is was noted that 50% of these had undergone fertility treatment ‘including IVF”. This is quoted directly from the report and are supposed to have been said by Dr Paul Soler. In my opinion most of these are due to fertility treatment by hormones.
The second reason – the health of the mother, though the risk of morbidity during hyper fertility treatment is real, the ethical problems caused by frozen embryos are real.
Where freezing is permitted, one embryos is usually implanted. Thus a choice is made of the best embryo to implant while the rest are frozen. Implicitly, the frozen embryos are thus “second class”. And the question would be, if these are offered for adoption, who shall adopt an embryo of “inferior” quality?
This is just one of the ethical problems.
I just cannot understand how it all started off with frozen embryos and ended up with cohabitation. Maybe it is because stable relationships (in Maltese pogguti stabbli) got roped into the argument.
Come off it.
I am sorry that three unimpeachable professionals got involved in this melee. This is the result of them participating in the murky world of politics. It serves them right.
Let me be clear. Cohabitation and divorce are one thing. IVF is another.
My late lamented friend Patrick Steptoe must be turning in his grave.
Great picture of Marlene on the balcony:
Oh Romeo (Godfrey, Jeffrey) Romeo (Godfrey etc) wherefore art thou Romeo (G….etc)?