Pro-choice thoughts and arguments

BEING “PRO-LIFE” IS NOT ABOUT RELIGION, BUT LET’S SMUGGLE IN “GOD” AND “SOULS” When confronted with irrefutable evidence-based pro-choice arguments, religious pro-lifers unfailingly end up smuggling in “God” or “souls” without even realizing that even if we disregard the fact that religion is necessarily faith-based and therefore should not be imposed, the insertion of religious concepts in the abortion debate brings several problems of its own. I have many times mentioned some of these problems and have as yet only been faced with complete silence. So, I’ll give it another try here. Perhaps someone might surprise me. There are two suggested explanations for consciousness which is defined as the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings: the scientific and the religious one. The scientific explanation, derived not least from neurological experiments and the study of victims of severe brain injury, says that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain resulting...

  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 ...

INEXISTANT "PERSONS" CANNOT BE HARMED On February 13 , in response to a letter to the Editor from Charles Pace (The Times of Malta, February 4) I wrote a reply as my own letter to the Editor, stating that prior to having a sufficiently developed brain (at least at 24 weeks), a person does not exist at all and, therefore, cannot have interests, preferences or desires because there would be no one to have them. I concluded that at that stage, an organism is only a body with the potential of becoming a person with any interests, and therefore, rights. I further claimed that Pace missed the point of my letter, being that a personal identity necessarily requires a mental life which cannot be possible without a developed brain. Pace replied on February 22 saying that he did not miss my point. He simply disagrees with it. It would have helped if Pace were to read my full reply of February 9 in my blog  like I suggested in my letter, but I will address some of his points here. Pace ...

  ON THE INTEREST VIEW AND THE MORAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PERSONHOOD On February 2 and 15 I wrote that “you can’t have a proper discussion on any complex issue such as abortion when most of the population never read at all, and many of those who do, only do so to pass their school exams or graduate in their narrow professional field”. I then proceeded to illustrate some examples of the type of uneducated responses one typically gets when one attempts to discuss such topics with the seriousness and intellectual honesty they deserve. So it was quite a refreshing change to read comments from Joe Seychell in reply to my short Letter to the Editor in The Times of Malta, who, despite some apparent disagreement, showed willingness to discuss without prejudice, an openness to the consideration of different ideas other than his own, and knowledge of the subject through reading. This was made abundantly clear when, for instance, he anticipated a conclusion to my line of reasoning which I did...

  A TRAGI-COMIC DISPLAY OF IGNORANCE, DELUSION AND PARANOIA Here are some typical examples of responses I consistently get in the comments section of online newspapers. Like I said, you can’t have a rational discussion with people who never read . " The usual rantings and ravings of KENNETH CASSAR. The prophet of nihilism. What's new?"   " Cassar's vacuous, insipid folly is generally referred to as self -aggrandizement. Hilarious, infinitely. This Cassar amuses loads of people".   " He fancies himself as some "philosopher", or some reincarnation of the gauche, vacuous polemicist Hitchens. Hilarious and amusing , endlessly". "Eejits provoke, wise men ignore". (Written with no sense of self-irony). " Your usual tripe and stop advertising your rantings and ravings" .   Andrew Farrugia   " Obvious sophism. By your argument seeds can be destroyed because they didn't sprout yet". (Perhaps he shou...

  THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF AN INDIVIDUAL Michael Asciak, replying to my opinion piece published in The Times of Malta on January 16 , says that “the science of embryology tells us that the human being begins at conception” and that I “mistakenly assume that the right to life of a human being, which is protected by the constitution, should not pertain to the physical body but should be accorded to the time the foetus acquires consciousness”. That the life of a human being starts at conception is a fact I never disputed. That personhood begins with consciousness, awareness and sentience is something I have argued for, and on which I have never yet seen a convincing counter-argument that does not rely on faith or prejudiced assumptions. As to the protection the constitution supposedly affords to pre-sentient foetuses (it doesn’t – it only affords protection to born humans), I will not dwell on that point given that constitutions, like laws, can change, and one cannot logically bring up...

  YOU CANNOT HARM PERSONS THAT DO NOT YET EXIST Charles Pace, in an opinion piece in The Times of Malta of February 4 , addresses some points of my own opinion piece of January 16 in the same newspaper.   However, he misses completely the salient point, which I suspect comes from the inability or difficulty of most people to grasp the concept of non-identity which includes the non-existence of a mental life that gives a body personhood with sentience, awareness and interests. Science shows us that while a being starts existing at conception, personhood, which necessarily entails a mental life and an identity over time, starts at 24 weeks of conception when a brain is sufficiently developed to give a foetus at least rudimentary sentience and consciousness of the world. Self-awareness comes even later, after birth. Prior to having a sufficiently developed brain (at least at 24 weeks) a person does not exist at all, and therefore cannot have interests, preferences or desires ...

ENOUGH SELF-CONTRADICTING DEEPITIES TO GIVE ANYONE VERTIGO In a hopeless attempt to impress with deepities , Jesuit priest Paul Chetcuti ends up confusing even himself, and thus produces an opinion piece riddled with absurdities and self-contradictions. Chetcuti starts with quoting Scripture, writing “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh… That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen. 2:23-24). And although he qualifies the quote by telling his readers to “forget the sacredness of this text, the gender issues and the folkloristic simplicity of the statements”, he actually makes matters even worse by explaining that the Bible writer is making two statements: “this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”; and “this is why a man leaves his father and mother (to become) united to his wife, and they become one flesh”. Which is obviously absurd since married couples do not actually become “one flesh”, not even symb...

  YOU CAN’T HAVE A RATIONAL DISCUSSION WITH PEOPLE WHO NEVER READ   I have long concluded that you can’t have a proper discussion on any complex issue such as abortion when most of the population never read at all, and many of those who do, only do so to pass their school exams or graduate in their narrow professional field. So why do I even bother with this blog? For one thing, because truth needs to be told. For another, because if through this blog I manage to make at least one person think, and perhaps seek further knowledge on the topic, not through social media or internet fora, but through actual books, then it will all have been worth-while. Here’s an example of an interaction I had in the comments sections of online newspapers – and mind you, I did not choose the worst  of the response I got.   Kenneth Cassar: Essentially, Dr Dingli’s claims may be summarized as follows: 1. Life is sacred – a religious claim that is not supported by any evidence. ...