It may come as something of a revelation to Lara Dimitrijevic and Andreana Dibben (‘What are you afraid of?’, December 9) but there actually do exist moral absolutes in this world. This, despite the unstinting efforts of a growing body of individuals and organisations who, for reasons best not gone into, try their hardest to muddy the waters.
The right to life of all human beings, without exception, recognises one such. It is from this absolute moral right that the moral imperative not to kill is derived. The fact that these are moral absolutes means that no amount of legislation can render them anything other than what they are and what they will be always.
Legislation may allow a moral wrong, it may encourage a moral wrong, laud it even but all it can ever do is make wrong permissible. What it cannot do is make wrong right.
Law, at least in theory, is supposed to be based on morality, not the other way round. Today, however, we live in a world in which good and evil have been fully inverted with the imprimatur of law.
The trouble is, we know evil when we see it, even if only at an unconscious level. Controversy arises when law violates our innate sense of right and wrong and nowhere is this more evident than in the arena of abortion legislation where, instead of diminishing with the passage of time, the resistance and opposition to abortion has become more intense over the years, with no sign of slowing down.
Of course, I am but a lowly man and thus ruled out of contributing to the discussion by the illiberal liberals. Interestingly, however, whereas I have witnessed a great deal of attempted shaming of men whose sole intention was that of saving the lives of their children, I have never observed any parallel condemnation of pro-abortion men, of any age, even when many of these are caught abusing women and coercing them into having abortions – but that’s the face of tolerance for you, at least as practised by abortionists.
I therefore feel a level of entitlement to engage in this debate notwithstanding any sexist, intolerant, discriminatory claims to the contrary.
Let us be clear about two things from the start.
There exists no such thing as a human right to abortion. Throughout the gamut of shabby, nonsensical, worn out clichés and non-arguments that constitute the entire case for abortion, this one is arguably the most pervasive. It bears repeating: abortion is not a human right.
When officials from the EU, or anywhere else, refer to a right to abortion they are misinformed. Or worse.
The discussion that is being touted with such loud enthusiasm has nothing to do with women’s rights, far less with women’s health. No one is the least bit interested in discussing pre- or post-natal care, pregnancy support, PAP tests, cancer screening or breast examinations.
The umbrella phrase ‘reproductive rights’ means one thing only. It is abortion, and abortion alone, that fires the enthusiasm of the ‘reproductive rights’ brigade the world over.
This euphemism (let us refrain from calling it cynical) was dreamt up by highly paid professional advertisers several decades ago and it has been freely bandied about ever since, its sole purpose being that of providing a camouflage for the grisly reality of abortion.
There is an ugly little truth that runs like a poisonous thread throughout the entire argument and it is this – no one would be discussing abortion, anywhere, were it not such a hugely profitable business.
Women are cash machines to the abortion industry. They are unwitting victims to the purveyors of abortion worldwide.
They are victims to the men who get them pregnant in the first place, then coerce them into having an abortion.
They are victims to the promoters of abortion, who persuade them that it’s ok to kill their own children, then leave them to get on with it.
They are victims to the ghoulish practitioners of abortion, who assure them that it’s a simple procedure and that that will be the end of it.
Let us then have a discussion on abortion. But let us dispense with the reproductive rights rubbish from the outset. And next, why restrict ourselves to the one discussion alone? Why should we not have a concurrent debate on rape, while we’re at it? And another on slavery? And on human trafficking too?
Every single foul practice in the history of humanity has had its adherents and every single one of them has claimed justification for their actions at one point or another.
The history of women is a history of victimisation. The clamour for abortion is nothing more than the modern-day version of the physical, psychological and spiritual degradation of women that has characterised human society throughout time.
The 21st century, in this regard, is no better than all the others that preceded it. It saw the emergence of a hitherto unheard of dichotomy between baby and woman that has now dominated the abortion debate for decades. Women and children, of course, are not natural enemies and it was only a perversion of feminism that brought about this dichotomy in the first instance.
The fact is, pro-‘choicers’ are not defenders of women but defenders of abortion.
The difference is that today, more than ever before, there is a realisation, and an acceptance, that women have been given a raw deal throughout history. Abortion is, emphatically, not an act of empowerment but the result of abandonment, desperation and betrayal.
After all this time, are we really incapable of coming up with any better guarantee of a woman’s right to participate fully in the social and political life of society than one conditioned on surgery and the sacrificing of her children ?
Women deserve better than abortion.
Ivan Padovani is a member of Life Network (Malta).