My reply to a comment by a Mr C John Zammit about abortion.

By Marica Micallef

A reader of this site commented on Profs. Mercieca’s blog “Adrian Delia jippubblika l-ittra li bagħat lill-President tar-Repubblika fejn jgħid li l-President hu fid-dover li ma jiffirmax emenda li hija anti-kostituzzjonali“. The comment is the following:

And I am going to reply. I am not a lawyer so I am not going to counter-argue from a legal point of view. Maybe Dr. Delia or any other lawyer would like to give a legal reply which dwells deeper in the law. But I am going to counter-argue from a moral, ethical and Christian point of view with a pinch of common sense.

My first question to Mr. Zammit is “What is a foetus for you, then”? When you and I were in our mothers’ wombs, what were we? So, since we did not have any rights when we were foetuses, then our mothers and fathers could have done anything they wanted with us, no? At the end of the day, we could not speak, so we, vulnerable as we were, were at the mercy of our own mothers and fathers. And since according to you, we did not have any rights, not even to come to the world let alone live, then they had a right to kill us and deny us this journey called life which they had the privilege to have!

Are you aware that from a scientific standpoint, the biological answer to the question “When does human life begin?” is simple: human life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. This is not just common sense or a pro-life claim; it is a clear and straightforward science, as established as the existence of atoms.

And no, the foetus is not a part of the mother’s body. If it was, then all pregnant women are chromosomal mosaics, meaning, that they are organisms that have two sets of genomes. Furthermore, if a new human life begins with a fragment of the mother’s body transforming into a new organism, then humans reproduce by budding. Budding is an asexual reproduction method used by some worms, sponges, corals, and microorganisms, but it is not a method of human or mammal reproduction.

And no, the foetus is not an individual of another species. If it were so, then pregnancy is by far the most common parasitic disease among humans. Furthermore, with each pregnancy, the transition from a non-human parasite to a new human being is speciation — the evolution of a new species, “Homo fetus” to Homo sapiens. Of course, this is scientific nonsense.

And no, the foetus is not just a clump of biological molecules undergoing chemical reactions. If the fetus is not really living at all, then each pregnancy is a new origin-of-life event. This is also scientific nonsense. 

And we can add more arguments, including yours, that the woke, the leftists, the liberal, the pro-choice mob, and politicasters bring up!

Have you ever seen an ultrasound? Have you ever seen this beautiful miracle of life growing inside a belly of a woman? Do you know that a foetus in a woman’s womb breathes, opens, and closes his eyes, moves, becomes sensitive to light signals, smiles, cries, pees, tastes, listens, yawns, hiccups, kicks, and, twists?

So, when you watch the below videos, do you have the guts to tell him or her that s/he has no rights because the law is not protecting him/her and thus, can be killed anytime?

Are you aware that what is currently going on in Malta, has been recently discussed in some American states after the overturning of Roe vs Wade? In Indiana, where the Republican-controlled legislature banned abortion beginning at conception last August — one of the strictest laws in the country — some conservative lawmakers objected to the law’s exceptions for rape and incest. “This bill justifies the wicked, those who murder babies, and punishes the righteous, the preborn human being,” one lawmaker said, advocating for a no-exceptions fetal personhood law. Unfortunately, this has been temporarily banned by a judge in September thanks to the pro-abortion deranged mob. But we can conclude that even our government’s draft law is a draft law that justifies the wicked while punishing the preborn human being.

And how about, in such cases, seeing how to tackle rape and incest instead of using them as an excuse to kill the innocent being, who, through no fault of his/her own, ended up being conceived through these crimes?

Are you aware that this is a debate that is also going on in the UK? In a recent Westminster Hall debate about a petition for abortion to be included in the government’s planned Bill of Rights, this question was asked: “Would you support the rights of women to choose to have an abortion were they a victim of rape or incest?”, Mr. Rees-Mogg replied:

“I think the destruction of life is wrong. I do not believe that you should say that a new life should be destroyed. I do not believe that is the right of the state and I think to put it in a Bill of Rights, even if we were the United States, even if we had a Bill of Rights, that is the same constitutional standing as theirs, then my uncle’s friend, the member for North Antrim is right. He said that Bills of Rights are usually by protecting and preserving and ensuring that people are able to get on with their life and this is about destroying life. This is the cult of death. It is the great tragedy of abortion that is and that it is considered normal and that this extraordinarily high number of babies that are destroyed is something that should sadden us all to the depths of our souls. And the idea that we would protect something that is so wrong and ignores that second life. And that we should say that that is an absolute right on a par with free elections seems to me to be an absolute tragedy. So I think this petition misfires. I think it’s wrong constitutionally but it’s much more wrong morally because it prefers death to life.

Mr Rees-Mogg is here, thus, validating Dr Delia’s letter and statement.

Are you aware that way back in 1973, Catholics were upset that states were loosening broad bans on abortion to allow exceptions in the case of rape or incest, or to protect the life of the pregnant woman? Now, this is happening in Malta in 2022 – drafting a law that opens the doors for abortion with the excuse “to protect the life of the pregnant woman” [but not that of the baby], so that sooner or later, loads of pockets will be filled up with bullion inside white-washed walls and floors.

So, if as you say, a foetus has no rights, what makes it so? Is it the law, written by a bunch of throttle bottoms and political wannabes, in a way that purposefully, allows for the breaking or amendment of such laws? Or is it God that is giving you the right to life, the minute you are conceived in the womb? If, and only if, the constitution does not recognize foetal personhood, then it was written as such on purpose!

Mr. Zammit, rights are not what you make of them. Rights are not what the governments give you. Or what the state gives you. On the contrary, it is what no one can take away from you!

But, by this draft law, the government is trying to make us overlook evil so that it permits evil, then legalizes evil, then promotes it, then celebrates it, to finally persecute anyone who still calls it evil. And the government is doing so by taking away the right of the foetus to live!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *