The defense of life should be a truism that does not involve controversy, a point of consensus between left, right, center, above and below, because at the end of the day this mutual respect for the existence of the human being is an indispensable pillar for our civilization, which is so proud to consider “human rights” as its legitimacy and pride.
However, that same civilization is the one that has turned voluntary abortion, to which I will refer in this article, into a social conquest to be boasted, perhaps with greater intensity than ever before in history. In a span of half a century, abortion movements went from “keep abortion safe, legal, and rare” to the “celebration” of abortion as a badge of honor and “liberation” at the cost of someone else’s life.
Along the way, the pro-abortion ecosystem has built an entire rhetorical edifice to justify the dehumanization of the unborn, establishing criteria of time (12 weeks, 24 weeks) and development (brain, pain) and then throwing them out the window and pushing abortion without conditions up to 9 months of pregnancy, under the banner of the “right to choose.”
Abortion advances in Mexico
On September 7, this agenda of destruction of the unborn achieved the greatest triumph of its history in Mexican territory, when the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation declared unconstitutional various articles referring to abortion in the penal legislation of the State of Coahuila, stating that: “The legislative formula of penal order, which was chosen by the local Congress and which contains the criminalization of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy at all times, supposes the total suppression of the constitutional right of women to choose.”
For practical purposes, this resolution is equivalent to the national decriminalization of abortion in Mexico, since after the Court’s determination no judge in the country will be able to apply a sanction for the crime of abortion (at least in the first few weeks) without it being immediately reversed by means of an amparo proceeding. Although the SCJN only referred to the code of Coahuila, in practice it disallowed the other 29 penal codes that include such crime.
That is not all. On September 9, the Court declared as “unconstitutional” the protection of the right to life in the state constitutions, focusing on the specific case of Sinaloa, although (again) its effects will have a devastating impact on the rest of the constitutions that include similar protection.
In other words, this week abortion (at least within the first trimester) was freed in Mexico, to the applause of the institutionalized press and the ecosystem of progressivism, whose almost absolute dominance over the press and the political class contrasts drastically with the rest of Mexican society, which mostly rejects abortion.
Every abortion is a tragedy o
First, it is a personal and direct tragedy for the human being who is literally destroyed, annulled, and thrown into the trash can, turned into a mere biological waste with no more right or dignity than potentially toxic waste. The potential, the talent, the strength, the life are destroyed, annulled forever, as a result of a direct decision specifically aimed at destroying them through the maximum possible act of discrimination.
Secondly, it is a tragedy for his mother, his father, and his close circle. They may justify, applaud, console and even celebrate it. But in the background, in moments of reflection, in the strident silence of solitude, the echo of their decision will continue to resound, sometimes only as a murmur and sometimes as the growing chorus of remorse, or at least of a question, until their voices become intolerable, proclaiming: “What if I had let the child live?”
In some cases that voice may remain hidden for years, buried under layers of noise and routine, but eventually, it will emerge. When it does, in front of the mirror of one’s own conscience, there will be no rhetorical rhetoric. Slogans are good for winning arguments on Twitter, but there comes a time when they will not be enough to convince ourselves.
Thirdly, it is a collective tragedy, a fracture, almost imperceptible, but unfathomably deep, for society at large. And it is so in two ways.
One, because of the lost potential in that human being who was not allowed to be. The argument “maybe they aborted the person who would have discovered the cure for cancer” is perhaps one of the most maudlin arguments in the pro-life recipe book, but there is something to it. Why?
Abortion annuls the almost infinite network of interactions and decisions that person would have experienced in his or her life outside the womb, and irremediably impoverishes society, because even if that fetus had not grown up to become a new Einstein, it had a perspective, a reality, a unique identity, that had never existed and can never exist.
Two. The legitimization of voluntary abortion necessarily implies that the value of human life is defined on the basis of the “desire” of another person. If someone is “desired” then he or she will be called a “baby” from the beginning of the pregnancy and will be provided with all the necessary care. On the other hand, if that same person is “unwanted” then he or she will be destroyed and his or her elimination will be celebrated as a triumph of freedom.
This results in a mortal danger for the whole society that celebrates it. Here’s why: civilization exists on the certainty and permanence that accompany the establishment of rules, tacit or positive, strong enough to restrain the impulse of the powerful and respect the humanity of the rest of its members. The more these rules are weakened, the more their structure weakens and the more violence advances, until it engulfs everything.
Submitting the recognition of humanity to the “desire” of someone, and celebrating that whim in legislation and culture, places society on a very dangerous path, where the desire of the powerful is enough to define, with the applause of the press and the backing of the laws, the very existence of others. In the end, it implies going back to a state of barbarism, where the life or death of the weak literally depends on the whim of the powerful.
In defense of life
In defense of innocent human life, it is worth remembering that each person has an unrepeatable identity and history in the journey of our universe; that his or her talents and actions enrich the rest of humanity; that subjecting it to the whim of someone else’s desire brings us closer to barbarism and that turning its destruction into a “right” is a sign of intolerable tyranny.
And, mind you, this is not a matter of religion. Yes, the Catholic Church opposes abortion, but in the same way it opposes other forms of homicide, robbery and other violent behavior. To say that those of us who oppose abortion do so “to impose our religion” is absurd. If we wanted to impose our religion we would impose going to mass. Opposing the killing of innocent humans is not because we are religious, but because we are human.
In other words. While religious condemnation is not reason enough to keep it illegal, neither is it reason enough to dismiss opposition to such conduct as a “religious imposition.” To end quickly, abortion is not “wrong because it is a sin,” but “it is a sin because it is wrong,” and in our civilization this has been known for ages.
In fact, in an atheistic worldview, where there is no transcendence or eternal life, abortion is an even more heinous crime, because it condemns a human being to disappear into nothingness before he can even breathe or see the sun, before creating and believing, and forever.
So, whether there is one God, or 15, or 10,000, or none, voluntary abortion will remain the intentional destruction of a defenseless, unrepeatable, innocent human life. And the echo of that profound injustice will forever accompany its victimizers and the society that celebrates them, either until they enter eternity or disappear themselves as stardust awaiting the next universe.