I would like to respond to Henry Pace’s letter entitled “Goodwill voters” (TMIS, 22 January).

Mr Pace is relying on the goodwill of the people to stick to his non-negotiable issues such as abortion, euthanasia, foetal stem cell research, human cloning and homosexual ‘marriage’. Unfortunately, in a democratic environment there is no such thing as “non-negotiable”. Archbishops’ declarations are irrelevant when it comes to parliamentary votes or referendum results, as the recent outcome of the divorce issue has clearly shown. The only places on earth where this reality exists are few and one or two that come to mind include North Korea and the Philippines.

I will start with the most contentious issue and first on Mr Pace’s list. Abortion.  I would like to hear what Mr Pace’s views are on a woman’s right to consider an abortion in cases where a woman has been raped, or where a pregnancy could lead to a significant threat to the woman’s well being or even the embryo’s. There are other arguments that women, especially in poorer countries where a woman’s decision to either proceed with a pregnancy or have an abortion could be the determining factor in surviving, as there may not be enough resources to feed and clothe the prospective child. In the end, I think that men, including priests, should have no role in deciding – it’s the woman’s body and her decision alone. Next on Mr Pace’s list is euthanasia: suffice to say that most civilised societies do not allow their favourite pets to suffer when an incurable disease has been diagnosed. Many countries have enabled euthanasia legislation in recognition of this, not only as a compassionate approach to human suffering but also to relieve the significant amount of resources needed to keep a person alive. 

Foetal stem cell research: The benefits of stem cell research outweigh the cost in terms of embryonic life. Embryonic stem cells have the capacity to grow indefinitely in a laboratory environment and can differentiate into almost all types of bodily tissue. This makes embryonic stem cells an attractive prospect for cellular therapies to treat a wide range of diseases. The social, economic and personal costs of the diseases that embryonic stem cells have the potential to treat are far greater than the costs associated with the destruction of embryos. Embryos, while of value, are not equivalent to human life as they are still incapable of existing outside the womb (i.e. they only have the potential for life). The benefits of stem cell research outweigh the cost in terms of embryonic life.

Next is human cloning. Human cloning technology is expected to result in several miraculous medical breakthroughs. We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist on how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives. Infertile people are discriminated against. Men are made to feel like they are not “real men”. Women are made to feel as if they are useless barren vessels. Worse, being infertile is often not considered a “real medical problem” and insurance companies and governments are not sympathetic. The current options for infertile couples are painful, expensive, and heart breaking. Cloning has the potential to change the world for infertile couples almost overnight.

Homosexual marriage. Debates over gay marriage involve both legal and social arguments, for and against. Legal arguments on behalf of gay marriage tend to get more attention because it should be a matter of basic civil and equal rights. Even if gay marriage were harmful, the equality and dignity of gay couples should be respected, though it’s not true, or at least not demonstrable, that gay marriage would be harmful. On the contrary, there are good reasons to think that legalised gay marriage would benefit us all.

Studies repeatedly demonstrate that people who marry tend to be better off financially, emotionally, psychologically, and even medically. Marriage is not universally an improvement (women, for example, can actually be worse off in some ways), but it generally is. Because of this, it stands to reason that legalised gay marriage will ultimately prove beneficial for gay individuals. This, in turn, will be better for gay couples, the families of gays, and communities where gays live.

Finally, moral issues are not at the top of most voters’ agendas. Voters will vote on their understanding and belief of which party or MP will benefit them the most – it’s human nature. The call for a Catholic moral vote based on Mr Pace’s non-negotiable issues is not only irrelevant but also insulting. So bring on the debate.

Raphael Dingli

WATSON

AUSTRALIA