Abortion complexities

I would like to respond to Leone Sciberras’s letter regarding abortion (‘Abortion debate demands compassion, dialogue, support’, February 1).

His argument primarily relies on emotional appeal rather than a nuanced discussion of the complexities surrounding abortion. Allow me to examine some of his key claims.

Unborn child’s perspective: he asks us to imagine how an unborn child would feel about being aborted. However, this is a flawed personification of a foetus, which lacks the neurological development necessary for consciousness, emotions or self-awareness.

Scientific research indicates that fetal pain perception is highly unlikely before the third trimester, and most abortions occur well before this stage.

Furthermore, equating the moral status of an unconscious foetus to that of a sentient human is misleading.

Every human life holds inherent worth from conception: this claim is philosophical or religious rather than an objective fact.

Different cultures and legal systems define when life attains moral or legal standing differently. For instance, Jewish law traditionally holds that life begins at birth.

Additionally, this argument overlooks the risks and burdens of pregnancy, which can have significant physical, psychological and economic consequences. The well-being of the fully developed, autonomous individual carrying the pregnancy should take precedence over a potential life, especially in cases of unwanted or high-risk pregnancies.

Participants at a pro-choice demonstration in Valletta. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Framing abortion as a selfish or career-driven choice: the correspondent’s argument suggests that abortions often occur due to trivial reasons like career ambitions or personal freedom. This misrepresents the reality.

Studies show that most people seek abortions due to financial instability, lack of support, health concerns or existing parental responsibilities. In fact, 59 per cent of those who have abortions are already parents striving to provide better for their children.

Reducing the issue to a matter of balancing aspirations with responsibility ignores the fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

No one is legally required to donate blood or organs to save a life, yet anti-abortion arguments demand that individuals sacrifice bodily autonomy for a foetus.

Contradiction in “compassionate societal support”: although Sciberras acknowledges the need for healthcare and support for pregnant individuals, anti-abortion policies often correlate with inadequate maternal healthcare, childcare and financial aid. True compassion means allowing individuals the choice to carry a pregnancy, rather than forcing them to do so under vague promises of support.

Balancing individual rights versus collective responsibility: This is a fallacy. Sciberras frames abortion as a conflict between individual rights and society’s duty to protect life. However, pregnancy is a significant physical and emotional burden. No society mandates forced organ donation to save lives, yet, anti-abortion arguments demand a person surrender bodily autonomy for a foetus.

His argument is rooted in emotional rhetoric rather than factual reasoning.

A truly ethical approach recognises that individuals should have the right to make decisions about their bodies, health and future.

Instead of restricting abortion, societies should focus on comprehensive sex education, affordable contraception and robust social support systems – proven methods to reduce unintended pregnancies.

Peter Dingli – California