Freedom of choice and abortion: if the rights of the little ones are not protected

I have always been a supporter of the pro-life front: I have always thought it absurd not to recognize that a human life is worthy of respect from the moment it is conceived. Of course, this vision is also based on my faith, but I don’t think you have to be Catholic to see that a baby in your womb has, from the beginning, its own new genetic heritage, its own vital principle (independent from that of the mother) and a little heart that beats like anyone else’s.

A little reasoning, common sense and a minimum of scientific knowledge would be enough. And yet, the world seems to be going in a completely different direction.

In fact, the idea that abortion is in all respects a woman’s right, to be guaranteed for any reason, has been widespread for some time in many countries. It is no longer even important whether there are health, economic or other problems… A woman who finds herself expecting an unwanted child must be able to choose to refuse it.

The ever-increasing liberalization of abortion

An index of this liberalization of abortion are the many maneuvers that are being implemented at the legislative level in various countries.

Consider the case of France, where they are fighting to eliminate conscientious objection and to limit all those actions aimed at making women reflect on the act they are about to perform. The goal? To see abortion classified as a right among others, a right in all respects and not as an “extreme solution”, because this would not do justice to the free choice of the woman.

There are also many countries in which supporters of the pro-life front find themselves fighting proposals such as that of guaranteeing women the possibility of aborting even in a very advanced stage of pregnancy. This is the case, for example, in Great Britain, where they want to increase the number of weeks of gestation in which the unborn child can still be aborted.

The so-called right to abort is enshrined in law

These are just a few examples; many more could be made, but these are already quite eloquent and say a lot about the culture that is spreading in many countries that define themselves as first world: there is a tendency to exalt the freedom of some (women and doctors), neglecting the rights of others (the unborn).

As we know, this process is also and above all taking place in environments where legislation is made. And what the law says, in the collective imagination, is “sacrosanct”, that is to say it becomes morally normative, especially in a climate of rampant relativism, where it is difficult to find other indicators to establish what is right and what is wrong.

And what are the consequences?

Pro-lifers are seen as fanatics or culturally backward

The conscientious objector or anyone who supports an anti-abortion position is seen as a fanatic, even subversive, precisely because he or she opposes a presumed right established by law.

Expressing opposition to abortion means being the victim of a cultural heritage or a religious belief, which clashes with the structure of a secular and democratic state.

Countries like Sweden and Finland, where conscientious objection does not exist, should therefore be taken as models of civilization and progress; while countries like Italy and Portugal, where the percentage of objectors reaches very high peaks, should be considered “backward”.

Authentic freedom is not achieved by trampling on the rights of others

What is overlooked, however, is that authentic freedom cannot be achieved if someone else’s rights are trampled on. In a democracy founded on the assumption that all members of the population have equal dignity, the idea of ​​expanding someone’s freedom to the detriment of the rights of another human being (in this case the unborn child) should be unthinkable. The real problem, however, is that the child in the womb is not considered a human being, therefore it would not be the holder of any rights.

A personal experience

If I had already considered abortion a grave offense against small, defenseless lives, when I discovered I was expecting a child I understood in depth how absurd it is to consider that offense a right…

I remember that, at the first visit (made during the gestation period in which, in Italy, abortion is still permitted) I heard my son’s heart beating.

I was moved and thought: “but how can you be so blind and deaf as not to recognize that this little one is a living human being?”

He was inside me, yes, but he was not an appendage of my body: he was another living being… that was not there before and now, instead, was asking me to love him, to protect him.

Without me he would have died (as a newborn would die if left to himself)… but I did not see why the fact that that tiny being depended on me authorized me to decide about his life.

Love for life and freedom of women: when even doctors live a contradiction

What left me speechless, however, was the behavior of the doctor who was examining me.

In front of the monitor, she enthusiastically pointed out my son’s movements, showed me the different parts of his body. I remember that her gruff manner, with which she had welcomed me, literally disappeared in front of the baby (during ultrasounds, in front of that “little baby” – as she calls him – she always softens and becomes another person).

And yet, after the visit, when we sat down at the desk, she started talking to me about the possibility of doing a prenatal diagnosis and told me that I “still have time” to do tests on the health of the fetus and then decide whether to keep him or not.

It seemed like a surreal situation to me: two minutes before, we were both in front of that monitor, smiling at my son’s movements.

We heard his heart beating together.

And then I found her telling me that it was up to me to decide about the life of that little being.

“I’ll keep him in any case, healthy or sick,” I replied firmly.

She then continued: “If you’re thinking of keeping your child in any case, I advise against this type of visit, which is very invasive for women.”

I say this without embarrassment: those words caused a deep sense of indignation in me, because I felt that my son was being wronged…

The law and the health system were only concerned with me: with what I wanted, with the invasiveness of the visits that I would have had to do, and they didn’t take into account my child’s right to live.

In my case, the problem didn’t exist… I would have decided to keep him, obviously. But it seemed unfair that the decision was left up to me.

That day more than ever I wanted to live in a country where children have the same rights as their parents, before and after birth… Yes, since that day more than ever I dream of a country where doctors, after showing you your child on that monitor, tell you: “This life is inside you, but it is another human being, woe betide you if you touch it!”