There is something singularly disturbing about having a particular opinion one day and changing it 180 degrees within about 24 hours. In instances such as these, I always really wonder whether the about turn is really an about turn of the heart or really an about turn of convenience.There is something singularly disturbing about having a particular opinion one day and changing it 180 degrees within about 24 hours. In instances such as these, I always really wonder whether the about turn is really an about turn of the heart or really an about turn of convenience. When Labour’s deputy leader Dr Tony Abela originally uttered his initial declaration that he favoured abortion in certain special circumstances, such as in the case of severely handicapped babies diagnosed by ultrasound or genetic testing, or in the case that the unborn child posed a threat to the security of its raped mother, I stopped to wonder.

I was trying to see from which angle he was approaching the issue and what the value systems he was putting into play were. Was he a utilitarian or a deontologist, was he trying to justify a society based on eugenics? Was he considering the issue as one between two human beings or was he attributing personhood to the mother but not to the foetus? If so, it would have been interesting to observe what his definitions of personhood were and whether they were based on functional aspects of development, or whether he ascribed personhood to ontological being of a rational nature. What mechanisms was he thinking about for justifying choosing the life of mother over the life of the child, as if appointed to decide which human life was most useful to society? Was he struggling with some unperceived notion of double effect or disproportionality that had escaped the notice of other astute observers?

But before I even had time to start answering some of these questions, out comes a tongue in cheek declaration that he had had a sudden change of heart and opinion and that he now repudiated all that he had previously said and, like the LP leader, was now a resolute unconditional anti-abortionist. His sudden volte-face smacks of echoing his master’s voice and thereby implies a dressing down of not minor proportions, having taken place. But is his neoposition against abortion really credible? What are the real thoughts that such a man in a high position in a major political party holds on fundamental values about human life? Is one to accept that one can have such a sudden change of heart without conjuring up thoughts that his real opinions lie elsewhere? Where is the real McCoy?

Things being as they are, I would rather have preferred him sticking to his former position and put forward credible and rational, if somewhat controversial arguments to support his claims, rather than leaving everyone with bad feelings of observing probable cheap grace implying probable cheap contrition for possibly purely utilitarian motives.

Something like the end justifying the means! I have a feeling that we will now never quite know what he really believes about this issue until maybe well after the next election, when the reasons for keeping mum might not seem so useful anymore.

Dr Michael Asciak MD

BIRKIRKARA