The crucifix pales
The European Court of Human Rights’ ruling on crucifixes in state-school classrooms in Italy will pale into insignificance next to the anticipated ruling in the abortion case brought by three women from Ireland.
They are challenging their country’s highly restrictive abortion law, which leads to 6,000 women crossing from Ireland to England every year to have an abortion there.
Whichever way the ruling goes, it is going to have an impact on Maltese law. It will either reinforce Malta’s position, or undermine it completely.
There cannot be any middle ground. Maltese women are in exactly the same position as Irish women: they cross over to the neighbouring island (or take a flight to Heathrow or Gatwick) to have their abortions.
There is no difference. Thousands of Maltese women have done this over the years, since abortion became legal in Britain and Italy.
But perhaps yes, there is a difference: you would never find even one Maltese woman prepared to bring a case like this before the European Court of Human Rights. Those Irish women are pregnant. By the time the case is concluded, they will have had their abortion in England or had their baby in Ireland.
They could have reasoned that there is no need for them to stick their head above the parapet and fight this case, with all the attendant costs and stress, and all the unwanted publicity. They will almost certainly become targets for those on the opposite mission.
Maltese women keep their heads below the parapet. When they have an abortion, they conceal the fact from even their nearest and dearest.
Their main concern is that nobody should think ill of them. When they travel to London or Catania to get it done, they say they’re going over for a few days of shopping. Then they come back, pretend it never happened, blank it out and never mention it again. It is all just so much self-preservation and hypocrisy.
But then this is what Malta loves best – and does best, too.
God and money
You cannot serve both God and money, the bishops of Malta and Gozo said in their letter to their flock, to mark the start of Advent.
That sort of remark is a pointless and incorrect generalisation, rooted in the assumption that the interests of money are inherently evil and fundamentally opposed to the interests of God. History and experience prove the opposite: that God’s interests are best served in those countries which are most economically advanced.
If God’s interests lie in poverty and abjection, in starvation, suffering and disease, then I must conclude the bishops and I are considering different interpretations of God.
The Catholic message that God and money are somehow mutually exclusive runs counter to the Protestant work ethic which helped northern Europe forge far ahead, economically and in many other ways, of southern Europe.
It is also one of the reasons why the states of South America, colonised by southern European Catholics, remained so economically undeveloped compared to the northern states, which were colonised mainly by northern European Protestants.
Money serves the interests of God. Without money, you cannot feed people or care for them. You cannot run homes for abandoned children or homes for the aged. You cannot have a welfare state, free medical care or compulsory and free schooling.
All of these are dependent for survival on the taxes of those who work and those who invest in and run businesses. Money, quite simply, makes the world go round. Without money, we would starve and the people from whom we would be forced to beg would be, of course, people with money.
The point which the bishops miss is that you can live without God – yes, you can, as long as you live a good life – but you can’t live without money. On the scale of importance, money comes first, and while this sounds heretical, it is essentially true. You cannot eat and drink God, wear him or use him for shelter.
Maltese lore has always acknowledged this, which is why our proverbs give more credence to the power of money than they do to the power of God.
I find the timing of the bishops’ statement to be particularly ironic, given that the Catholic Church in Malta has just announced quite a large operating loss and has called for more generosity from….people with money.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
43 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Ok, so my view is unpopular. Abortion is wicked – murder is wrong. I’m dreadfully unfashionable, and should be derided by all.
But I know I’m right :) so yeah, fundamentalism has its perks.
Shush Daphne,
You’ll be censored! You’re insulting that thing called State (with a capital ‘S’) Religion (with a capital ‘R’).
Adrian old chap, don’t you think it’s about time you stopped flogging the censorship horse? I understand you being still peeved about what happened to you and all that, but it is becoming slightly overkill, as you try to weave your pet hate into every thread here, or so it seems at least.
Vanni, my apologies. And thanks for pointing it out to me. I’ll strive to be more careful.
Daphne, I don’t think you can blame women for wanting to keep a low profile about an abortion. In the goldfish bowl that is Malta it’s bound to happen – women will go through lengths to guard their privacy. Remember when you made such a fuss about the proposed breast-screening campaign? You said it would be terrible for a woman to be known to have had a mammogram.
[Daphne – I don’t remember saying anything like that, Tim. I can’t see why any woman would be embarrassed to be known to have had a mammogram. All women over the age of 40 have them; they’re routine, and we all discuss them with each other, just as we discuss how awful it is having that thing shoved up you for the concomitant cervical smear.]
Well, if a mammogram causes women such anguish, don’t you think an abortion would cause a lot more? Remember that there are a lot of fundamentalists there.
Having said all that, I know (only) one Maltese woman who had an abortion, about 9 years ago now, and she was quite open about it, so maybe things are changing, slow though the process is.
[Daphne – You actually know quite a few Maltese women who have had an abortion, Tim, I’ll guarantee you that. You just don’t know who they are, because they haven’t told you about it, that’s all.]
I know mammograms are routine. For obvious reasons I have many friends and acquaintances aged over 40. With us men the age of penetration (or sodomy) begins at 50, as you know and we joke about it. I’m fairly sure (my memory isn’t that bad yet) that you had made some remarks along the lines of what an uncomfortable thing it would be for a woman to have to pop out from the office for a mammogram and what would she say on her return ‘everything’s fine’ or – worse – ‘I have a lump’. The thrust of your argument was that it’s unfair and somewhat demeaning for a woman to have to let on that she’s going to have her breasts examined. It was a good while ago, over a year ago, I think, and it was your reaction to the proposed national breast-screeing programme. Maybe it was around budget time? All I can say is that you seem to have changed your tune dramatically.
Yes, I’m pretty sure I know a lot of Maltese women who have had abortions (in fact I guessed you might make a remark like that but I opted to leave the last sentence like that in order to invite it). However, the fact that you know many seems to indicate that in fact, many do not ‘have it done, come back, pretend it never happened, blank it out and never mention it again’. Either that or there’s truth in this:
Q: What’s the quickest way to spread the news?
A: Television, telephone, tell a woman.
I like to spread a bit of humour around Christmas time…
Daphne you are getting old , you are repeating your old arguments.
Well, let’s be honest, whatever the outcome of the case, can anyone here honestly see abortion being legalised here anytime in the near, or even relatively distant future, no matter what the ECHR rules?
As to Maltese women who have abortions, I have no doubt there are quite a few (for Malta) but not quite as many as that! I personally know of two people who have had an abortion, both Belgian where it’s been legal for years, and even though they do not face the same social stigma as faced here they still found it very traumatising and till this day both feel distressed about it, even though they don’t necessarily regret it!
I wouldn’t use THAT as an argument against abortion of course as at the end of the day it was their choice …
Now that the Lisbon treaty is in force the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is there to enforce the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights across the EU. The ECJ is not just another ECHR, and ECJ rulings are unlike traditional rulings. The ECJ rules ‘in the spirit of the Union’. Not only has it been interpreting EU law in that spirit, but it is now empowered to ensure that the rights of all EU citizens are uniform across the EU. Moreover, the sort of uniformity that the ECJ has been entrusted to impose is stricter than that in the US, where over 200 years of centralised federalisation has taken place.
Most definitely, those who still believe that the EU is some form of economic club cannot have a clue of what’s going to hit them in the coming years.
I may be mistaken, but isn’t abortion here punishable by imprisonment? If these three Irish women win their case, then maybe pregnant Maltese women who hope to terminate their pregnancy may be empowered to step forward. Still, I for one would not risk imprisonment if there were little to no chance that legislation would be changed. And honestly, do you really believe we’ve reached that stage here?
Please. It’ll be a good 20 years before fervent pro-lifers actually shut up and even listen to what the other side has to say, let alone have our laws changed and abortion legalised. I know, as somebody pro-choice, that it’s hard to get these people to understand because they’re so sure they’re right and they’re so arrogant that they think that they and their dogmas can decide what every other woman does with her body and the fetus inside her.
They don’t understand that most of us are NOT pro-abortion – we’re pro-CHOICE. As in, human rights. They blab on about the rights of the unborn child, all the while completely disregarding the rights of the born-and-living woman.
Wannabe-murderess says what?
The points raised by Daphne are valid. I am ambivalent about abortion and I don’t think I would have one if I were a woman. On that point I can only speculate and I shall never know. But I strongly defend a woman’s right to have her own point of view on abortion and to undertake one if she believes that is the right thing to do.
As to Daphne getting old, I do not see the point. We are all getting old. Only the young and the dead do not grow old. “Personally speaking for myself”, I prefer the process of aging to death. I do not know how old John Schembri is but is he suggesting that the senior generation is dense?
Daphne’s point that no woman in Malta would have the balls to bring a matter before the European Court of Human Rights is also valid. I wonder how many men would have the courage … unless there is a threat to their income.
The challenge for us all Maltese is to stop being obedient and subservient and to use our brains, however old these brains are.
I do not want to state the obvious – I have not always agreed with Daphne. I do, however, admire her guts in speaking her mind. That I and others agree or disagree with any of her points of view is irrelevant. Strong opinions and strong dissent provide the building blocks for a strong democracy and a genuine expression of freedom of speech.
.
Re: Magda’s post
Maybe you could answer abit of a puzzler regarding this issue regarding being pro-choice. Abortion boils down to a simple (but essential) point: is abortion the murder of a human being? (I hope that you agree in saying that) If it is murder then it is wrong. If it is not murder, then it means that you do not consider the embryo (or foetus) to be a human being, and thus it is justifiable.
Having said that, i’m tired of meeting people who claim to be personally against abortion because it is murder, but happily riding the ‘trendy’ train of being ‘Pro-Choice’ *ma jmurx xi hadd imur jghid kontrina!*. With the overtones of ‘Why should I impose my beliefs/morals/ethics on other people? They should have the right to choose themselves’. In this case pro-choice, means you are allowing a person to choose whether to commit murder or not, on the same level (albeit a ‘smaller’ scale) as being ‘Pro-Choice’ about the Holocaust and Nazi concentration camps (and before you argue that you cannot compare the two, I believe the amount of abortions committed in history would belittle the terrible massacre the Nazi’s commited-however my aim wasn’t to prove which is the worst, but merely to show the banal argumentation).
Secondly:
”they’re so arrogant that they think that they and their dogmas can decide what every other woman does with her body and the fetus inside her.”
Here you unjustly play on the word dogma,which most people associate with blind Christian faith.In which you win over the support of those people who blindly believe that anything that comes out of the mouth of a Christian or (even worse) a Catholic is pure and utter bs.In reality a dogma is simply ”a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.” Be it religious, scientific or political.
You also talk of the fetus as if it is some appendage of the womans body, as if a bad tooth or inflamed appendix, which may be discarded at the will of the person in question. If in your opinion the fetus (not even embryo) is not a human being then that is another argument altogether (which never the less is the only pivoting factor in the issue)
”They don’t understand that most of us are NOT pro-abortion – we’re pro-CHOICE. As in, human rights”
Again, the fallacy here is that you consider the human embryo to be a bunch of cells – dead meat and not a human being. If it were the case of the latter(embryo is a human being), then I don’t know which human rights you’re claiming to defend.
”They blab on about the rights of the unborn child, all the while completely disregarding the rights of the born-and-living woman”
Is there some secret gradation of life that I am unaware of? Who says an unborn human being *just because he has not popped out doesn’t mean he is on the same level as a peanut*, is less important than an already ‘born-and-living woman’?
Kindly do interpret my sarcastic tone in the right spirit. I am not writing to insult you, merely trying to understand your point (something which ‘pro-lifers’, as i understand, seem to be lacking in your opinion) :)
@Daphne; regarding God and Money.
As much as i truly do enjoy reading your articles; which are definatley a breath of fresh air from the usual circular reasoning articles you find around, I believe that in this case you have built yourself a straw-man argument, and *having said that* very logically brought it down, and reduced it to a paradoxical banality, making the bishop seem like a dunce in the process.
I tend to believe that you of all people would be smart enough and would not so naively interpret the phrase ”You cannot serve both God and money”. First of all the term money (can be seen clearer when read in context), does not only refer to the economic factor, but rather the materialistic one. Not serving money, i believe (as is what any decent priest will explain) does not mean you should not work and rot all day on the couch, neither does it mean that you should spend all day in church saying the rosary and then relying on charity to survive. It is stated in the Bible that one should use (and develop his talents), and ofcourse, generate a profit from them to be able to support oneself and one’s family. But the crux of the argument which puts things into perspective is ones intentions.
Do you work out of greed? Do you crush others in the process, just to become richer? Are you forced to go against your morals and beliefs just to earn a promotion?. In cases like these you have to make a choice, it is hypocritical to ‘serve money’ in this sense, and then call yourself a Christian. I believe it was Bono of U2 who once said that “the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door, and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.”
Thus in sum; whilst I understand and agree that the at face value the average Maltese Christian will just accept what he is told and assume that ”that the interests of money are inherently evil and fundamentally opposed to the interests of God.”, I disagree with the conclusions you derived from that, namely;
a) ”History and experience prove the opposite: that God’s interests are best served in those countries which are most economically advanced.” I believe that is quite a sweeping statement. How can anyone claim in which God’s interests are best served? Is God happier with a developped country (with a well strcutrued social security system, charities, low poverty rate etc…) whose citizens have forgotten Him? Or is he happier with the believers in poor countries, who due to their unfortunate situation have to cling on even harder to Him?
b) ”If God’s interests lie in poverty and abjection, in starvation, suffering and disease, then I must conclude the bishops and I are considering different interpretations of God.” Agreed, BUT here is were in my opinion you build your strawman argument. AS far as i know, if one reads the Bible and any writings of the Vatican it is highly EVIDENT, that, yes one must choose whether to serve God or Money (ie: in short prioritizing),but that does not mean one must discard the other. If one chooses to serve God, it does not logically follow that he will not work or try to earn money.
c) ”The Catholic message that God and money are somehow mutually exclusive”
I believe this interpretation stems from the ‘ejja infattruwha hekk la ma fhimniex” most Maltese have. If one were to truly interest himself in the Catholic stance by asking a decent Priest, or merely reading the Papal Encyclicals (or even better the Bible) like Rerum Novarum and various others written throughout Catholic history, and bible episodes such as ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesars’ and all the talk about storing wealth on earth being foolish IF you have not stored a treasure in heaven (nevertheless people strive on quoting individual bible passages and base an argument on half a verse); then there would be no shadow of doubt about the issue.
d) ”Money serves the interests of God. Without money, you cannot feed people or care for them”
I don’t want to sideline into another argument, but I think this sentence shows another of your underlying assumptions; that God is more interested in us leading a comfortable life on earth than in our eternal souls (cliche on my hand? maybe…but i believe it points out the humanistic perspective on yours- ofcourse if you don’t believe truly believe in an afterlife *I don’t know what you believe frankly*, subconsciouly it follows that you’d expect any god discussed to make your life on earth better *not sure If I’ve explained myself well enough here*)
It seems that this dreadful and in every possible sense distasteful abortion to holocaust analogy, preferably used by self-righteous men who form their views on a rather theoretical than life-experienced base, is not eradicated yet.
@Andrea
As I’ve already written in my comment ”my aim wasn’t to prove which is the worst, but merely to show the banal argumentation” of being ‘Pro-Choice’
Ofcourse you conveniently ignored the rest of the argument and took a sentance somewhat out of context.
re: ”self-righteous men who form their views on a rather theoretical than life-experienced base”
Are you suggesting that all men, infertile woman, women who have never been knocked up etc.. cannot have an opinion about abortion? Are you possibly suggesting (as these seem to be the connotations) that it is only women who have been raped and got pregnant from that rape should have a say about abortion? And then you conveniently call men self-righteous.
In conclusion about your comment, i’d like to extend the argument that Daphne uses with regards to homosexuals. It is vital that people do not make decisions when they are emotionally involved, and rather be discussed rationally by the people who have a possibly less biased outlook on the matter (obviously with the input of people with experience).
Mike, I think no one should compare abortions with the holocaust. I am from Germany and I’ve always wondered about the ‘inflationary’ and insensitive use of that ‘holocaust killer argument’ whenever one runs out of reasoning. Pure polemics.
Due to my socialisation it is completely new to me that men decide over a woman’s life–or their bodies.
You surely can form an opinion about abortions in general as you can have an opinion about pregnancy but will you ever know how it feels to be pregnant or even involuntarily pregnant? That shows how important it is to have more women in charge of law and legislation, health care and other social organisations.
No, I don’t need anyone to rule my life since I am mature and responsible enough to decide about my personal issues, even when I am ’emotionally involved’ and in our particular case I would discuss the matter ‘rationally’ with female experts or doctors. And that’s what women do in modern societies.
You know there is a difference between ‘reading about swimming’ and ‘swimming yourself’. You have to touch water, you get wet and you even could drown. So, no I would never allow a man to judge (not form an opinion) about an abortion (where women mostly are left alone anyway) and where I come from an educated man would never do that. This educated man would think that a woman can make her own (very difficult and often painful) decisions. And again: we are talking about a bloody lonely decision anyway.
Due to my job as a TV producer I saw a lot of misery and believe me you don’t help one single woman in times of emergency by calling her a murderer (by comparing her with a Nazi for example). Walk a mile in their shoes, as they say.
I personally think, since I’ve discussed that matter very often in the newsroom at work, when men could get pregnant there wouldn’t be such a fiery discussion. They would not allow anyone to interfere in their interests. I mean, men usually almost die when they suffer from a simple cold and they would rather burn in hell than change their eating habits when they contract high cholesterol or diabetes. Do you think any law could force them to give birth to a baby they do not want? No way!
Even my very young, very liberated but nevertheless testosterone-driven colleagues had to agree with me on that. By the way, since abortion was legalised in Germany in the Seventies the number of abortions remarkably decreased. In other words: less women died on the chair of some back-street abortionist and more babies are born since women in need get support from the politically and religiously independent organisation ‘profamilia’.
If the analogy bugs you so much then ignore it in my argujment. Though i must point out again that it was on the issue of being pro-choice, and not about abortion. One can be pro-choice about divorce, about abortion, about homosexual marriage etc.. etc.. In this case we were discussing the issue of being pro-choice about Abortion. Yet the logical fallacy in being pro-choice remains the same whichever the argument. If one believes a moral wrong (to the detriment of the individual and of the society) is taking place, then one is not only of duty to not commit that wrong himself, but to restrict others from committing it (hence legislation). If littering is wrong, then I’m either Pro-Literring, or Pro-Clean Environment. There is no such thing about being Pro-Choice in littering – ie: i don’t litter, but i believe everyone should make their own choices whether to litter or not!.
”Due to my socialisation it is completely new to me that men decide over a woman’s life–or their bodies”
The Maltese Government (similar to the German structure I believe) is elected by a democratic vote. Men and women have equal chances of contesting and thus being elected (placing aside the (possibly) more conventional outlook of the Maltese society; that men should command high positions). Nevertheless the whole concept of a democracy is that the Government is a representative democracy. If the majority of Maltese citizens (including women) vote for men in parliament, then it is obvious that men will be in the legislative seat. Having said that there are a number of women in parliament too, so the statement that ” men decide over a woman’s life” is not completely true as it is the Government elected by the whole population who legislates.
– ”but will you ever know how it feels to be pregnant or even involuntarily pregnant?”
No, granted. But thats no justification at all! Will you ever know how it feels to be a fetus? *i’m sure you were one once, but do you remember how you felt?* Do you need to have faced an attempted murder before being able to condemn it?
– ”I don’t need anyone to rule my life since I am mature and responsible enough to decide about my personal issues, even when I am ‘emotionally involved’ and in our particular case I would discuss the matter ‘rationally’ with female experts or doctors.”
I never contested your rationality. However you keep missing an important point, you fail to state whether you consider abortion murder/killing or not. Once you’ve decided on this fact, then whatever the situation or experience or reason you got pregnant, and whatsoever you may discuss rationally with female experts and doctors, will not change that fact of whether abortion is murder or not.
-”And that’s what women do in modern societies”
Since when has the modern society became the moral utopia? I believe that thanks to many ‘modern tendencies’ many developped countries are facing huge economic and social problems because of an ageing population and negative growth.
-”You know there is a difference between ‘reading about swimming’ and ’swimming yourself’. You have to touch water, you get wet and you even could drown”
There is a difference between talking about an experience, and a fact. It is a fact that you could drown if you don’t know how to swim- i don’t need to have ever swam to know that, but you could only talk about the experience of drowning if you’ve drowned… (which is rather ironic isn’t it? Because i bet you’d be regretting drowning at that stage :)).
-”no I would never allow a man to judge (not form an opinion) about an abortion”
I have no problem with women legislating as long as they put forward rational arguments. Something which I haven’t read yet. All the pro-abortion arguments by women are in the majority (not ALL) so clearly influenced by an emotional involvement rather than a rational and logical argument. (As in your case, you neither have given me a rational and logical argument to justify abortion, aside from a woman being able to do whatever she wants with her body *even though this has no relation whatsoever to the subject, unless you consider a fetus to be on the same level as you appendix*)
-”This educated man would think that a woman can make her own (very difficult and often painful) decisions”
An educated man would be able to reason out what is wrong or right, if he believes abortion is justfiable then fair enough, but if he believes it is murder and it is wrong, then he is foregoing his duty as a citizen/human being or whatever you will, of speaking out and preventing what is wrong.
Also, what if the ‘educated man’ is the father of the child? And he wants to go ahead with the pregnancy but the mother wants to abort? Isn’t the baby his child too?
-”you don’t help one single woman in times of emergency by calling her a murderer”
Its all about being diplomatic and politically correct isn’t it? Never call a spade a spade. If rationally and logically it follows that abortion is murder ,then the person who decides to commit abortion is the murderer. I know the term is very crude and strong, but its obvious that many women (in order to go through with the abortion) convince themselves that it is not a human life that is inside them, but an extra piece of meat, a bunch of useless cells or something. That is the only way a sane human being can live with himself after commiting abortion.
And ofcourse, I will damn call a woman a murderer, if its what it takes to save a life. Sometimes women (and men) have to start realising that life is not all about their comfort…
-”when men could get pregnant there wouldn’t be such a fiery discussion”
Agreed ;because men who don’t argue rationally, and thus have relitavist morals will adopt those morals which better suit their situation. This is ofcourse hypothetical and thus is a useless argument.
” They would not allow anyone to interfere in their interests”
You’ve already condemned male supremacy, so you’re just agreeing that two wrongs don’t make a right. Just because it is wrong that men would selfishly opt for the easy way out, it does not follow that it is justifiable that woman do the same- because it is wrong. Its an argument based on ‘if he (hypothetically) would do this (even though its wrong) then we should be able to do it too.’
-”I mean, men usually almost die when they suffer from a simple cold and they would rather burn in hell than change their eating habits when they contract high cholesterol or diabetes”
None of the above decisions affect any other individuals or society, it is a personal choice of the individual whether he prefers living an extra 10 years on salad or living 5 without legs. Neither is it strictly speaking morally wrong and definatley not on the same level as abortion.
-”Do you think any law could force them to give birth to a baby they do not want?”
I’m sorry but here you make it sound, like women are used as handmaids for reproductive experiments conducted by the government or aliens. As far as i know,in the case of most abortions one usually gets pregnant ‘by mistake’, yet strangely by consciously and willfully having sex (barring rape cases- which i can assure you are not the majority- and are not justified either). If women in our ‘modern society’ go around shagging ‘educated men’ on a weekly basis from the age of 14 ( give or take a few years), then is there not the obvious risk of pregnancy? I can’t understand how educated men and rational woman don’t see this. And then when the woman/girl gets pregnant its a whole problem – ofcourse, and *trumpets flare* Enter abortion for that ‘poor’ girl who (finally) got pregnant. I’m sorry it is not justifiable especially because as a result of that girl/woman’s irresponsability one is killing a human life. If that girl needs help i’ll do my best to help her prevent getting pregnant, or help her care for her baby, but I will not take the easy way out and eradicate a human life.
”By the way, since abortion was legalised in Germany in the Seventies the number of abortions remarkably decreased”
Have abortions decreased since the 70’s or have the deaths due to ”back-street abortionist ” decreased?
Nevertheless the ends do not justify the means. That is one dangerous philosophy. If Abortion is murder, then it is still wrong even if it leads to less people dieing of illegal abortion (what kind of logical argument is that?). If people were dieing because of backstreet abortionists, then the issue is the backstreet abortionists, and not that peope are dieing because they are not aborting. The problem is the amount of unwanted pregnancies, which is unjustly being dealt with with murder. That is the plain and simple situation. (kind of reminds me of Jonathan Swift’s satirical ‘A Modest Proposal’ :))
Well said, Andrea. However, Mike’s position is too well-entrenched. It’s called ‘blinkered’. A no hoper. Wonder where he keeps his ‘horse collar’.
@ Harry,
Oh kind sir, do open my eyes with your infinite knowledge won’t you? Why must we always argue against the person rather than his opinions. If you disagree with me, kindly show were and how. None of you ‘open minded’ intellectuals has even come close to answering my initial (rather simplistic) comment, and its getting tiring that you keep beating around the bush and avoiding the main issue:
Its simple, is abortion murder? If you think it isn’t then that is the only way you can justify it, but If you think it isn’t plese explain your reasons. FULLSTOP.
[Daphne – How many angels dance on the head of a pin? Is abortion murder? Please stop rehashing these old arguments; they’ve been done to death and are really tedious. If you want to believe that abortion is murder, go right ahead. My own view is that there is much which is morally dubious about abortion, but murder doesn’t come into it in the early stages of pregnancy. Commonsense should tell you that it is impossible to ‘murder’ an egg that was fertilised yesterday, which is why women who ‘miss a period’ don’t hold funerals for the blood in the lavatory, and which is also why it is mainly men who get so emotional about these things – because it is women who deal with the gory business.]
“My own view is that there is much which is morally dubious about abortion, but murder doesn’t come into it in the early stages of pregnancy. Commonsense should tell you that it is impossible to ‘murder’ an egg that was fertilised yesterday, which is why women who ‘miss a period’ don’t hold funerals for the blood in the lavatory, and which is also why it is mainly men who get so emotional about these things – because it is women who deal with the gory business”
Exactly, Daphne!
Mike. I will repeat. I refuse to debate with blinkered individuals. It is such a tiresome time waster.
Harry I think the even more blinkered individual is not he who is as you say ‘entrenched’ in one position, but is that one who even refuses to set foot on the debating circle (ofcours because he has an even stronger conviction that the only aim of debating is to convince the opposition that his or her own stance is right, and not to better his own opinion; be it by strengthening or by changing stance- how arrogant is that!).
No wonder one of the greatest debaters and philosophers of all time engaged in debate by admitting that he knew nothing.
“No wonder one of the greatest debaters and philosophers of all time engaged in debate by admitting that he knew nothing.”
Attention, own goal!
Mike. I just have to assume that your last paragraph refers to yourself. I do have a question for you, though. Why is it so easy to wind up fundamentalists?
Harry, I don’t see what fundamentalism has to do with the matter..
My arguments were neither influenced by the fundamentalist movement (of the American 20th century), or by the derived definition along the lines of ‘having blind belief in something without rational evidence’. I am neither of the above. If I were a fundamentalist then I would not be stuck here tryingn to form a rational opinion, but rather be irrationally blowing the brains out of any pro-abortionists.
If it was some sort of witty comment in my regards, then I can assure you that I a not wound up at all. I’ll let Daphne’s readers judge whom is making the most sense between you and I :- though all they’ve read of yours are pompous jeers in my regards). Nevertheless I am not here for a popularity contest, merely to give people 2 sides of an argument. It is then up to them to decide which they find most rational and logical. There is no one more deaf than those who do not wish to here (and please Andrea, spare us the ‘own goal’ humour).
Mike, you exhibit all the characteristics of a fundamentalist. Googling definitions won’t help.
As I mentioned previously, I do not involve myself in futile debates. However, I have a friend who does have an opinion. He lives in Georgia (the state not the country). I guess you would label him a ‘redneck’. You know, lives in a trailer, drives a pickup truck, with a rifle hung in his rear window. He never says that much, but the following is a direct quote. He says ‘If it ain’t breathing, it ain’t livin. When I shoot a coon (that’s a racoon, Mike, not a black), and it ain’t
breathin, it ain’t livin. Same with a littl’un. When the little bugger is breathin, he’s livin.’ Now Mike, being such a world renowned philosopher and debater, how would you refute such a view? However, Mike, I politely ask you to phrase your rebuttal in short, concise, intelligible and grammatically correct sentences. And please keep it short. You do have a tendency to meander in a long-winded manner. My friend would get bored if you resorted to your usual stuff.
Also, I think Andrea’s comment was not only funny, but pointed out a not well-thought-through slip up on your part. It’s called a ‘gotcha’ in Georgia.
Dear Harry,
Being a world renowned philosopher (as you seem to think) I can answer your argument in two simple rhetorical questions.
1) Do amonia breathe? The simplistic answer is no, does this mean they are not living?
[Daphne – I think you need to go back to chemistry class. Ammonia is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen, used in the home as a cleaning agent. In those primary school exercises where you class things as ‘dead’, ‘alive’ and ‘never alive’, it would fall into the third category. Ammonia definitely doesn’t breathe, but then it was never alive either.]
But even if it were the case that life is equivalent to breathing,
2) Is life what makes a mammal a human? No, that is why apes are apes, even though they breathe and are alive. It is also why we do not eat dead people, both rather bury/cremate them accordingly: because they are still human beings (though not alive) when they die.
[Daphne – No, that is not why we don’t eat human beings when they are dead (have you ever tried eating a live mammal, incidentally?). Some cultures don’t even bury their dead. They expose them to the elements and then go back for their bones. And some cultures have no problem with eating human flesh, either.]
This is even present in your friend’s argument: a dead racoon is still a racoon.
[Daphne – This is getting very tiresome. No, it’s not. It’s the body of a racoon. The dead body of a human being is not a human being, but a body. That is why we speak of ‘mortal remains’ – because Elvis, so to speak, has left the building. Language might have confused you here. Maltese news reports would have it that a ‘persuna mejta instabet f’dar’, but in English that would be ‘a body was found in the house’- and not a dead person.]
In the period before the foetus has commenced ‘breathing’: as we understand it, through lungs, which does not happen in the womb for the full nine months or until he pops out – thus here you are suggesting an eight-month old baby is not a human being, or even alive.
Also in the case of a dead racoon, he doesn’t breathe because he is dead. In the case of a foetus, right after the process of fertilization he’s already been coded to develop lungs and start breathing (the genome), thus he is not only alive but has inwardly all the traits of a human being; including breathing (i.e: the respiratory system).
[Daphne – A case of oil-paints, a set of brushes and a piece of canvas on a stretcher are not a painting. They have the potential for a painting, they are the raw materials of a painting, but they are quite patently not a painting.]
You answer ‘in rhetorical questions’, Mike?
Now that is actually provoking my ‘own goal humour’ but I shall wash my mouth out with (slippery) soap.
Mike. As Ronald Reagan aptly commented during a Presidential debate, ‘There you go again!. Big words, long sentences. My friend is not interested in chemistry (except when he’s making moonshine). To repeat, his point is ‘if it ain’t breath’n, it ain’t livi’n’. Is that right or wrong? Daphne admirably rebutted your weakening arguments, so I won’t need to comment. (Wouldn’t anyway–see previous statements).
Mike, sometimes you come across as person who is very ‘stuck on himself’. Probably, in another life, you’ll come back as a ‘post it’ note. Lighten up and settle down.
”Ammonia is a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen, used in the home as a cleaning agent”
Sorry daphne, it was a slip on my part, I meant to write amoeba.
Re: burial, you may have missed my point as i may not have explained it well. Nevertheless it is a secondary point. My point that life does not define the human being still stands. apart from that the analogy of the raccoon is very poor, and the case of abortion does not follow at all, for the simple reason, that a dead raccoon will never start breathing again, whilst an apparently dead foetus, will magically start breathing if nature is allowed to take its course.
”A case of oil-paints, a set of brushes and a piece of canvas on a stretcher are not a painting. They have the potential for a painting, they are the raw materials of a painting, but they are quite patently not a painting”
Daphne, that is why we don’t consider a sperm and an egg (separately) to be a human being. Also the oil and canvas will never develop into anything unless the artist combines them. In the same way the sperm and egg will never form a foetus. BUT when the egg is fertilized, then it will develop into a human being if nature is allowed to take its course. Oils and a canvas have no innate potential, they are merely tools. A foetus has all the qualities which define a human already in his genome, and which will given the time develop 1 by 1.
@Andrea:
I found it more apt to answer my questions lest some people pretend to be naive and interpret them in their own way. I should have edited out the ‘rhetorical questions’ in my introduction.
You seem to have given up on arguing back, and left it up to Daphne (who thank God actually replies to what I wrote, unlike all the rest who just go on about grammar or something totally unrelated).
”My friend is not interested in chemistry (except when he’s making moonshine). To repeat, his point is ‘if it ain’t breath’n, it ain’t livi’n’. Is that right or wrong?”
It depends on your definition of ‘breathing’, as he doesn\t seem to be a scientific person as you state, then breathing refers to ones respiratory system. Then no there are countless living organisms that do not breathe and are alive.
But the point is invalid, as life does not define humanity, it is a condition of humanity, as it is a condition of a racoon and of a bear and a horse.
Harry, if you sincerely believe that we should go by and legislate about abortion without a background in chemistry or even more importantly biology, then i should be the one who shouldn’t even bother discussing.
Mike. You finally made a statement with which everyone will agree–‘then I should be the one who shouldn’t bother discussing’. Nuff said.
The Catholic Church’s social doctrine comments clearly on money and any other private property.
“Goods, even when legitimately owned, always have a universal destination; any type of improper accumulation is immoral, because it openly contradicts the universal destination assigned to all goods by the Creator”
Of course man cannot live without money. That is why the Church was always against any form of private property censorship and engaged totalitarian philosophies.
Equally true however is when totalitarian philosophies were replaced by other philosophies which consider private property as an end in itself.
I must say that the bishops were right in their analysis.
Abortion is a dreadful act, except for certain serious circumstances. That’s my opinion.
But by having it illegal in Malta (or entrenched in the Constitution as some fundamentalists want) is not and will not be saving any fetus. Pregnant women who want to get rid of their foetus are simply moving to other countries and have abortions done. Obviously, if they can afford it. And that’s the point. Laws are there only to discriminate between those who can afford an abortion in another country and others who don’t. Some of the latter resort to other hazardous methods. How many of them choose the third option and go on with their pregnancy we will never come to know.
As a matter of fact we are today living in a globalised world, we have freedom of movement and whether we like it or not our abortion laws are becoming more then ever, useless. The only key to restrict abortion is education and persuasion. Perhaps by having abortion legal in Malta, with clinics and doctors obliged to make their best to persuade women not to terminate their pregnancy could be more effective than any other restrictive law. Surely enough we should start doing some thinking, in parallel with what the European Court of Human Rights will decide.
The difference between a woman who has had an abortion done and a woman who has not is actually the means of getting one done. If someone can afford to go abroad and get an abortion, all well and good, but those who cannot afford it must have their child.
What do you tell a rape victim who cannot afford an abortion? In Malta we tell her “we have no idea what you are going through, we do not really care either, just don’t get an abortion, and live the rest of your life a miserable mother with almost no means of taking care of your child, work till your bones break to feed a child which you did not want in the first place and screw up your life. Why? Well, cause we don’t agree that you should have an abortion done, of course”.
We have to wake up to the fact that abortion occurs everywhere. Even though it is illegal in Malta, those who can afford it can get it done. It does not mean that if we do not hear about it all the time, because people hush it up, then it does not happen. That’s what we Maltese people are best at: shoving the dirt under the carpet and making belief that the floor is clean.
Abortions as a result of rape are in the minority Josh. You can never argue/legislate a situation for the based on the situation of an extreme but anyways.
” In Malta we tell her “we have no idea what you are going through, we do not really care either”
Then that is the wrong message :) Just because the wrong attitude is taken towards rape victims (even though I disagree that that is the current attitude) it does not justify abortion, it is a non-sequitur argument.
”and live the rest of your life a miserable mother with almost no means of taking care of your child”
Malta has one of the best social services in the world (second only to Sweden I believe). Single mothers have been given quite alot of importance in recent budgets, so i think we’re moving in the right direction, as opposed to what your implying. Sedqa, Appogg and other foundations also offer lots of help to rape victims, and then there are also the families of the victims. Rape victims are treated with sympathy and compassion, especially by their families, unlike some teenage pregnancies are.
”bones break to feed a child which you did not want in the first place and screw up your life”
Life goes beyond some things you mentioned here.
”We have to wake up to the fact that abortion occurs everywhere”
So? Who said ‘everyone’ else is right? They might well be, but once again this is an invalid argument as it does not follow that just because other people have introduced it then it is justifiable.
” Even though it is illegal in Malta, those who can afford it can get it done”
…So we should legalise it to save them the hassle of flying away for a couple of days? I’d say Airmalta won’t be too happy with your suggestion :)
”It does not mean that if we do not hear about it all the time, because people hush it up, then it does not happen.”
Again, even if half Malta were committing abortion openly, that still would be no justification of the act.
[Daphne – Please would you all stop using this really stupid ‘only in the case of rape’ argument. The perceived wrongness of abortion derives from the eradication of the foetus and not from the manner in which the foetus was conceived. If it is wrong to destroy a foetus or to take the morning-after pill, then it is wrong per se and not wrong because conception took place in violence rather than by consensual sex. Surely that much should be obvious. On the other hand, if it is acceptable to take the morning-after pill or to destroy a foetus up to a certain stage, then it is acceptable whatever the circumstances of conception. These arguments only work when a balance has to be struck between the life of the mother and the life of the foetus. Which one should live and which should die? Otherwise, any argument along the lines of ‘abortion is murder but it’s OK to murder a foetus conceived through rape’ is patently wrong-headed and illogical.]
‘‘The perceived wrongness of abortion derives from the eradication of the foetus and not from the manner in which the foetus was conceived.”
Chapeau! It’s what I’ve been trying to say throughout. Maybe your readers will finally take notice of what you’re saying, and choose not to ignore this critical point.
[Daphne – Ah, but where we differ is in the assumption that abortion is murder. Those who believe that abortion is murder cannot then argue that it is OK where rape is involved. But those who don’t think it’s murder would argue that it’s OK whatever the manner of conception, the state of health of the mother, and so on.]
Also at your previous comment: ”How many angels dance on the head of a pin? Is abortion murder? ”
Whilst I understand your frustration and the meaning of your comparison, it is still important to establish an instant when a bunch of cells become a human being, as it is the pivoting factor in the argument.
[Daphne – The way I see it? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. The same applies to human beings.]
”Commonsense should tell you that it is impossible to ‘murder’ an egg that was fertilised yesterday.”
You’ve already said it yourself, If you consider the fertilised foetus to be a human than commonsense would mean it is murder (the crime of unlawfully killing a person). The foetus may be considered to be a human being right after the process of fertilisation as at that stage his genetic code is present thus he is NOT a potential person, but a person with a potential. Call me tedious and repetitive but it seems that you’re the only one that even bothered tackling my argument.
[Daphne – It cannot possibly be murder. Murder is the killing of those who are born and not of the unborn. Killing the unborn is abortion or, in the case of giving a pregnant woman a grievous beating which causes her to miscarry, some other crime which is neither abortion nor murder. I’m sure some lawyer will pop in to enlighten us. Personhood begins with birth. That’s why abortion and murder are two entirely distinct crimes. Even our criminal code acknowledges this distinction. After birth, a baby is murdered, but before birth it is aborted.]
”which is why women who ‘miss a period’ don’t hold funerals for the blood in the lavatory”
From a Christian perspective, the human would not have yet been baptised so as far as I know he would not be entitled to a Christian funeral anyway. Of course funerals are not all Christian, but as you say, on a practical level it would be a banality to mourn a flush of blood, yet it doesn’t mean it was not a person.
[Daphne – You’ve answered your own question here. If it were a person, it would not be banal to hold a funeral for it. Quite the opposite: it would be shocking not to. After all, you don’t flush dead persons down the lavatory. Women flush the lavatory after a missed period, rather than ringing for the undertaker and wearing black, precisely because it is quite patently not a person but a rush of blood. I hate it when men discuss these things. Unless they’re doctors, they patently haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.]
After all we tend to mourn those people who we are closest too, and even though the one-day old foetus is your own flesh and blood on a psychological conscience level you have not established a relationship with him or her yet.
”The way I see it? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. The same applies to human beings”
Agreed, but this is still a generic interpretation which leaves a lot of room for ‘tbabis’. I don’t intend on going into a discussion on which are the distinguishing traits which make a human being a person/human being:- because frankly its alot of Scientific, and pyschological tedious discussion, which ends up in mere formation of opinion and can never result in fact. Nevertheless one must still examine the scienitifc evidence available and form their opinions on that.
”Murder is the killing of those who are born and not of the unborn. Killing the unborn is abortion ”
Thank you for correcting the term, from now on I shall use the term ‘killing of a ‘unborn’ human being’. Your distinction may be correct but it is of course merely a convention, as the being itself changes little in a few hours which it takes to pop out of the womb.
‘‘Personhood begins with birth”
Are you sure about this? I think the word personhood is a bit deceiving, of course the citizen does not recognize a foetus or an embryo as a citizen, so in that sense personhood does begin at birth.
[Daphne – Yes, I’m sure about it. It’s one of the reasons that births, not conceptions, are registered with the state.]
Re:Funerals – I was speaking of it being a banality on a practical level. But nevertheless.
I disagree with your notion of classfying a foetus or embryo as a human being, on the basis of whether a funeral would be held for him or not. Many people (even those in favour of abortion), agree that a 7 month or 8 month old embryo is in fact already a human being (thus unjustifiable to kill), yet if the mother miscarries, as far as I know no one holds a funeral in remembrance of the miscarried baby.
[Daphne – Yes, funerals are held for miscarried babies and still-borns. The differentiating factor? The baby must look like a baby, which brings us back to my original point about ‘looking like a duck etc’. Nobody holds, or can hold, a funeral for a missed period (a natural abortion). But yes, people obviously do properly bury any miscarried baby who looks like one.]
Of course the mother would be devastated (if she actually wanted the baby) because she would have had a longer ‘relationship’ with the baby and would have become more attached, as opposed to a 1 day old foetus, which she only knows the existence of through a scientific test.
Daphne,
Thanks for clearing out the issue about burrying miscarried babies, I honestly didn’t know it was done.
Though I find your argument about ”The baby must look like a baby, which brings us back to my original point about ‘looking like a duck etc”’, straightforward and should be used as a guideline, I still think it is superficial and leaves alot of room for interpretation. I know its a tedious topic, but let me give you an example. If abortion where to be determined on how the baby looks, then who would decide when the foetus starts looking like a baby? What scientific criteria can be used. Aestheticly one will always end up with subjective knowledge, and thus one must set scientific criteria. Also what if the baby is deformed or disabled- this may leave room for cases of abortion. These are only some examples off the top of my head.
“What scientific criteria can be used?”
The criterion used for the cut-off time during pregnancy before which abortion is allowed (not in Malta of course) is the number of weeks at which it is reckoned the embryo might have a chance of surviving to live an independent existence if born.
It is because of the significant improvements in neonatal paediatrics that this number (of weeks) has been reduced in recent decades/years.
Thank you for your input, John. However from my point of view, what you’ve mentioned is more a justification of the abortion, rather than an indication of when a foetus becomes a human being. Let me explain.
The argument you mentioned is very similar to that used when withdrawing life support treatment (or in cases of euthanasia) – as opposed to killing as a result of withdrawing treatment, letting someone die is letting nature take its course. However this argument sheds no light upon whether the foetus is a human being or not. If the argument of ‘if he is fit to survive naturally’ is used as a yard stick of whether that ‘thing’ is human or not, then it would follow logically that people on life support treatment or people in a coma etc.. are not human beings as they would not survive without the life support treatment.
[Daphne – Not quite, Mike, if you don’t mind me butting in. The person in a coma is quite patently a human being. He was born, lived a life, was registered with the state, possibly was married and had children, etc, etc. These are not the things that make a person human, but they are certainly evidence that he is a human being. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…. On the other hand, the foetus in the womb, still more the fertilised egg, has not yet become a human being. It is a potential human being, but not a human being.]
Regarding surviving by artificial means, as you said, it is only a matter of time till technology develops a means of bypassing the womb altogether. Thus I don’t think one can use such an arbitrary means to define the moment at which the embryo/foetus becomes a human being.
I put forward no argument, Mike. Just stated the way things are.
”Not quite, Mike, if you don’t mind me butting in. ”
Your contribution is always very welcome (ofcourse I need not say this, it is your blog after all ;))
I did not contest the fact that a person in a coma is a human being, Au contraire, I agree with you that he is human, and thus the idea of ‘is he fit to survive naturally’ as a measure of humanity, or a reason to abort is invalid.
”It is a potential human being, but not a human being”
This is where we’ll have to agree to disagree. I believe that upon the formation of ones genetic code (right after the process of fertilization), then the human being is formed, but has not yet reached his potential which is nevertheless already innate. This idea is similar to Aristotles idea of potency and act, and I believe one can understand the concept i am proposing at a deeper level if he has a background in Aristotle’s philosophy (even a basic one).