Abortionists of yesterday, today and tomorrow.

Below I bring to the attention and reflection of the readers of this blog the article written by Leonardo Lugaresi, published on his blog. Visit the site and freely evaluate the various options offered and any requests

Perhaps there is a need to make it clear that today’s abortionism is profoundly different from the “historical” one, which about half a century ago gave rise to the legislation that generally allowed abortion under certain conditions, within certain limits and under the public control. It is morally and politically its son and, without the hypocrisy and lies present in that, it would not have been able to develop, but compared to it it has made a qualitative leap that makes it culturally different and basically incompatible with the position that was defended at the time and promoted by the predecessors of current abortionists.

Historical abortionism in fact he said: abortion is bad, but since it exists and is widespread in society, the state cannot ignore it and must manage it politically. Warning: the flaw (and poison) of this apparently incontrovertible statement lay in the fact that it took for granted that abortion was an evil, but only because: a) it was something that the woman underwent against her will, b) due to the legislation in force until then he was confined to clandestinity, that is, to the utmost private. The problem of the fetus’s right to life was not considered, indeed it was purposely avoided. In other words, that abortionism there presented itself as a “realistic anti-abortionism”, which however refused to recognize that abortion is radically evil because it consists in the killing of a human being. Given the premises, historical abortionism concluded that it was necessary to: a) “socialise” abortion as a procedure to be carried out exclusively within the public socio-health system (continuing, please note, to criminalize “private” abortion ); b) put women in a position to not have to “suffer” the decision to have an abortion. Law 194 of 1978 is the result of this approach and, not for nothing, bears the title of «Regulations for the social protection of maternity and on the voluntary termination of pregnancy». In the conception of historical abortionism, once those two objectives have been achieved, legal abortion ceases to be an evil, but one does not have the impudence to affirm that it is a good (so much so that at the time there was no talk of “right of abortion”). Rather, it becomes the exercise of an individual but socially controlled freedom of choice, the content of which is considered morally secondary, if not exactly indifferent. For the liberal part of the culture of the time what mattered was the fact that “freedom of choice” is still a good thing (in the title “interruption voluntary of pregnancy” the adjective redeems the noun and the specific complement); for the Marxist side (which was hegemonic at that time) the point was socialization (“protection social»), on the basis of the dogma that where the state arrives (naturally guided by them) salvation arrives; as for “adult Catholics”, they could console themselves with the word “motherhood” (which then was not at all the blasphemy it has become today) and with conscientious objection, to which I will return in a moment.

For several decades we went on like this: the mantra “Don’t touch the 194!”, shouted hysterically every time someone tried to raise the subject, was the seal of a status quo which, ultimately, suited all political forces. In 1981 it was democratically demonstrated with a referendum promoted by the Pro-Life Movement that 68% of Italians liked the 194, while only 32% of us thought that the right to life of human beings, even if not yet born, counted for something. It was the revelation of an anthropological disaster, regarding which a combative Catholic newspaper of the time, called “Il Sabato”, made a spirited but superficial headline: “Let’s start again from thirty-two”. And Don Giussani, who saw deeper and further than the others, roared: “No! Let’s start again from One”. The question is still exactly the one he grasped the core of so well, only that the anthropological disaster is of an order of magnitude greater. In fact, almost no one remembers that in May 1981 there was also a vote for another referendum to repeal 194, the one promoted by the radicals, who already then, essentially, wanted free abortion, without conditions and without limits. Almost nine out of ten Italians said no (more than 88% of voters). An unequivocal sign that forty years ago there were still very few who looked at the killing of human beings as an asset to be legally protected.

This is exactly the point made by the neoabortionism current, who no longer recognizes himself even in the 194, and accepts it obtorto neck, waiting for better, and only on the condition that it continues to be disapplied in all parts that are inspired by the principle of avoiding abortion as much as possible by putting women in a position not to choose it. Hence the fierce protests that have also recently been raised against the possibility – totally compliant with the spirit and letter of 194! – that within the abortion process the woman is also helped to reconsider her choice, coming into contact with those who can offer her tools and help in this sense. It is clear that freedom of choice is no longer a value in itself, but only if it is directed in the prescribed direction, which in this case is that of the suppression of the fetus. No one cares about socialization, once so dear to the left. Already four years ago the then minister of health, the sinister Speranza, made this clear by praising the abortion pill which allowed women to do everything themselves at home. (You see here) Motherhood is now a negative value and as for conscientious objection, let’s be honest, it now pisses everyone off. We have in fact entered a cultural climate of statist neo-absolutism, which is in some ways the antipodes of that of the sixties/seventies: I remember that then the principle of conscientious objection – which is in itself a legal principle of extraordinary importance, as it radically denies, with its very existence, the absolutist claim of the ethical state – it entered the Italian legal system for the first time, with two exceptions (which, if I’m not mistaken, remained isolated) to the general principle of obligatoriness erga omnes of the law: that relating to abortion and that regarding military service, which at the time was military service. Now there is a completely different atmosphere (even for the pacifists, as has been widely seen in the last two and a half years) and it is a safe bet that, if sooner or later a new law on abortion is reached, the objection of conscience will be one of the first things to go. Moreover, it is such a precious and delicate legal principle that, if it is not adequately promoted on a cultural level and continuously supported politically, it always risks being reduced to an “Indian reserve” or a temporary waiting room in which to confine the dissidents waiting for the “final solution” to remove them.

Such is therefore the abortionism of today, a prelude to that of tomorrow, in which abortion from right (or rather, constitutional right according to the example given by Macron in France) as it is now almost universally perceived, will become on a par with euthanasia , a “social duty”, in the context of a general nihilistic exaltation of man’s death (a denial whose trademark at least we Christians should recognize!).

Post Scriptum. Speaking of Christians: if this is the state of things, I believe that the position of those who, militating in the most fiercely pro-abortion parties, cling to 194 as if it were a lifeline for their own conscience, will be increasingly difficult to sustain, as if example was given the other day, «as a Catholic» (and he was keen to underline it) the newly elected European MP of the PD Marco Tarquinio, arguing on the question of whether or not to refer to abortion in the final communiqué of the G7, in such a way that I thought I was ashamed for him. (I had nothing to do with it, but someone had to do it).

Leonardo Lugaresi

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the person responsible for this blog. The contributions published on this blog, considered worthy of importance, have the sole and exclusive purpose of making people reflect, fueling the debate and deepening reality. If the authors of the articles relaunched here do not like the publication, they just have to let me know. Items will be deleted immediately.