Imagine for one moment being the parent of a beautiful girl . . . Let’s face it, all parents look on their daughters as princesses . . . This would mean that your daughter means everything in the world for you.
Now imagine for one moment that someone came along and raped your young daughter and got her pregnant. Imagine she is underage and in no way ready to become a mother . . . Should you be in contempt of the Law for suggesting Abortion? Worse still, should your daughter end in prison for committing Abortion?
It is obvious that the ABORTION debate will rage through the summer. The PN has taken a position that it remains against ABORTION, whatever the situation. The Church has echoed the same feelings. On the other hand, the PL has decided not to come up with a position and leaving it to “society to debate the issue.”
There is one problem with the latter position. ABORTION needs to be debated BOTH socially and politically. It is time we struck off this taboo from the national conscience. The problem, as I see it, is the following.
The PN politicians are mostly staunchly conservative. Their grassroots are ultra conservative but then they harbour a good number of liberal thinkers, maybe more than the PL. On the other hand, most of the PL politicians are liberal minded but their followers are still conservative, even more so than the PN’s. It is an irrational situation for both parties as neither has what it takes to really please their followers. This has been put in the spotlight by Hon Marlene Farrugia’s bill to decriminalize Abortion.
What is my position on Abortion? I remain against this practice. I believe that if a girl is raped or has an unprotected sexual encounter, she should, where possible, make use of the morning-after pill. However, I AM NOT A FEMALE and it would be wrong of me to deny women the access to Abortion when they need it. I hate equating the female members of the human race with being incubators.
But back to decriminalising Abortion. What does this mean? It means that a girl does not have to fall foul of the Law for having an Abortion. Strictly speaking, it is not legislating to introduce Abortion. But as we have seen, this bill is probably dead in the water already.
Many have started taking positions. Facebook is alight with the conservatives shouting ‘BABY KILLERS!” and thumping on their chests that they will do anything to stop Abortion from being introduced to our islands. Their arguments are as crazy as they come, many of them promising eternal damnation, gnashing of teeth and all the works. I have seen on the boards of certain news portals that these self-appointed saints haven’t got the faintest idea of how an Abortion is carried out. Many are under the impression that a foetus would still be sucked out of the womb, torn apart in the process and then scraped away. Little do they know that a pill, if taken in the early days of the pregnancy, does away with all these problems. Other star posts include that life starts at ejaculation . . . well, not exactly, but their arguments are senseless just the same, and that we spend millions or billions to look for life on Mars and then kill life in the womb. These crazy arguments are all bereft of logic and compassion for the poor girls who have no option but to have an Abortion.
Latest to join the anti-Abortion crusade bandwagon were the hunters. These righteous bullies, who prefer to attack the messenger rather than the message, are claiming that it is illogical to protest against the senseless killing of migratory birds for a hobby when one approves of Abortion. I find this as the most banal of the arguments put forward yet. These bullies, who want the dismissal of the Commissioner for Children and the one for Animal Rights just because these two eminent offices pointed out that it is wrong to hand a rifle to an underage child, are arguing that their rights are more important than those of a girl whose life is endangered by a non-viable pregnancy, whatever the circumstance. I find this cheek to be evil, pretentious and outright stupid. It ridicules the situation and the debate that the PL is calling for. So one asks, are these the arguments that the PL will form its position on? Or will it listen to science?