I confess, I believe that abortion is a crime. Not a crime, given that a law allows it, under certain conditions. But in conscience, morally, I consider it a crime. I say more or less what the Pope repeats, even though he is overwrought and exalted, when he seems to converge on what pleases most. I appeal to freedom of expression, rightly invoked as the foundation of democracy.
So, if writers can insult the Prime Minister from public TV screens, I believe I deserve the same freedom and consideration. But no. I thank this newspaper, which allows me a free writing space. Unimaginable elsewhere, except by confining oneself to redoubts or openly siding with party lines. Unthinkable elsewhere, because in the society of rights for everyone and for anyone depending on the feeling of the sun rising, certain rights are not contemplated. I cannot say that abortion is a crime, under penalty of scandal, indignation and pity.
And since a child in the mother’s womb cannot speak, no one can defend his right to exist. Furthermore, no one openly says when it is triggered, its right to exist. I suppose, given the extent of the reasons that allow the termination of the pregnancy, only when he opens his eyes and never mind if his heart has been beating for eight months and he has been moving, dreaming, revealing his features for some time. This too cannot be said, because the display of fetuses is a horror, they bombard us in the media. However, hiding killed fetuses is normal and does not disturb. The right to abortion can be claimed as a conquest and liberation for women. But I cannot say that pregnancy, except in the case of rape, is always a shared choice.
And there is a way to avoid it, they already teach it in elementary school. And it concerns two people, the mother and the father, Who should have the same right on the decision whether a child lives or dies. I cannot even say that abortion is a tragedy and no woman, if helped and understood, would choose not to give her life. Because let’s be honest, for too many women, abortion is a habit and not at all a traumatic event. And because those who could and would like to help waiting women are prevented from meeting them. Now, law 194 is dated according to all current scientific knowledge.
But we don’t touch it, it is a state law, and since according to an unhealthy idea of progress we take example from the countries that we consider more advanced, its corrections would only be worse. But its correct expression is “rules for the social protection of motherhood”. Why shouldn’t the associations and volunteers who could carry out this task required by law enter the clinics? Defining oneself as “pro-life” has become a mark of infamy, a disgrace, a subversive slap in the face of the Republic and the suspicion of “fascism” immediately arises, good for pointing out the enemy in any context one dares to challenge current thinking. Is it really about thought? Because, thinking, maybe that being swinging in the amniotic fluid isn’t just a lump of cells.