The imminent ruling of the Supreme Court that leaves the right to abortion in the hands of the criteria of the various North American states has triggered alarms throughout the Western world. Thus, politicians and civil rights activists and even President Biden himself have warned that, after the restriction of that right, there will be a review of the right to same-sex marriage and other social achievements, which seemed definitively entrenched and that, far of compromising the theoretical neutrality of the Administration in moral matters, they guaranteed due respect for the privacy of individuals. But this is a tricky argument, because taking sides for a decision that for many is debatable requires recognizing that, at least on this point, the State has ceased to be neutral.
Go ahead, that mixing these types of issues is a bad strategy and that replying with banners to those who, from conservative positions, or strictly Catholic, have never legitimately accepted the right to abortion as definitive, is a bad path, which we should try to avoid. Because as true as it is that, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all the world's democracies have accepted the existence of a catalog of fundamental rights intrinsic to the human condition and universal in scope, it is true that their practical application responds to the interpretation particular to each society, to its inherited tradition and political culture. And it is normal that this is the case, because as Voltaire already warned in his Philosophical Dictionary (1764), no matter how much disgust they give us, for the toad a hot aunt will always be a little frog with a white belly and brown skin, as much as For the devil, the ideal of beauty will always be a horned beast, with long claws and a good tail. It seems clear that some principles are universal, but the vast majority are relative.
Whether we like it more or less, it does not seem to me that the right to abortion, which finally legalizes a woman's decision to interrupt a life, can be accepted forever and ever, without further discussion, as if it had been dictated by fire on stone, like the tablets of Moses. And even less so that, as Minister Montero claims here, such an important decision can be left in the hands of a teenager and without margin of conscientious objection for the doctors. Because unlike the right increasingly demanded by citizens to guarantee a dignified death, without unnecessary suffering or humiliation – a decision that must be recognized that if taken lucidly does not harm third parties – abortion is not so obvious that it only affects who practices it. And that is the red line that justifies the intervention of the legislator. The fact that since May 1968 we have progressively made the right of women prevail over the right of the embryo that seeks to be able to be born does not mean that the new generations cannot give their opinion, with moral arguments, that they must be able to be taken care of or, if appropriate, , answered, reasoned and without tensions.
It is obvious that the supposed moral neutrality of states in these matters in practice is never fulfilled and that, by action or omission, administrations always end up interfering in our lives, sometimes in the name of preserving rights that neither the interested parties themselves claim –this is the case of the attempts to prohibit the consumption of alcohol and other drugs, to persecute gambling, prostitution or to disapprove of suicide or assisted death–, others simply to attend to the fashions of each era. Thus, for example, and to the surprise of many, if the government's plans for what is known as the trans law prosper, in Spain it will soon be easier to change gender than national identity, as the independentistas well know.
For all these reasons, I believe it is urgent to open such debates with moderation and a constructive spirit, fully aware of their complexity, and, above all, recognizing that the laws of men will always be imperfect and therefore legitimately reviewable. Too many decades of progressive arrogance have disconcerted millions of citizens in good faith, who pay their taxes and fulfill their civil obligations, but who in their hearts have felt violated their most intimate convictions. Respect for individual freedom, but also a certain ethic of doubt and compassion towards those who must decide on such difficult situations can help us to legislate correctly.
4
