OH LOOK, A “RELIGIO ET PATRIA” BIGOT WANTS TO HAVE OUR CITIZENSHIP REVOKED

John Vassallo (The Times of Malta, January 21), a “former ambassador to the EU” no less, tells us that “those who vote for abortion should not be called Maltese” and that Pro-Choice people are “the fifth column and are abhorrent to the majority of the Maltese”. Now where have we heard such bigoted talk before? Will he next propose that we wear a star on our lapel and be sent marching to concentration camps? 

Would Vassallo have uttered such bigoted words in any of the EU institutions he used to frequent? I seriously doubt it. Bigots are generally cowards who only feign courage when they believe they are in a position of strength through forming a part of a real or perceived majority, and thus think they are able to oppress a minority. It is no coincidence that "they should not be called Maltese" is usually uttered by racist bigots when referring to people who demand that the authorities at the very least rescue immigrants drowning at sea. Thank goodness for small mercies that he has stopped short of calling us “traitors”, although of course that is very much implied.

Vassallo tells us that “the government is trying to fool the public that a foetus and an embryo are different things and that neither is human” and goes on to say that “this is nonsense and goes against the teachings of our national religion, the Catholic faith”. Well, Vassallo is entitled to his religious beliefs, but as a former ambassador to the EU he should have learned by now that religious beliefs should never be imposed. And while he is happy to get his “knowledge” from religion, some of us would rather get scientific facts from science. And if Vassallo is too lazy to read a science book, a simple Google search would teach him, for instance, that an embryo is defined as the early stage of development from two to eight weeks after conception, while a foetus is defined as a later stage of development that takes place after the ninth week for conception. 

And if he were to make a little effort and read some philosophy, he would learn that unless he provides a rational argument to make a case for the granting of any rights to pre-sentient and pre-conscious beings who do not have any interests and do not even know they exist at all, the claim that an embryo or foetus have rights just because they are human would be laughed off as a circular question-begging argument by anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy. But his religion tells him that even zygotes have rights, so we must all take its word for it, and perhaps even question the obvious difference between a zygote and a born sentient and conscious human being with interests.

Vassallo goes on to say that “even if one is a non-believer there is no scientific evidence that a non-viable human being will not remain a human being whatever politicians may write into their laws”. Vassallo should at least consult a dictionary. The online Cambridge Dictionary defines non-viable in biology as “not able to continue to exist as or develop into a living thing”. Here’s breaking news for Mr Vassallo: irrespective of whether one chooses to call a non-viable foetus a human being or not, the fact remains that a non-viable foetus will soon be dead anyway. And this is what matters when considering abortion in cases where the life or health of a pregnant woman are seriously imperilled. But of course, we are expected to put such women to any risk just for the sake of a foetus that will die in days anyway, because his religion tells us so.

As if the above is not embarrassing enough, Vassallo then tells us that “upon conception, the ovum and sperm, coming from two different humans create a new human being from the very moment of their fusion. That this new unborn human looks unformed in the first weeks makes no difference to its humanity”. Vassallo adds that “an old human being whose brain has stopped functioning remains a human being. An old person who cannot feed himself or herself but is confined to a bed needing support of machines and other humans to remain alive is still a human being".

Yes, Mr Vassallo, we know that “life starts from conception”. The question is whether that, on its own, warrants protection through rights. Rights only matter to those who can benefit from them. A being that cannot even know it exists cannot have interests, and therefore cannot have rights, irrespective of what your religion tells you. If you wish to claim that a pre-sentient pre-conscious being that does not even know it exists has rights, you must make a case for it, and not simply assume it. If you hadn’t wasted so much space in showcasing your philosophical and scientific ignorance, perhaps you could have given it a try. But I guess anyone who has never even opened a book on bioethics would obviously not even know where to start. 

That Vassallo clearly has no idea on bioethics is made obvious with his claim that “that the new unborn human looks unformed in the first weeks makes no difference to its humanity”. No, dear Mr Vassallo, it is not the “form” of the body that matters. It is whether the “form” has the capacity to have any experience at all, and therefore have any interests that make whether it exists or not matter to it, and no one else. This only begins to incrementally happen after 24 weeks of gestation. But of course, Mr Vassallo either wouldn’t know or ignores this salient fact.

Vassallo mentions as further examples that “an old human being whose brain has stopped functioning remains a human being” and that “an old person who cannot feed himself or herself but is confined to a bed needing support of machines and other humans to remain alive is still a human being”, and also that “a newborn baby would die if not clothed, heated, fed and cleaned and, as such, is still not viable if left to care for itself and, yet, it is a human being and cannot be killed”.

Let’s begin by stating the obvious first. It honestly astounds me how Vassallo would not know that any human being whose brain has stopped functioning is dead. So bringing up such an example in support of a “right to life” argument is absurd. I’m sure Vassallo does not think dead people have the right to live. But what of people who cannot feed themselves or care for themselves, and who perhaps need life-support machines to stay alive? The reply should by now be obvious. Such people are endowed with a developed brain that at the very least gives them experiences and thus interests. Foetuses until at least the 24^th week of gestation do not even know they exist, and only have a potential to become persons with interests. Only actual persons have rights. Non-viable foetuses on the other hand, don’t even have that potential. And once again, Vassallo should at the very least consult a dictionary. Non-viable in biology does not mean that a being cannot fend for itself but means that a being is not able to continue to exist as or develop into a living thing.

And just in case Vassallo has not been ridiculous enough yet, he ends his opinion piece by saying that if Bill 28 (which would permit abortion of non-viable foetuses in cases where the life or health of the pregnant woman are seriously imperilled) passes, then he suggests that the opposition MPs abandon parliament and subsequently call the government a dictatorship. And he seriously believes that “the world and the EU will see that what we really have in Malta is a dictatorship”. 

Yes, you have read that right. The bigot who would deny Pro-Choice people their citizenship and calls them the “fifth column”, wishes to create a “dictatorship” by having the opposition party abandon parliament. And worse still, he thinks the world and particularly the EU are as closed-minded as himself to think so. I can already picture the scene where the Nationalist MPs leave parliament en masse while shouting “there’s only one party in parliament now…it’s a dictatorship”. The world will definitely be much impressed. One thing’s for sure, I would pay money to hear him tell any EU institution that Pro-Choice people should have their citizenship revoked, and for a chance to see all those present piss their pants laughing at such a petty infantile bigoted man so out of touch with reality.