Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1313317
13 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 29 NOVEMBER 2020 OPINION telling you that no matter how vociferous that human being became it could never have the final say over the fate of the other human being whose life depended on the fate of that rope and is surely the greatest stakeholder (i.e. of life and death). And no, having a loud voice should not give one the right to have more say than those who do not have one, such as the unborn. Not only scientific research of newborns points towards this continuity in our de- velopment. There is also other research that might be considered even more sig- nificant. Prof. Stabile in her article implies that the time 'in utero' is just a potential- ity and so unimportant and insignificant that is not worth considering its value in the whole entire order of things. So, what about the research which points towards how this time can deeply and concretely affect a human being at every point in his or her life? For exam- ple, it is a known scientific fact that pre- natal stress affects not only birth-weight but also stress levels after birth and has an effect on the way particular genes are expressed (Mulligan et al., 2012). Severe antenatal stress affects hor- mones that regulate mood, such as do- pamine and serotonin and is linked to a range of childhood emotional and be- havioural problems. Low birth weight which is often linked with prenatal stress has been found to be also a predictor of illness decades later in one's life (Barker et. Al, 2008). It is beyond the scope of the article to quote the exhaustive research about how the time 'in utero' can affect very concretely someone's life. What can be more actual and real than the knowl- edge that the time 'in utero' is central to who we actually become? There was not just a potentiality of me in my mother's uterus but what happened there affected all of who I was concretely then, through- out my life, and who I am today. Science proves this which makes me fail to under- stand, at this point, how the scientific and philosophic logic of this pro-choice view is not actually being the one hijacked by convenience and personal agendas – the criticism so often thrown at the pro-life movement. I am all for gender equality and sexual rights but not without responsibility. I take issue with traditional cultural dou- ble standards held around male and fe- male sexuality; I take issue with gender inequality, or with men who are by socie- ty and exonerated from the responsibility of their sexual behaviour. But I also take issue with not calling a spade a spade be- cause it hurts our sensitivities; especial- ly when the truth is we are washing our hands from responsibility and not hold- ing ourselves accountable for the natural consequences of our behaviour, even of that which is sexual. Yes and allow me to feel this even more if it may involve end- ing someone-else's life and thankfully, I am sure that I am still one of many here in Malta who think this way. This is usu- ally the order of things in civilised socie- ties in most dimensions of life: so why not of the life of the unborn? Yes, abortion is present in many so- cieties; but so is social injustice and the constant violation of human rights. Does that make it right? Of course not. So why should abortion be different? We all know that if something is legal it does not make it right so allow me to rejoice when that happens and feel proud of our legal system when it is doing what it should. Abortion is illegal now and we will sure- ly work for it to remain so; and let us be proud of what this might mean - that per- haps we are still living in a society where all life is considered sacred, therefore criminal to terminate it, while simultane- ously we provide for good healthy sexual education for all, adequate and appro- priate emotional and practical support where unplanned pregnancies happen, and awareness and education about oth- er life-giving alternatives like adoption; instead of washing our hands from re- sponsibility while promoting a culture of convenience and of death, no matter what labels of 'modern', 'liberal' and 'pro- gressive' are being attached to it by the pro-choice movement both here and in other countries. References Baker, JL, Olsen, LW, Sorensen, TIA (2008). Weight at birth and all-cause mortality in adulthood. Epidemiology, 19, 197–203. DeCasper, A. J. & Fifer, W. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers' voices. Science, 208, 1174–1176 DeCasper, A. J. & Spence, M. J. (1986). Prenatal maternal speech influences newborns' perception of speech sound. Infant Behaviour and Development, 9, 133–150. Goodlin, R. & Schmidt, W. (1972) Hu- man fetal arousal levels as indicated by heart rate recordings. Am J Obstet Gyne- col. 114 (5), 613–621. Moon, C., Cooper, R. P., & Fifer, W. P. (1993). Two-days-old infants prefer their native language. Infant Behaviour and Development, 16, 495–500. Mulligan, C. J. et al. (2012) Methylation changes at NR3C1 in newborns associate with maternal prenatal stress exposure and newborn birth weight. Epigenetics: Official Journal of the DNA Methylation Society. 7 (8), 853–857. Music, G. (2013). Stress, Pre-birth: How the fetus is affected by a mother's state of mind. International Journal of Baby and Parent Education, 1: 12-15. Piontelli, A. (1992). From fetus to child: an observational and psychoanalytic study. London: Tavistock Publications. Querleu, C., Lefebvre, C., Titran, M., Renard, X., Morillion, M., & Crepin, G.(1984). Réactivité du nouveauné de moins de deux heures de vie à la voix maternelle. Journal de gynecologie, ob- stetrique et biologie de la reproduction, 13, 125–134 Sallenbach, W.B., 'The intelligent prenate: Paradigms in prenatal learning and bonding', in T.P Blum (ed.) Prena- tal Perception, Learning, and Bonding: learning and bonding. Hong Kong: Leon- ardo. p. 61.