Home > Malta > Value of human life

Can you imagine a world in which only scientists considered climate change; where only women cared about women’s issues; where just children held opinions about other children; where only farmers cared about animal welfare; a world in which only Catholics had an opinion on the value of human life?

The way some opine about abortion within the pro-choice (pro-abortion) and pro-euthanasia movements, you would think such a strange world actually existed. Such people describe a universe in which people blindly support causes, from which they may never deviate and for which they must somehow “take the blame” since such issues are important to them, topics about which they might have a broad knowledge.

That is the kind of world that some wish us to think that Catholics, for instance, inhabit. As a vociferous commenter on many subjects, Martin Scicluna, an inhabitant of this curious universe, recently launched a salvo against pro-lifers, including Ivan Padovani and myself. For some reason, he felt it necessary to name and lamely try to shame people who respect life, to make some kind of “examples” of us.

Unlike Scicluna, none of us might disingenuously claim never to ignore comments made regarding their articles. It was obvious from his approach that he did read our comments and that he was clearly bothered by them on behalf of womankind. The sort of article he wrote is a common occurrence these days.

The label “religious fundamentalist” is often bandied about, now the standard liberal way to describe anybody with whom they disagree. And what about those with no religious faith who respect human life? What kind of “fundamentalists” are they? Since Scicluna raised the issue of religion, clearly, his own brand of Catholicism never prevents him from taking the opposite view.

Those making such accusations fail to check themselves in their determination to sully the reputations of those who fully support life. It is blatantly obvious that, in their often nasty verbal attacks upon pro-lifers, they are themselves attempting to ensure that their own opinions are taken seriously and, indeed, to be imposed upon society through the making of statutes. Yet, they have the gall to accuse pro-lifers expressing their own opinions as “imposing” on others.

Whatever happened to basic respect for humanity? Humanists claim to respect human rights. Yet, the most basic right – the right to life – is carefully presented as non-existent, though only for the unborn segment of humanity. Only the “actual born” may have rights – any rights they like. For unborn life, the lack of laws which provide protection is cited as their sole reason why no such laws should be enacted.

This right to life is further eroded by deliberately dehumanising life before birth. Many humanists deny the most basic science surrounding human reproduction, always pointing the finger at religious fundamentalists as the authors of such truths solidly backed up by science. They cover their ears and eyes to avoid truthful facts, the inconvenient and most basic facts of life.

Cheap, sarcastic, unscientific remarks about sperm and eggs being on a par with human embryos are commonplace among those in denial about human biology. In a post-truth era (that is, where truth is no longer the most important objective of discourse), even the widely-known medical complications which result directly from the effects abortion has on a woman’s body, such as the vastly-increased risk of breast cancer, are dismissed as fiction by pro-abortionists. This has less to do with the fact that they know it is true and more to do with their claim that such facts are “scare tactics” invented by Catholics, so somehow unworthy of belief.

Similar overreactions occur concerning pictures or videos exposing truths about abortion. Though clear evidence, and despite their factual bases, these too are described as “scare tactics”. This comes from people who insist that all facts be known by women considering the life-changing decision to abort their unborn human children. They are very careful which facts get presented and which do not – facts required to make decisions, remember; life-changing also for the unborn child.

Pro-abortionists push abortion for their own reasons, the debate flooded with scare stories, erroneously suggesting women die through not having abortions. So why do so many die during abortions? Why do many abortions go wrong? Strange that they never mention these things.

Pro-lifers are not women-haters. Pro-life women, including mothers, are called misogynists for opposing the culture of death.  And not all who are pro-lifers are religious. They never seek to “impose” themselves on others, yet, are obliged to allow the culture of death to be imposed upon them.

Note this particularly demeaning humanist description of unborn human life, directly attacking humanity: “meaningless clumps of cells, worth no more respect than drops of blood”.

When challenged to ask their mothers exactly what they were carrying in the womb, humanists refuse or else invent a response. Neither would they challenge pregnant women by telling them what “meaningless parasites” they bear.

Rest assured that such descriptions, reducing the unborn to virtually nothing, come from those claiming to represent humanity while simultaneously denying that humanity, including their own.

Spin and sarcasm remain the stock in trade of the average pro-abortionist. Facts and basic truths are irrelevant to them; they distort what is said by pro-lifers in their attempts to discredit them.

How can one have a fair debate on the value of human life if we cannot even agree that life in the womb is human? Show me, with unequivocal evidence, that the “material of a pregnancy” or “contents of a uterus” are alien and I shall listen up!

Gerry Cowie is a teacher of English

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