𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗥𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: 𝗔 𝗧𝗪𝗜𝗟𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧 𝗭𝗢𝗡𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗬𝗦𝗜𝗦

David Abela writes a grandiose article in today's Malta Independent in which he apparently loses sight of what he originally set out to analyse and investigate.

He spends an inordinate amount of time and space dealing on topics such as astronomy and quantum physics, and only dedicates a few sentences on abortion. And contrary to what should be expected from an article that claims to scientifically analyse abortion, he only provides assertions without even a shred of philosophical or scientific analysis let alone evidence.

I shall therefore only deal with the few remotely relevant sentences, ignoring the large part of the article that is irrelevant and perhaps only meant to try to impress. I will leave a link to the article in the comments for anyone who wishes to verify what I say.

David Abela says that "Some members of the pro-choice lobby discuss (sic) that a fetus is just a few cells", and then goes on to question what may be defined as "few", moving on to mention photos showing "matter expelled from the uterus" and saying that while humans are all "specks on Earth" and "a mote of dust", it is assumed there is a big difference between a fertilised human egg and a postnatal human (if you've strayed from his thought process by now, I don't blame you). He puts the latter statement in question form, asking what is the big difference. He "answers" the question by saying that "Size and coordinates in space (in utero) translate to the right to live according to the previously mentioned" (?). Yes, you've read that right. It is size and coordinates in space that give us rights!

Abela then goes on to say that "To understand what we’re dealing with, we need to delve deeper into what makes us who we are". So he delves on particles, quantum mechanics, wave-particle duality etc, that necessarily apply to all matter, including, I must add, what we call "objects" or "things". If he was trying to put forward an extreme materialist worldview where nothing really matters, I would understand. But I fail to see how all this mental masturbation explains why abortion is never permissible.

Then, after trying to impress us further by mentioning "quantum entanglement", "polarity" and the "Schrödinger’s cat" experiment (which, if anything, only questions our perception of reality), and wastes some more space delving on wavelenghts and cells, he tells us that "without discussing the physiological processes that follow, we see what is in front of our field of view; a few cells. If we were to view an adult human from the eyes of galactic bodies, the subject is either not seen or is extremely small from the viewer’s perspective. This means that like time, size is relative to the observer". Yes, we get it, Mr Abela. Size does not matter. But will you finally tell us what does? Let's see.

Mr Abela goes on to tell us: "Yet, let’s abandon distances in space. Let’s superimpose an adult human and a fertilised egg. One has more cells than the next, both behave differently and are alive. They are considered alive if they satisfy particular criteria". Hmm, is he finally on to something here?

Mr Abela continues: "In Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, Bruce M. Carlson (1996) states that 'The time of fertilisation represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.' Here we have human life whose DNA is distinct from the mother’s. Hence, any matter in the womb throughout the entire pregnancy can be consid­ered as an organism that obeys the exact same laws in space and time as the mother with the only difference being a unique DNA sequence, coordinates in space and perspective".

Ah, the DNA fallacy! I have already addressed this fallacy here so I may simply dismiss it as irrelevant (as is the rest of his article so far).

Then, after wasting more time and space talking about mass and the warping of space and time, Mr Abela says that "there is a great division between those who are in favour and against abortion. The debate spurs tension between two groups having a variety of social, political, historical, genetic, religious, moral and belief systems. Yet (hopefully), we can all agree on one thing; that every­thing is a wave-particle interacting with its surroundings constantly, warping space-time and existing in different coordinates in an extremely sensitive entropic system; including you and a fetus". Oh dear. If everything is a wave particle etc, in what way would this in itself give rights to anyone, let alone foetuses?

Mr Abela goes on to ask: "Do the latter (a foetus) have less value and no rights?". Mr Abela fails to notice that he has actually failed to even start an argument on what gives anyone rights, and all that his writing seems to suggest is that everything (including rocks) or nothing (including us) has rights. After all, everything is just wave particles.

He then blabbers some more on "quantum and macro worlds", eventually spouting the non sequitur that "this means that abortion is justified by many because they mistakenly categorize themselves as an entity whose rights are proportional to an invented metric that measures worth on the wrong fac­tors". Oh yes, that must be it.

While the world at the micro quantum level is certainly interesting and scientific investigation of quantum physics is definitely useful, we as humans only experience the world at the macro level. Rights are a tool we use protect interests. Interests relate to experience. Anyone who attempts to relate rights to the micro world of quantum physics understands neither quantum physics nor the concept of moral rights.

When I was young, I used to enjoy a television series called The Twilight Zone. Mr Abela has taken me back there. It was fun.

First published on Facebook on 18 December 2022.