-

π—”π—‘π—§π—œ-π—–π—›π—’π—œπ—–π—˜ π—”π—–π—§π—œπ—©π—œπ—¦π—§'𝗦 π—œπ—Ÿπ—Ÿπ—’π—šπ—œπ—– π—ͺπ—’π—¨π—Ÿπ—— 𝗦𝗧π—₯π—œπ—£ π—˜π—©π—˜π—₯π—¬π—’π—‘π—˜ 𝗒𝗙 π—§π—›π—˜π—œπ—₯ π—₯π—œπ—šπ—›π—§π—¦
Usually I don’t resort to “shooting the messenger”, but in this case I’ll make an exception just to let the reader know where the misogynistic vitriol I will be commenting about is coming from. I also rarely if ever resort to insults, but you'll soon discover why this merits an exception to the general rule. Let’s start by reminding everyone who this Mark Sammut is, whose illogic, if taken on board, would mean that no one has any rights.
Sammut, who as Malta Today reported on 29 January 2017, faced an administrative inquiry for allegedly threatening, slandering and intimidating his head of unit in the European Parliament in Luxembourg where he worked, is a former Labour candidate (now a member of the Nationalist party) who was given a suspended sentence by an appeals court in 2010 for being caught carrying a loaded semi-automatic gun in his briefcase at Malta International Airport.
Sammut had also shown us his true Christian spirit of “love your enemy” when, following the tragic death of Ramon Casha (at the time Chairman of the Malta Humanist Association) who died tragically at the age of 47 after a traffic accident, Sammut wrote the following on Facebook (I am changing the font and putting it in italics to remove any chance that the disgusting quote might be mistakenly construed as my own):
“𝑀𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 π‘€π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘‘β„Ž π‘œπ‘› π‘…π‘Žπ‘šπ‘œπ‘› πΆπ‘Žπ‘ β„Žπ‘Ž:
𝑇𝐻𝐴𝑁𝐾 𝐺𝑂𝐷 π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿ π‘‘π‘Žπ‘˜π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘šπ‘Žπ‘› π‘Žπ‘€π‘Žπ‘¦! π‘‡β„Žπ‘’ π‘šπ‘Žπ‘›’𝑠 π‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘–π‘‘π‘’π‘‘π‘’ π‘€π‘Žπ‘  π‘œπ‘π‘›π‘œπ‘₯π‘–π‘œπ‘’π‘ . π΄π‘π‘ π‘œπ‘™π‘’π‘‘π‘’π‘™π‘¦ π‘–π‘šπ‘šπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’. 𝐻𝑖𝑠 π‘£π‘–π‘ π‘–π‘œπ‘› π‘€π‘Žπ‘  𝑏&𝑀, π‘Žπ‘‘π‘šπ‘–π‘‘π‘‘π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 β„Žπ‘Žπ‘™π‘“ π‘Ž π‘ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’ π‘œπ‘“ π‘”π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘¦!
𝐻𝑒 π‘π‘œπ‘’π‘™π‘‘π‘›’𝑑 π‘‘π‘œπ‘™π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘’ π‘‘π‘–π‘ π‘Žπ‘”π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘’π‘šπ‘’π‘›π‘‘, π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘€π‘œπ‘’π‘™π‘‘ “π‘’π‘™π‘–π‘šπ‘–π‘›π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’” π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ (𝑏𝑦 π‘‘π‘’π‘“π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘œπ‘› πΉπ‘Žπ‘π‘’π‘π‘œπ‘œπ‘˜) 𝑖𝑓 π‘¦π‘œπ‘’ π‘‘π‘–π‘ π‘Žπ‘”π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘’π‘‘ π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Ž β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘™π‘–π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘™ π‘‘π‘œπ‘”π‘šπ‘Ž!
π‘Œπ‘’π‘ , 𝐼 π‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘ π‘‘π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ 𝑀𝑒 π‘ β„Žπ‘œπ‘’π‘™π‘‘ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘”π‘  π‘œπ‘“ π‘‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘ π‘’ π‘€β„Žπ‘œ 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑑 – 𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝐼 π‘‘π‘œ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘˜ 𝐼’π‘š π‘ π‘Žπ‘¦π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘π‘Žπ‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘–π‘›π‘”π‘ . 𝐼’π‘š π‘ π‘–π‘šπ‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘“π‘™π‘’π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘œπ‘› π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘šπ‘Žπ‘›’𝑠 π‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘–π‘‘π‘’π‘‘π‘’ π‘‘π‘œπ‘€π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘‘ π‘π‘’π‘œπ‘π‘™π‘’ β„Žπ‘’ π‘‘π‘–π‘ π‘Žπ‘”π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘’π‘‘ π‘€π‘–π‘‘β„Ž.
𝐻𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑑 π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑖𝑛 π‘‘π‘’π‘šπ‘œπ‘π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘π‘¦. 𝐻𝑒 π‘€π‘Žπ‘  π‘šπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘™π‘¦ π‘Ž π‘“π‘œπ‘™π‘™π‘œπ‘€π‘’π‘Ÿ π‘œπ‘“ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘‘π‘œπ‘šπ‘–π‘›π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘–π‘‘π‘’π‘œπ‘™π‘œπ‘”π‘¦.
𝐡𝑒𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑠 π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘”π‘’π‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘™π‘’ π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ 𝑀𝑒 π‘ β„Žπ‘œπ‘’π‘™π‘‘ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π‘‘π‘’π‘π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘  𝑖𝑑𝑠 𝑒π‘₯π‘π‘’π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘›π‘ : 𝐼 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘‰πΈπ‘…π‘Œ π‘‰πΈπ‘…π‘Œ π΅π΄π·πΏπ‘Œ π‘œπ‘“ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ πΊπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘šπ‘Žπ‘›π‘  π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘”π‘Žπ‘ π‘ π‘’π‘‘ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ 𝐽𝑒𝑀𝑠, 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑑. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ 𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 π‘π‘’π‘œπ‘π‘™π‘’ π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘‘π‘œ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ π‘€π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ π‘œπ‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘  π‘‘π‘œ π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ πΊπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘šπ‘Žπ‘›π‘  π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘π‘Žπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘–π‘π‘–π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘’π‘‘ 𝑖𝑛 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ π»π‘œπ‘™π‘œπ‘π‘Žπ‘’π‘ π‘‘ (𝑗𝑒𝑠𝑑 π‘Žπ‘  π‘Ž β„Žπ‘¦π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘π‘œπ‘™π‘–π‘ 𝑒π‘₯π‘Žπ‘šπ‘π‘™π‘’ π‘œπ‘“ π‘€β„Žπ‘Žπ‘‘ 𝐼 π‘šπ‘’π‘Žπ‘›). 𝐼 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ π‘‘π‘œπ‘π‘‘π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘  π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘“π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘š π‘Žπ‘π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘‘π‘–π‘œπ‘›π‘  (𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑑). 𝐼 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ π‘™π‘Žπ‘€π‘¦π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘  π‘€β„Žπ‘œ 𝑒𝑠𝑒 π‘™π‘œπ‘œπ‘β„Žπ‘œπ‘™π‘’π‘  π‘‘π‘œ 𝑔𝑒𝑑 π‘ π‘π‘œπ‘’π‘›π‘‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘™π‘  π‘œπ‘“π‘“ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’ β„Žπ‘œπ‘œπ‘˜ (𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑑). 𝐼 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ π‘€π‘Žπ‘Ÿ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘–π‘šπ‘–π‘›π‘Žπ‘™π‘  (𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑑). 𝐼 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ π‘šπ‘’π‘› π‘€β„Žπ‘œ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘‘π‘’π‘Ÿ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘–π‘Ÿ 𝑀𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠 (𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑓 π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦ β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑑).
π΅π‘’π‘π‘Žπ‘’π‘ π‘’ 𝐼 β„Žπ‘Žπ‘£π‘’ π‘Ž 𝑑𝑒𝑑𝑦 π‘‘π‘œ π‘ π‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘˜ π‘π‘Žπ‘‘π‘™π‘¦ π‘œπ‘“ 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑙. π‘…π‘Žπ‘šπ‘œπ‘› πΆπ‘Žπ‘ β„Žπ‘Ž π‘€π‘Žπ‘  𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑙.
𝐴𝑛𝑑 π‘‘β„Žπ‘Žπ‘›π‘˜ π‘”π‘œπ‘œπ‘‘π‘›π‘’π‘ π‘  β„Žπ‘’ 𝑀𝑖𝑙𝑙 π‘›π‘œ π‘™π‘œπ‘›π‘”π‘’π‘Ÿ 𝑏𝑒 π‘Žπ‘π‘™π‘’ π‘‘π‘œ π‘ π‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘Žπ‘‘ β„Žπ‘–π‘  𝑑𝑀𝑖𝑠𝑑𝑒𝑑 π‘–π‘‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘  π‘Žπ‘›π‘‘ β„Žπ‘–π‘  π‘‘π‘œπ‘”π‘šπ‘Žπ‘‘π‘–π‘ π‘™π‘–π‘π‘’π‘Ÿπ‘Žπ‘™ π‘€π‘œπ‘Ÿπ‘™π‘‘π‘£π‘–π‘’π‘€.
π‘Šπ‘’ π‘ β„Žπ‘œπ‘’π‘™π‘‘ π‘›π‘œπ‘‘ 𝑏𝑒 π‘ π‘Žπ‘›π‘π‘‘π‘–π‘šπ‘œπ‘›π‘–π‘œπ‘’π‘  π‘€β„Žπ‘’π‘› 𝑒π‘₯π‘π‘Ÿπ‘’π‘ π‘ π‘–π‘›π‘” π‘œπ‘’π‘Ÿ 𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑀𝑠 π‘œπ‘› 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑙 π‘π‘’π‘œπ‘π‘™π‘’ 𝑗𝑒𝑠𝑑 π‘π‘’π‘π‘Žπ‘’π‘ π‘’ π‘‘β„Žπ‘’π‘¦’π‘Ÿπ‘’ π‘›π‘œπ‘€ π‘‘π‘’π‘Žπ‘‘”.
There you have it. This sanctimonious bastard (who apparently does not even know what sanctimonious means) maliciously compared a departed Humanist to Nazis, war criminals and men who batter their wives. Such Christian charity would convert the Devil himself to Christianity.
So now that you know what kind of scumbag this Mark Sammut is, let us see what he chose to write in The Malta Independent of 1 January 2023, on the topic of abortion.
When not-too-bright narcissists make a ridiculous attempt at philosophizing, they are sure to make an utter fool of themselves. Such is the case with Mark Sammut’s article on new year’s day. I will only be commenting on select parts since to be quite frank, to comment on the whole article, which could only have been published in a newspaper that doesn’t care much about keeping high standards (or out of necessity to fill space), would bore anyone to death. So I will limit my commentary to the most hilariously stupid parts.
After moaning and whining a little because “liberal-progressives showed up at (their) collective door unannounced, and unleashed the abortion debate on an unsuspecting nation” (as if anyone cared much, or even asked for, his involvement and participation), Sammut throws in a sub-heading asking whether abortion is a human right. And true to form of anyone who is incapable of basic logic and critical thinking, he opens with the following gem.
Sammut tells us that “one characteristic of human rights is their inherently universal nature. Inherent universality means that they apply to everybody, irrespective of ancestry, gender, colour, status and creed. Each human right applies to men, women, and (unless they’re a figment of some people’s imagination or ideology) to anyone in-between. The Preamble of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights speaks of “the equal rights of men and women”.
Let’s pause for a moment just to note that the above (especially the quoted text in the brackets), to anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language, would suggest that believing in rights of embryos and foetuses might actually be “a figment of some people’s imagination or ideology”. This sentence is so ridiculously counter-intentional that it even escaped me the first time. But let us proceed. Just a word of advice: If you’re drinking anything, put down your glass before you proceed.
Sammut goes on to say that “human rights by definition apply to all humans. Now, since men cannot abort, it necessarily follows that abortion is not a human right. If abortion were a human right – and therefore universal, i.e. applicable to all humans – it would also be a right men can claim. Since men cannot abort, it necessarily follows that abortion is not a human right”.
Sammut’s higher wisdom tells us that unless everyone can benefit from any human right, then it is not a human right at all but a figment of our imagination. Let us review some points in the European Convention on Human Rights, and apply Sammut’s logic.
1. The right to life (Article 2). Well, people die. This is an undisputed fact. Now, since dying people cannot avail themselves of this supposed right to life, and since the dying are people too, this supposed right clearly cannot apply to everyone. So we must conclude that no one has the right to life.
2. Freedom from torture (Article 3). People with congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis (CIPA) cannot feel any pain at all. Therefore, they cannot be tortured. Now, since Sammut tells us that human rights must apply to all or none, then there is no such thing as a right of freedom from torture.
3. The right to liberty (Article 5). Prisoners are people too. Since Sammut tells us that rights must apply to all or none, then no one has the right to liberty.
4. The right to a fair trial (Article 6). While all democracies provide a lawyer to those who cannot afford one, it is fair to say that those who cannot afford a very good lawyer will necessarily be disadvantaged. Therefore, no one has the right to a fair trial.
5. Freedom of expression (Article 10). People who might be both paralised and mute, cannot exercise freedom of expression. Neither can the comatose. Nor can infants. Therefore there is no such thing as the right to freedom of expression.
6. The right to marry and start a family (Article 12). This implies the right to procreate. Now, since some people are permanently infertile, and moreover, since underage children don’t have the right to marry, there is no such thing as the right to marry or start a family.
7. The right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2). Unfortunately, some people are so severely mentally disabled that they cannot enjoy any kind of education let alone higher education. Therefore no one has the right to education.
8. The right to participate in free elections (Protocol 1, Article 3). At the very least, convicts serving a prison term longer than one year cannot vote in elections. By implication, no one has the right to participate in free elections or even vote.
All the above follows Sammut’s logic, who further tells us that “since human rights are inherently universal, they have to apply everywhere, to all humans on earth” (or to none). Moreover, since human rights must, in Sammut’s words, strictly apply to all humans or none, then it must necessarily follow that since adults cannot occupy and live inside an uterus, embryos and foetuses also have no right to occupy and live inside an uterus. How about that for “anti-choice” logic turning on its head?
Sammut, then, in a feeble attempt to debunk the right to bodily autonomy and the choice to terminate a pregnancy, tells us that since “human rights apply even in countries and situations bereft of technological artefacts” and since “not a single human right depends on technology, chemicals, equipment, etc”, then abortion cannot be a human right, since “all rights can be exercised by the Bare Human, just by virtue of being human and not because she or he has access to artefacts”.
Sammut fails to grasp the difference between, for instance, having a right to life, and the means of safeguarding that right. Sammut tells us that “since human rights are inherently universal and therefore independent of human technical progress, and abortion depends on human technical ingenuity, it necessarily follows that abortion is not a human right”. Going by the same illogic, one would have to conclude that since life-saving medicine and technology is not available to everyone and at all times, then, given the universality of human rights, there is no such thing as a human right to life!
To conclude, Sammut misrepresents unnamed “certain legal philosophers” (who perhaps exist only in his imagination), saying that they “have argued that Human Rights exist only in affluent States that afford them”, and goes on to beat the straw man he created and warning the “liberal-progressives” who “preach such falsehoods” to desist.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Sammut completely misunderstood the unnamed “legal philosophers” who might actually have said or implied that while human rights are universal, not all nations respect and uphold those rights. But we cannot know for sure, since Sammut apparently only mentions dead people by name, in order to disparage them, knowing that they cannot reply back.
Sammut should know that far from claiming that human rights do not apply to all nations, people like us actually insist that human rights apply even to nations where people like him would deny and refuse them. But of course, in Sammut’s world, it is people who “defriend you” on Facebook who are intolerant, not those who impose their religious beliefs on everyone.
Finally, a note to Pro-Lifers: I know that one doesn’t have to be a misogynist to oppose abortion on moral grounds (irrespective of my reasoned opinion that such opposition is not well grounded in facts and reason), but it would certainly help your case and clear you of misogynistic connotations if you were to publicly disown the clearly misogynistic public figures in your fold. The ball is in your court.

π—₯π—²π—³π—²π—Ώπ—²π—»π—°π—²π˜€:
In libel case over Sammut obituary, MaltaToday tells court of son’s invective after Casha’s death: https://www.maltatoday.com.mt/.../in_libel_case_over...
Ramon Casha, Humanist Association chairman, passes away aged 47: https://www.independent.com.mt/.../Ramon-Casha-Humanist...
Notary guilty of carrying loaded gun: https://timesofmalta.com/.../notary-guilty-of-carrying...

First published on Facebook on 2 January 2023.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

-
Image
EMBRYOS AND FOETUSES HAVE RIGHTS BECAUSE JOHN PACE SAYS SO Mr John Pace wrote a response to an article of mine  that was also published in an abridged version in The Times of Malta on January 16 (physical edition) but somehow did not make it to the online version. Apparently the editor chose “Life alone has no rights” as the heading, which, while factually true, is not the heading I submitted. This makes Mr Pace’s criticism of the title at best inconsequential, but I will address his concern (as well as the rest of his response) below. Mr Pace says that the “unbelievable title” is a “defiant disrespect of life inspired by another faith extolling the culture of death”. I suppose Mr Pace eats, and he eats plant or animal food that were once alive before they were killed to end up on his plate. So even though I did not choose the title myself, it is still factually true that life alone has no rights, otherwise Mr Pace would have to renounce eating any living beings or things. And...
Read more
-
Image
  WITHOUT CRITICAL THINKING RATIONAL DISCUSSION IS IMPOSSIBLE Nothing exposes the deficiency in critical thinking like many comments in online newspapers, where logical incoherence seems to be the order of the day. I will illustrate this with an example, without even the need of presenting the worst case. The example will show that deficiency in critical thinking makes rational discussion practically impossible, and hence demonstrate the urgency that critical thinking in education deserves. Replying to a comment in The Times of Malta , where Victor Laiviera, who is pro-choice, had suggested that “whether a person comes into existence at the moment of conception, when it acquires a brain or when it becomes viable are, in (his) opinion, secondary issues”, I had replied by saying that “here is where (the commenter and I) part ways. As pro-choice Kate Greasley convincingly argues in her book ‘Arguments about abortion’, the question of whether foetuses and embryos are ‘persons’ is ...
Read more
-
Suggested reading: Steven Pinker - How the Mind Works Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate Philip Ball - Unnatural: The Heretical Idea of Making People Dick Swaab - We Are Our Brains: From the Womb to Alzheimer's Derek Parfit - Reasons and Persons Thomas Nagel - Mortal Questions David Boonin - The Non-Identity Problem & the Ethics of Future People David Boonin - A Defense of Abortion Bonnie Steinbock - Life Before Birth: The Moral and Legal Status of Embryos and Fetuses Nathan Nobis and Kristina Grob - Thinking Critically About Abortion: Why Most Abortions Aren't Wrong & Why All Abortions Should Be Legal Ann Furedi - The Moral Case for Abortion: A Defence of Reproductive Choice Kate Greasley - Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law Jeff McMahan - The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life Bonnie Steinbock and Paul T. Menzel - Bioethics: What Everyone Needs to Know
Read more