Tuesday, 25th March 2008
Pro-life or just anti-abortion?
The piece clarified that the Council of Europe is not the European Union. We have been members of the Council since Independence but members of the Union only since 2004. Such a clarification is needed since quite a few people, even those ostensibly in the know, do not really appreciate the difference between the two.
The report of The Sunday Times clearly states that the Council of Europe is asking for the decriminalisation of abortion. It does not refer to the legalisation of abortion. The difference is not immediately clear to many.
"The committee's report, penned by Austrian Socialist rapporteur Gisela Wurm, and approved by 21 votes in favour, three against and one abstention, calls upon all the 47 member states of the CoE to 'decriminalise abortion, if they have not already done so; guarantee women's effective exercise of their right to abortion and allow women freedom of choice and offer the conditions of a free and enlightened choice.'"
In simple terms decriminalisation means that the person who commits a particular action will not be sent to prison for his or her action. While I agree that a prison sentence should certainly be the sanction for a doctor or anyone else executing or procuring the abortion, I am not certain that a prison sentence should be the punishment ordinarily given to a woman undergoing one. This is because there can be several circumstances which extenuate the guilt of the mother although that does not diminish by an iota the heinous nature of the act itself.
The reaction to the news from Strasbourg brings to the fore a number of issues.
Free and enlightened choice?
In her recommendations Wurm speaks of giving women the right to "a free and enlightened choice." She utters no word about the right of the unborn child. What is in the balance here is not the right for a free and enlightened choice (whatever that means) but the right to life.
The best answer to the Socialist Wurm can be found in the words spoken by the Pope during his visit to Austria last September. Pope Benedict, while addressing the members of government and diplomatic corps in the reception hall of Vienna's Hofburg Palace, the seat of the Austrian presidency. He described abortion as a "deep wound" in society and as the antithesis of a human right. "The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end. Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -- it is the very opposite."
Benedict XVI continued: "In stating this, I am not expressing a specifically ecclesial concern. Rather, I am acting as advocate for a profoundly human need, speaking out on behalf of those unborn children who have no voice."
"I say this out of a concern for humanity," he clarified.
A Constitutional amendment?
For the last three years the Gift of Life has been asking Parliament to change the wording of article 33 in the Constitution to read: "No person shall intentionally be deprived of his life from conception". This amendment would make abortion unconstitutional. They have collected the signatures of 36,010 people and the signatures of 40 MPs from both parties who support its cause. This is just four MPs short of the required two-thirds necessary to amend the Constitution.
The government said that it will not move forward unless the Labour Party takes an official position in favour of the amendment. Though many Labour MPs have spoken in favour, the Leadership of the party did not pronounce itself. One has now to wait for the outcome of the leadership contest. Considering that this will be over only in June, I guess that this argument will only be re-visited towards the end of the year.
On the proposed amendment to the constitution there are genuine anti-abortionists in favour as well as genuine anti-abortionists against. Both positions have their own valid arguments. The debate about this proposal should continue, but not ad aeternum. After all, the greatest safeguard against abortion is a solid pro-life attitude and not constitutional provisions.
Are we pro-life?
Being anti abortion does not necessarily imply that we are wholly pro-life. Does our reaction to out-of-marriage pregnancies help these mothers go on with their pregnancy till its natural termination or does the stigmatisation of the same persons push some to commit abortion? Are unwed mothers provided with a caring and helpful environment which enables them to take care of their children?
A pro-life mentality has many ramifications. Is the lack of fortitude shown by those with the power and position to amend as needed regulations covering fireworks manufacture and adequately enforce them a sign of a truly pro-life attitude? We go from one tragedy to another, from one funeral to another and from the recommendations of one committee to another with great ease. We have yet to witness a minister tackling the bull by the horns. One hopes that the new minister will do more to address the problems surrounding the manufacture of fireworks, both the legal as well as the illegal kind.
The Naxxar tragedy is still fresh in all our minds .... Or is it? The illegal manufacture and storage of explosives cost the life of two persons, the total destruction of four homes and an indelibly branded trauma on the lives of so many others .
People's consciences were alerted. They phoned the police to report other potential tragedies. The police took quick action, arraigned suspects in court and had them condemned. But then, a disappointing anti-climax, one accused was fined €464 while the other a paltry €200. The sentences given by the courts transmit one clear message to all society: storing and manufacturing explosives illegally is not a serious matter.
Is the cost of the pain suffered by so many people redeemed by a few hundred euros? What a shame!
RSS
Comments
Just as one that favours a pro-life argument is automatically labeled as a religious fanatic.
I am religious and I do agree with the Catholic Church regards abortion but I don't simply agree because the Church says so.
I don't think that abortion has a place in a society whose citizens have liberty because facts tell us so.
It is a well known fact that at fertilisation or conception, there is a new, individual human being (the very first sentence on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation)
Now, since I am a human being and anyone else reading this comment is also a human being and facts show us that the embryo is a human being then both me and the embryo are the same.
Since we are the same, we both possess the same fundamental rights (rights which we are eligible to enjoy because we are living human beings). Anyone who calls another living human being different than himself is basically doing the same thing racists do when they say that differently-coloured people should be less eligible to rights they enjoy.
If the most vulnerable of human beings is denied the right to life then eventually we will all be denied the right to life and we will be back at the times when slavery was the order of the day (where people were judged, by other people, whether they should live or die).
Now, I hope we all agree that once human beings start losing rights, we won't be actually having "liberty".
If illegal abortions harm the woman who seeks to undergo an abortion, then let's do what we do when we tell youths that obtaining drugs illegally can kill: We tell them to use the excellent support services the wonderful Maltese people are capable of providing and avoid illegal abortions.
We respect our pets, our plants and have become defenders of the environment - and this is good. Does the unborn child at least compare to our pet! Is this a complete erosion of our human values as we progress to a more utopian world? If equality and freedom of thought are at the basis of this debate might we consider the plight of the unborn. This is never a simple debate but it begs a wider perception in terms of whose rights are being defended. It's not one at the expense of the other, but rather everyone's in relation to helping those who are defenceless. Some of these progressive countries that we keep referring to have failed miserably in terms of respecting human life.
Before any rash decisions are taken to render abortion unconstitutional, trampling roughshod over a potentially growing minority, there should at least be space for a healthy debate where people do not risk being held to ransom or being publicly discredited for holding a pro-choice position. The climate of hypocrisy that exists in Malta certainly does not allow it. The neo-conservatism that the world is presently going through, as well as Pope Benedict’s declared holy war on relativism, unfortunately only serve to apparently vindicate the Maltese establishment (which of course includes the Church) whose only interest is to keep people within the safe confines of clichés and moral orthodoxy. Of course, the world at large and around this little island (vide Council of Europe declaration and abortion laws of nearly all Western countries) is totally different.
The difficulty is persuading the pro-choice that abortion is killing a human being with unknown future potential which is only known to God himself. What if famous people who influenced the world were aborted? The pro-choice will argue that if given a choice, maybe Hitler's mother would have saved the lives of millions by aborting Adoph. On the other hand what if Pope John Paul II or St. George Preca's mothers had aborted their children, would not the world have been deprived of two heroes?
Given that no one has a hundred percent proof of exactly when life begins (if one heeds various conflicting views), would it not be more prudent to err (if at all) on the side of caution, thus preserving lives?
Yes, it makes sense to have a pro-life amendment and our political leaders should have the courage and conviction to ensure that our Parliament obtains the two thirds majority it requires.
However as Churchill (if not mistaken) had put it ‘but some are more equal’. Probably that is why women feel at liberty to KILL anything that intrudes into their womb. They still say they have the right to do it although in the civilised world, not even serial killers are executed. But women are more equal.
what is happening right now in Malta is very simple. mothers who decide out of their free will to go through with abortion have two options: either do an illegal abortions that existed since ever or else go through the financial burden of having their abortion in foreign hospitals.
this means we are exposing our women to 1) more financial trouble. women who decide to have an abortion usually are challenged people who do not afford to have a child for their own reasons. 2) questionable health care in what are usually unknown hospitals with unknown hygiene levels. but importantly we are exposing the unaborted kid to a life of misery!!
should we (people who are anti-abortion) impose our say on others in this era of modern democracy? i think not. should we have a system like the americans do? i think not!
we should however have a system that while encouraging the mother (and of course her partner ) to keep the baby and giving her options, also provides a limited ( in weeks of gestation) abortive service in our hospitals. this system should naturally be accompanied by proper psychological assessment and therapy of the mother.
Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[8] (extracted from website of the Guttamacher Institute)
Just as I wouldn't like to be associated with the Philippines as the only other country not to have divorce. It's also a country where people crucify themselves on Good Friday.
These are not the countries we should compare to.
And rather than taking decisions based on what's popular, or what we think is common sense, or what our emotions tell us, we should look into these kinds of matters through an objective and in-depth practical analysis of what makes sense and what doesn't.
We should not just discard this report because the Polish politicians are going to. In fact we should take it more seriously for this very reason.
While we - as a country - should continue showing our pro-life credentials the following despach from the Catholic World News shows that we should not get too hot under the collar about the Council of Europe resolution
Poland will ignore Council of Europe on abortion
Warsaw, Mar. 26, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Polish government plans no action in response to an appeal from the Council of Europe to legalize abortion.
Earlier this month a parliamentary committee of the Council of Europe called for an end to bans on abortion, noting that Poland is one of only 4 European states (along with Ireland, Malta, and Andorra) that bar the practice.
But the Polish government does not plan to answer that call for change. One government representative, Elzbieta Radziszewska, suggested that the Council's concern about abortion restrictions was misplaced. She remarked: “The Council of Europe should worry about human-rights violations in Russia.” "
The political agenda in Malta should not follow the exigencies of the CoE but our own exigencies.
So really, if you are pro-life, you should be pro the decriminalisation of abortion, and in favour of safe abortion clinics to ensure that when a woman decides to have an abortion, we can at least ensure that her life is saved.
You could probably also decrease the number of abortions, if it is legal, by providing objective psychological therapy before the woman goes through with it, which would help explain the emotional consequences of having an abortion.
And you can spend the money you make from abortions to create positive pro-family and pro-life campaigns around the country, in order to try and decrease the demand for abortions.
The point is, making it unconstitutional or leaving it a crime, simply shouldn't be options because the only thing that does is put depressed, hurt women in jail or in grave danger of self-harm, and allows us to continue living in the denial that abortions don't happen in our country.
Abortion is about the termination of a human embryo, period. Do we or do we not put a moral value on this embryo? And if we do does it make any sense that the value is determined, or increases, with the passing of time in the uterus. The rational answer is that an embryo is an embryo is an embryo, irrespective of its age; just as a male (or female) is a man is a man irrespective of age. Even if one were to allow contention for the first 14-day period, and there are arguments against this along the same lines as well, this is well before the period in which abortion can be contemplated.
Theoretically one may focus on either the act of abortion or the killing of the embryo as the moral issue being discussed. If we focus on the first, the second becomes the pragmatic moral issue. In this case, given the moral weight of killing a human being, the pragmatic moral issue outweighs the central moral issue being discussed.