Recently, the President of the Community of Madrid, speaking about the new abortion law, said that she did not know a single woman who regretted having a child, and she saw it in women who had aborted at that time.
This phrase expresses with crystal clearness some of the natural, social, ideological and cultural prejudices underlying the veto of the recognition of abortion as a right, in addition to its natural attachment to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Of course, this phrase is not based on any existing sociological research, which shows that there are more regrets about not continuing a pregnancy than about having a child, which in any case should have been measured by controlling for many variables over many years. with the resulting inconsistency of the results, but simply tries to contrast the apparent naturalness of the course of pregnancy, as something less than inevitable and not subject to any remorse, the possibility of its interruption as something preventable and, therefore, as an anomaly to be assessed, and one of remorse than relief.
However, the problem is that the complexity of the natural and social nature of human life has led to the fact that throughout history one third of pregnancies were terminated naturally, as a result of spontaneous abortions, and, on the other hand, throughout history, different cultures and social conditions resorted to induced abortion. And also that in both cases, the progress of science, social and political development and feminist movements contributed to the reduction in the number of involuntary spontaneous abortions, as well as to ensure the life of women who choose voluntary abortion. An undoubted contribution to life that refutes the accusations of feminists and progressive forces in defending the politics of death by taking on the unfair name of Pro-Life.
Another bias is related to the classist notion that what a person experiences is the norm and what does not happen in your immediate environment does not exist, when it is obvious that it was not intended at different stages of history and do not assume that today a child or an alternative to abortion is the same for a wealthy family, whom Diaz Ayuso refers to as a model of behavior, as it is for a woman with different beliefs, living in different patterns of relationships, in a more or less precarious position and with a life project that is underway or must be built, also coinciding with other realities.
As well as feelings of regret or relief as a result of a decision such as abortion, which affects different beliefs, whether they are religious or not, the economic status and social conditions or the life plan of this or that woman.
At the basis of these class prejudices, as well as moral prejudices, lies the rejection of a different understanding of life, both in ideas about human life and in the rights of a woman to her own body in relation to the unborn, as well as the dogma about what should be the desirable conditions of life and what is or should be the concept of the “good life”.
In short, a dogma about life and about one’s own good life, understood as a model that can be generalized to the whole of society, and therefore the rejection of the plurality of beliefs and beliefs, patterns of relationships, families and social situations, This is what the president of the Community of Madrid is leading to and the right to deny women’s freedom to choose pregnancy or abortion and the ability to do so quietly and without injury.
That’s why they fail to understand that a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy does not change, no matter how conservative governments insist on introducing all sorts of advice and paternalistic support and adoption measures, if not obstacles, pressures and prohibitions, to dissuade women from freely deciding to terminate a pregnancy. The problem is that when dogma leads to prohibitions and criminal codes, the same clandestine abortions occur, but with much suffering and unnecessary death.
It was this same dogmatic notion of the “good life” that prevented, until the recent approval of the law on euthanasia, the recognition of the right to dispose of one’s own life, also causing unnecessary suffering here. These cases really should cause repentance. Because in a free decision lies the possibility of being both right and wrong, and, consequently, satisfaction, relief, or, conversely, remorse for it.
*The article has been translated based on the content of www.eldiario.es. If there is any problem regarding the content, copyright, please leave a report below the article. We will try to process as quickly as possible to protect the rights of the author. Thank you very much!
*We just want readers to access information more quickly and easily with other multilingual content, instead of information only available in a certain language.
*We always respect the copyright of the content of the author and always include the original link of the source article.If the author disagrees, just leave the report below the article, the article will be edited or deleted at the request of the author. Thanks very much! Best regards!