Nobody today believes that all human beings intrinsically enjoy inviolable dignity and rights. At least in the current political and legislative spectrum in much of the West.
There are those who think - and legislate or protect laws - that you are not human being, personuntil another The woman who gestated it, the State, lawyers, politicians or doctors. There are those who defend that you cannot eat an egg because it is "potentially" a chick, but who do not bat an eyelid when affirming that a 12-week embryo is not a human being. Or simply, it is not a human being with rights.
Apparently, in the current Spanish legal system, rights are "obtained" in installments, like washing machines: one day you can be killed freely and the next day it is a little more difficult. The problem of all this lies in the fact that the terms are, therefore, agreed by majorities, and end up yielding to an assimilation of the idea as a right outside of time.
Hitler also knew that those whom he imprisoned or executed without regard (Jews, homosexuals, gypsies...) were human beings, but, according to his criteria, their rights should be subject to the wishes or the "improvement of the lives" of others. In that case there was no talk of time limits, it is true, but there was talk of origins or tendencies. It's a big deal - it's a big deal. The plot, embellished with better or worse success, has not changed much.
The affirmation of the Constitutional Court's note to this effect states that "there is a gradual limitation of the constitutional rights of women according to the progress of gestation and the physiological-vital development of the fetus, as well as in attention to the possible appearance of circumstances that imply an extraordinary affectation of the woman's rights" (circumstances such as having Down Syndrome, which makes it "even less worthy of protection"). Underlying this is the idea that the unborn child is the enemy. The enemy to beat.
The Spanish Constitutional Court, with its "consecration" of the "right to abortion" has not only legislated against itself, elevating to the category of a right, that is, something good and defensible, what was previously "decriminalized", an evil that was not penalized because of some "more weighty" assumption.
At no time is there any mention of maternity assistance, psychological support for pregnancy or reconciliation laws. What the Constitutional Court affirms, in essence, is that there are people with a constitutional right to live and people with a constitutional right to eliminate to others; without offering alternatives to those women or even pushing for abortion is their choice, almost unconsciously.
It is worth recalling the words of Benedict XVI in the celebration of Maundy Thursday 2010: "Christians, as good citizens, respect the law and do what is just and good. It consists in the fact that they reject what is not right, but injustice, in the legal systems in force.".
If the lifeIf the protection of life: prenatal, infantile, with psychic problems, with vital alterations, old or handicapped does not sustain the right of a people, then we cannot speak of Justice, of Peace, of Universal Rights. Because these are not paid in installments.
Editor-in-Chief at Omnes. Degree in Communication, with more than 15 years of experience in Church communication. She has collaborated in media such as COPE or RNE.
