The human embryo

In his letter titled ‘Precursors to human persons’ (May 6),  Chris Barbara tries to blind the public with ill-interpreted science to justify the legalisation of abortion. He denies the creation of a new human individual at fertilisation, saying that all that happens then is that the sperm’s genetic material allows the ovum cell to “continue developing”, stopping short of saying what it would develop into, thereby cunningly hiding the true value of the embryo.

He calls it a precursor of a human person when, in fact, it includes within it all that makes it human. When fertilised, the ovum cell miraculously springs to a new life that is totally different from its two sources and autonomously turns itself into a human baby within nine months!

Barbara says that many embryos die naturally or fail to implant and survive, slyly suggesting that embryo death and miscarriage are a natural phenomenon of no consequence and worthy of artificial emulation! This way he continues to trivialise the value of human embryos for his purpose to make medical/surgical abortion less objectionable.

He then states that “embryos are not miniature babies but a biological ‘seed’ that could develop into a human person with... some luck”. By downplaying the full humanity of embryos and their excellent chances of maturing, Barbara attempts to blur the abhorrence of abortion.

To help promote the culture of abortion, Barbara describes a pregnant woman as “suffering” from a pregnancy, suggesting that this normal process is an affliction that demands relief.

This is a pseudo-humanitarian excuse for utilitarian reasons. It is unfair of “pro-choice” activists to present their argument for legalisation of abortion on the grounds of a serious conflict between two lives, one of which is disposable, because this situation is rarely the reason for abortion to be requested. It is rare for the two lives of woman and foetus to be in absolute and direct conflict, so demanding a choice  and such cases can still be ethically resolved under the law.

It is pathetic that Barbara disdainfully blames his “country’s unscientific and religious-driven fixations” for Malta’s anti-abortion laws. In fact, it’s his own notions and motivations that are unscientific and unjust fixations.

The arguments made by me and many others against abortion are based on biological science and on the universally accepted rules of medical science, that is, to preserve, to save and never to voluntarily destroy human life at any stage of development for any reason.

How could a doctor dare ask the government of Malta to “treat actual human beings with more respect” by authorising the legal killing of their offspring!

Our country provides adequate practical support for pregnant women who find difficulty in their gravid situation and it must not be brow-beaten to abandon its good anti-abortion law simply to mimic less-enlightened peoples.

John B. Pace - Victoria

Migration issues

A dead migrant among the victims in this image released by SOS Mediterranée last month. Photo: Flavio Gasperini

‘The tragedy nobody wants to talk about’ was the title of the editorial on May 13.

This is totally incorrect since I am sure that a number of commentators would speak about this subject, however uncomfortable it may be. Times of Malta is one of the platforms that prohibits comments on this and other topics.

Joseph Croker – Balzan

Editor’s note: The online comments board for stories related to migration are often closed as they regularly elicit racist, hateful and xenophobic reactions.

Genocide

Should not the Attorney General prosecute MP Marlene Farrugia with incitement to promote genocide?

Joseph Caruana –  Baħar iċ-Ċagħaq

Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@timesofmalta.com. Please include your full name, address and ID card number. The editor may disclose personal information to any person or entity seeking legal action on the basis of a published letter.