I think I’d much rather have a game of chess with Michael Asciak in which he could teach me something new, because from his rebuttal (TMIS, 4 September) all I can deduce is that his educational journey has bypassed logic ... the ease with which he is ensnared by the villains of fallacy, notably, the notorious Argumentum ad Verecundiam − instead of offering evidence to support his view, he relies on his philosophical bedfellows with their ivory tower titles. (Latin is so impressive!)
In my previous letter, I purposely did not mention any name because in democratic countries, such as Canada where I live, both embryo-freezing and abortion are carried out on a daily basis by medical practitioners who obviously do not subscribe to Dr Asciak’s belief that the foetus is a person. Naming the practitioners is irrelevant; but if he must insist, from what I have read online, it appears that Dr Jean-Pierre Farrugia MD MP (Nationalist) is one who does not share Dr Asciak’s views.
To believe in something does not require any proof whatsoever; faith is, of itself, sufficient to justify that belief. In both Malta and Canada, the Constitution guarantees the right to believe whatever the citizen wants. But that right does not extend to interfering with what others choose to practise.
Malta’s Constitution does not, in any manner, include the foetus for protection; nor does it equate the foetus with the person. In fact, it does not even mention the foetus anywhere. For Dr Asciak to infer that Article 32 bestows citizens’ rights on the unborn is, to say the least, absurd.
As in Malta, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protects “life, liberty, security of the person”.
On 28 January 1988, Canada’s abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, on the grounds that, “Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman’s body and thus a violation of her security of the person.”
In the matter of IVF, preventing the medical practitioner from freezing the embryo on behalf of the patient − always, a woman − is just as profound an interference with a woman’s body as forcing her to carry a foetus to term.
In another attempt to shame me, Dr Asciak accuses me of making “the classical mistake of mixing up the biological terms cell and organism”. I must have been thinking about bacteria, amoebae, ciliates, and other such cute little unicellular organisms − all described as a “form of life”. Silly me! (I should stick to chess; it’s easier.)
CJohn Zammit
FORT ERIE
CANADA