Some blame it on the contraceptive pill. It seems that science has found that during ovulation women are attracted to more masculine men. Since the pill prevents ovulation, post-sexual revolution women are attracted to less manly men. Or, to put it differently, to immature men, to overgrown boys.

If this is true, it could offer a scientific basis for much of what we see around us.

If it is not true, then we need to find another explanation to much of the unbearable madness of modern being.

The mad pro-choice lobby and the President

The pro-choice lobby is a mad lobby. Yes, mad. And I will say why.

By “mad” I mean people who are obsessed with one aspect of reality, while ignoring not only the rest but also the delicate and fragile connections between everything.

I use it in the same sense used by Oscar Wilde in his story (transcribed by André Gide) of the widower who madly loved his deceased wife, but in a moment of madness decided to melt down the bronze monument erected on her grave to create something else with that alloy. It’s madness – the momentary lapse of reason which rends the intricate web that holds existence together and this to allow an individual to gratify momentary impulses that are not important to long-term history.

For the pro-choice lobby, the unborn human being has no right to life because s/he is still not a person. This is the typical person-oriented view. It is a view completely divorced from the idea that an individual can contribute something to humanity. Each and every individual is precious because each and every individual has the potential to contribute something useful to humanity. By killing an individual – at any stage of the individual’s life – one is obliterating that potential.

If the mad pro-choice logic were not mad but right, then we shouldn’t help depressed people who feel they have nothing to contribute, that they even don’t have the right to be alive.

Well, as a matter of fact, the mad ideology to which the pro-choice lobby belongs actually believes that we should assist the depressed commit suicide if they feel that that is right, instead of helping them out of their depression, which is the right thing to do.

Assisting suicide is wrong. Identically wrong is assisting a mother who wants to kill her baby.

We exist in a community – we didn’t choose this; this is how we evolved, it’s in our genetics – to contribute to that community and to be protected by it.

We are not individuals who exist in a vacuum, floating about like lost souls terrorised by the infinity of the universe, time, and stupidity. We are members of a community because we have to contribute to that community’s well-being, and the community has to contribute to our individual well-being.

This is why we have a face! Everybody’s face distinguishes them from everybody else. Even identical twins don’t have completely identical faces. But, unless we look into a reflective surface, we never see our own face. Because our face – the hallmark of our individuality – exists for the others to see! Our individuality is not self-contained or self-sufficient. On the contrary, our individuality is for the others, not for ourselves: it depends on the others, on our belonging to a community, not on ourselves. We are individuals because we exist in a community! While he lived alone on the island he was marooned on, Robinson Crusoe was not an individual; he was simply a lost being. He became an individual, and found himself as a human being, the moment he met Friday and a community was formed.

Which means that the unadulterated rubbish of the pro-choice arguments is just that: unadulterated rubbish. Every individual exists for and within the community, and no other individual – not even a mother – has the right to terminate the existence of that individual. Because individuals do not belong to themselves, they do not belong to their mother... Individuals belong in the community, individuals find their fulfilment by giving their contribution to the community. But since individuals do not belong to the community, they have to receive the community’s protection and affection.

Even people like those who have Down’s syndrome. They may or may not contribute in the strict sense of the word, but they do contribute by making everybody reflect on the true meaning of humanity.

Humanity is that difficult-to-define characteristic which makes each and every one of us valuable. It gives value to our opinions. Our political participation. Our religious beliefs. Our family. Our privacy. Our liberty. Our dignity. Our life. All these are different facets of our humanity. And they are valuable because there is a community. Without a community, my opinion, my liberty, my dignity, my life have no value. Somebody with Down’s syndrome causes us to look into these characteristics (the characteristics that make us human). We then either pass or fail the test of humanity.

When I see another human being, I see my brother or my sister. Whether that human being is born or still unborn. Whether that human being is white, black, brown, yellow, or whatever. Whether that human being is straight, gay, or any of the other letters of the orientation alphabet. Whether that human being is rich or poor, red or blue, and so on. We are all brothers and sisters. We fight, we quarrel, we detest each other – but ultimately we are all brothers and sisters, we are all human.

When the ambulance needs to pass in heavy traffic, we move the car to the side. We don’t ask if there’s some bastard whose guts we hate in that vehicle. We move the car and that’s that. Because we are human beings. We’re not beasts. We’re not mad.

The pro-choice lobby promotes a beastly ideology, a mad ideology, that puts the will, ambitions, grudges, fears, anxieties, of one individual before the potential contribution of another individual to the community.

This ideology consigns the mother to a Robinson Crusoe one-(wo)man island existence.

The pro-choice lobby should shut up. I don’t say this because I don’t believe in free speech. Legally, they can say whatever they like. So much so that they can as much as say it’s fine for adults to engage in sex with children. It’s their right, and I respect it. But decency – which lies above and goes beyond cold, heartless, bureaucratic law – dictates that they shut their big, dirty mouth up. They should stop promoting the idea that a woman can kill her own child.

I stand with President Vella on his decision to attend the pro-life Mass this morning. I hope many people attend too, for many reasons, including sending a strong pro-life message.

In the past, I have criticised Dr Vella for not carrying out his constitutional duty to remove Joseph Muscat (who then used his extra-time to stipulate an €80,000 contract with his best buddy and God knows what else) and for not being well-versed in human rights (as one of his aides admitted to me privately in an email).

Despite that criticism, I applaud President Vella for his pro-life stance. Unlike his protegé Muscat, Dr Vella is not evil. Despite his constitutional knowledge shortcomings, Dr Vella is one of us: a good person.

Or else...

They’re not mad at all, and they’re funded by some pro-abortion organisation overseas. If this is the case, they should own up and be transparent.

Immaturity

Joseph Muscat repeatedly behaved in an immature and cynical way – the last instalment being the €80,000 contract he signed in favour of Konrad Mizzi last December. There’s no other way to describe this mad event: immaturity.

But Muscat was not the only one.

Silvio Valletta, one of the top brass of the Police force no less, is another “man” who displayed an unbelievably high level of immaturity. What possessed him to fool around Yorgen Fenech’s Rolls-Royce and to allow the non-self-made man to record him on his mobile phone? What possessed Mr Valletta to travel abroad with a businessman who could have been involved in bribery and other crimes (in addition to the Caruana Galizia assassination)? Mr Fenech’s name surfaced in Sweden and Italy in connection with gaming and football betting: is it reasonable to believe that the Maltese police are like Fawlty Towers’ Manuel, they knew nothing? Is it reasonable to believe that Mr Valletta knew nothing about this and possibly more and yet went abroad with a potential suspect...? Either Mr Valletta is another overgrown boy or else there’s more to it than meets the eye.

His wife’s forced political hara-kiri does not absolve Mr Valletta.

Another shining example of immaturity is Owen Bonnici. This week the Constitutional Court found that Minister Bonnici violated the fundamental human rights of a good number of individuals. And with stubborn pique for good measure.

Had Malta been a normal, functioning democracy, Dr Bonnici would have immediately asked himself, “Should I keep occupying public office if I have violated fundamental human rights?”

The question is important because the very first provision of the Constitution of Malta states, “Malta is a democratic republic founded on work and on respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual”. Now I know that Dr Bonnici’s hero, Muscat, wanted to change the constitutional document, but I’m sure not even the brazen-faced Muscat would have dared to change that first provision.

Owen Bonnici’s disregard for fundamental rights hits in the heart of the Republic.

That he cannot understand why his position is untenable is of itself a clear indication that he is not fit for public office and therefore his position is doubly untenable.

He either resigns because he understands the political import of the constitutional judgment or because he cannot understand it.

That he stays on merely shows his unbelievable immaturity.

What a mess, my God!

My Personal Library (85)

I was having a conversation with a Wisconsin-based friend the other day, on how President Trump defunded pro-abortion organisations in the US, and he casually remarked en passant that “Very few people over here in the States know where Malta is on the map and yet we’ve heard about your country, because of the scandals: the murder of the journalist and corruption”.

A book that might be useful to people currently occupying public office and can take decisions with far-reaching consequences, is Rethinking Reputational Risk by Anthony Fitzsimmons and Derek Atkins (2017).

The book was showered with praise. One reviewer, the UK Chief Government Actuary Trevor Llanwarne remarked: “This book ... covers the critical issue of human behaviours and culture and how inappropriate behaviours can seriously damage an organisation’s reputation and therefore the organisation itself.”

Substitute “country” for “organisation” and you’ll understand what I mean.