The BBC on 23 April made a caption on abortion and of course Malta was mentioned. The lady, speaking in a calm nice voice, was saying that Malta is the only country in the EU which has not yet recognised abortion. The interviewer mentioned the context of Ireland, and she replied that indeed, largely Catholic countries had refused this right. Poland was also named. But the issue in Malta was that abortion is largely “taboo” and that women do not speak. In fact, about 300 women a year, she said procure abortion abroad, which is largely the EU countries’ average.
There is no doubt that abortion in cases of danger to the life of the mother is justified. There is reasonable argument that when a woman’s reproductive rights, her body, has been violated by rape, then she has a right to a choice. No reasonable person can order, “No! You have to remain pregnant”. As much as it pains us who uphold the moral value of the embryo, we have to concede that too much rigidity will produce a reaction – and indeed it has. There is therefore no doubt in my mind that the “fight” for the rights to abortion has more to do with women’s rights than with the value of the embryo. In fact, it may indeed be a very difficult decision for the woman. Unfortunately, a lot has been, and is being, thwarted in order to bring about a change. It is no coincidence that the exponential cry for abortion rights has come at a time when faith in religions has been lost; when affirmative action giving advantage to women, such in electing 12 women to parliament; with a rise again in protests on domestic violence, and a rise in general of feminism which has strayed from its first two waves to an extent which even many women find difficult to handle.
When speaking to students in my bioethics classes, the arguments invariably go around rights of the woman and not the status, rights, or moral values of the embryo. In fact, we now undermine whether human life actually starts with the first cell – not that one cell holding the same rights as a fetus that has taken human form cannot be contented. There was a time, when I began to study bioethics 30 years ago, when a strong argument of the beginning of life was a pertinent question which one could ask biologists. All biologists would certainly have told you that life begins with the first cell – whether it be for a dog, for a fish (externally fertilised eggs) and for a human. This is now challenged. Today they may play political jargon due to the change in the social construct. There are several challenges.
The first challenge I got was when I said that you cannot really call the fertilised egg of a dog, a dog or that of a cow, a cow. It is certainly the beginning and only genetic analysis will tell the difference between the two. But that is evolution as opposed to spontaneous creation. We have to accept that as a fact. The challenge was that I was comparing humans to animals. Well, humans are animals! If we are speaking biology we have to speak in terms of biology. It is just that we give ourselves more moral value than animals – something which would need a lot of qualification in the way we treat them; but that is another matter. It is also true that up to 14 days that cells can divide into two or three giving rise to three humans. It is not merely an ontological argument (to appease the philosophers), as one can divide the group of cells (I detest the term “clump”) in a laboratory and have as many human beginnings as one wants, in theory. That would be technological. Moreover, the natural division of cells into twins or triplets is not merely inherently genetic; it can be brought about by the environment around the cells – the epigenetic environment. If we are speaking biology we have to concede that the Homo sapiens is the only animal which resorts to abortion – and which speaks about it as a right.
The second challenge is the right of a woman to deal with her own body as she deems fit. This is a reasonable argument as long as you are not harming others – whole precept to liberty. So harm to the embryo does not seem to count here, which begs the argument why one would argue that many find abortion a difficult decision. That being said, I am not allowed to sell my kidney for several million dollars. The reason is that if this is allowed the price will become subject to market forces and then only the vulnerable will be the ones people sought out – you pay them less in many countries. The human would be made an object for the source of organs. When it comes to the fetus, women have the right to contraception, emergency contraception, and so on. If one looks at reasons for abortion outside health, it is usually ignorance about the methods of preventing pregnancy or because of a breach in some social situation – either young age or a woman who may have transgressed and does not wish to disrupt her family. One can sympathise with this and arguments which run like, “she should have thought about that before”, are merely judgemental. People make mistakes and they have a right to make mistakes because it is in our nature.
But mistakes do not justify the end. What is the true reason for an abortion? Is it for sexual freedom and therefore to give space for when things go wrong? Is it the pain of the so-called society created by men, which gave disadvantages to women, who now want to take part in power (politics is often mentioned) and moreover assert it in order to be able to go ahead with their lives? Is it to protect a career – something which men have not been nature-burdened with? Does a husband have a say in this? Can this be a valid reason for terminating the life of your (albeit little) baby?
Why would a woman want to kill her child? It is akin to those who, before committing acts considered unlawful, give themselves a moral reason for doing so. “This is how I was made.” Studies show that paedophiles certainly do this. Certainly, to kill your embryo, you have to come to a point where you are convinced or are convinced by others, that that life is not yet human. As the Texas lawyer recently said in opposition to the law of prohibiting abortion once there is a heartbeat. Again, on the BBC, she said that that is merely an electrical impulse and not a heart. Mind you, she was a gynaecologist. Now this is a complete BS. As a gynaecologist she should be ashamed to mislead women. Even if it is an electrical impulse there are no nerve cells without the muscle tissue of the organ. Just as you cannot have electricity in a house without walls. I’m sorry, if there is an electrical impulse, seen on ultrasound, then you have a heart. After all, a “heartbeat” is an electric impulse.
What is all this about? It is not about liberty and freedom. Neither is it libertarianism. It is simply libertinage. We choose to modify moral values and convince people about this (mur ara! ghandhek naqra celluli) in order to justify an action. Those who fight for abortion are usually fighting on behalf of others. Just because it has become popular all over Europe does not make it right without justified reasons. Rights do not fall out of the sky. There is a difference between divine rights and natural rights. The former are recognised by people universally and have to be state given. When it comes to Europe, are we simply copy-cats? Other Christian religions (not only Catholic), and indeed other religions, are also against abortion. It is simply that religions have been too oppressive in the past, including the protestants, that now they have cracked. People do not want to listen any longer.
The third challenge is that it is a reproductive “right”. This has been dealt with in a previous contribution. Reproduction has already occurred. Pregnancy is not reproduction; it is gestation – gestating (from “gestire” meaning “to manage”) your growing baby. The right to reproduction is the right to actually reproduce and to obtain all available resources to help you do so when they are available to you. Reproductive rights have to do with IVF and surrogacy, but not with abortion.
I remain convinced that when there are violations of reproductive rights, as in rape, the choice with whom, therefore, to have a baby, then, without devaluing the moral status of that embryo, the woman also has a right to decide. The choice will depend on the values she has been raised with or chosen. I also remain convinced that women have a right to choose when their life or health are clearly in danger. Health can be evasive however and to define it will need discussion – it being defined not only on biological grounds but also on social and psychological ones. One has to be careful we are not merely finding diplomatic ways to go around the moral issue.
We have abortion because of the so-called “culture created by men”. A culture, which gave us buildings, agriculture and even wars. A culture, which protected the family but also a culture which to do so put women at a disadvantage. As long as we speak on these terms we will speak as political parties do; ethics become merely a question of majority – a statistic. Those who do respect values current create wars. They do so when they feel their power has grown strong enough. When the same culture that tried to remedy that oppression, and has been doing so successfully, even shutting out anyone who has anything to say who is against their cause, they start to become the oppressors themselves. When you stifle dialogue by shouting and protests as if the others are the enemy, then you will lose your sympathisers. A culture created by women would cause the same problems; it becomes a religion; it starts to oppress people, create protests, wars and give freedom only to what it deems justified. Women start to say, “I disagree with abortion but I agree that we should have a choice”; this is trying to appease two masters – it is oppression, period. If I am not free to disagree with you without being ostracised – something of which I have had personal experience – then it is oppression; then you are not willing to dialogue. You want your way and you want to obtain it by hook or by crook.
If one wants abortion to be about rights, it cannot be about women’s rights only. It has to be a human right, with men being put into an equation. No man in his right mind would deny a woman an abortion when her own rights and life are being violated. Where to draw the line is another issue. But it would be better to create an alliance of both sides of the argument and both sexes. Dialogue is not debate – it is sitting around in a friendly and safe environment, knowing that you can express your ideas and being open to evaluate other person’s views. The rights of people are best discussed with reason and dialogue which understand the plight of the others. Population growth aside, there have to be strong and valid reasons to kill our unborn. Women ought to feel privileged that nature has given them the gift of life. The name “Eve” means Evolution, to evolve, which means to grow (part of which is to manage that growth – gestation). Women provide this. This does not make them incubators, but people formerly held on a pedestal; which is why our law still limits jail sentences for women-with-child. But chivalry is now shunned because some men and societies chose to “protect” them in a cage.
As chair of the Bioethics Consultative Committee I have never imposed my position – that is the reason for a “chair”. Chairmen, who are didactic, do not work unless all agree with them. Facilitating a dialogue and an expression of all opinions and giving a faithful report to the Minister concerned; also putting in some recommendations for public dialogue, is the work of a chairman and should I be chosen again I cannot guarantee one way or another; neither will I resign my position if things do not go as I wish – for it is not my wish that counts (that would be oppression; as would be choosing people who will appease your outcome). The role of a chairman is to chair. Only the President of the Republic can honestly say that he or she cannot sign a document by parliament, on which he had no participation, that no document contrary to his or her moral value, as the current incumbent, can do just that. I would not sign documents I am uncomfortable with – but a chair just signs minutes and documents of which he facilitated an outcome – at most held a casting vote.
Pierre Mallia is Professor of Family Medicine and Patients’ Rights and teaches at the University of Malta. He chairs the Bioethics Research Programme of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery. He also chairs the Bioethics Consultative Committee.
This article is his personal opinion and does not represent the opinion of any committee or board he serves on.
Email: [email protected]