The issue of abortion Julián Marías. ABC . March 19, 2009.
The thorny issue of voluntary abortion can pose a variety of ways. Among those who consider the impropriety or illegality of abortion, the most common approach is the religious.
But usually we can not respond to an entire society to impose a moral "particular." There is another approach that aims to have universal validity, and is the scientist. The biological reasons, especially genetic, is considered demonstrated any conclusive.
But their tests are not accessible to the vast majority of men and women who support them "by faith", is defined by faith in science.
I think a basic approach, accessible to anyone, regardless of scientific or theological, that few possess, such an important issue that affects millions of people and the possibility of life of millions of children will be born or born. This vision must be based on the distinction between "thing" and "person", as shown in the use of language.
distinguishes Everyone, without any possibility of confusion between 'what' and 'who', 'something' and 'someone', 'nothing' and 'no'. If you hear a strange sound great, I alarm you and ask: "What's wrong?" Or what is it? ". But if I hear a knuckle knock on the door, never ask "What is it?" But "who?".
be wondering what this has to do with abortion. What interests me here is to see what it is, what is your reality. The birth of a child is a radical "innovation of reality": the emergence of something "new." It will say that is derived or come from their parents. Yes, their parents, grandparents and all their ancestors, and also oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon, calcium, phosphorus and all other elements involved in the composition of your body.
The body, the psychic, to the character, and hence is not strictly new. We say that "what" the child is derived from all that I listed, is "reducible" to it. It is a "thing" certainly lively and not inert, in many ways "unique", but ultimately one thing. Its destruction is irreparable, like when you break a piece that is unique. But it's not that important. "What" is the child can be reduced to their parents and the world, but "the son" is not "what" is. It is "somebody." Not a 'what' but a 'who', whom they say "you", which in time will tell "me." And it is "irreducible to everyone and everything," from the chemical elements to their parents, and God himself, if we think of him. Saying 'I' faces throughout the universe. It is a "third party" absolutely new and is added to the father and mother.
When we say that the fetus is "part" of the body of a famous mother says it is not part falsehood: it is "housed" in it, implemented it (here and not just in your body). A woman will say: 'I'm pregnant, "never" my body is pregnant. " It is a personal matter by the mother. One woman says: "I have a child aa"; not say "I have a tumor."
The unborn child is still a reality 'viniente ", which will if not stopped, if not killed on the road. And if you say that the fetus is not a who because he has no personal life, I should say the same about the child already born for many months (and man during deep sleep, anesthesia, advanced atherosclerosis, extreme senility coma). Sometimes they use a refined expression of hypocrisy to call the induced abortion: is said to be the "interruption of pregnancy." Supporters of the death penalty have resolved their difficulties. The gallows or the club can be called 'stopping breathing', and a couple of minutes is enough. When abortion is raised or hangs, you kill someone. And it is more hypocritical considering that there are differences depending on where the pass is the child who is, how far of weeks or months after birth will be surprised by death.
often said the legality of abortion when it is judged that probably the unborn (which was to be born) would be physically and psychologically abnormal. But this implies that it is abnormal "not live", as this condition is not likely, but a certainty. And we have to extend the same standard that becomes abnormal by accident, sickness or old age. And if you have that conviction, there be kept with all its consequences, another thing is to act as Hamlet in Shakespeare's drama, which strikes Polonius with his sword when it is hidden behind the curtain. Some people do not dare to hurt the child more than when it is hidden, you'd think-protected in the womb.
It is curious how completely ignores the parent. The decision is attributed exclusively to the mother (most appropriate to speak of the "pregnant female), without which the father has no say over whether to kill or not your child. This, of course, it is said, is ignored. It speaks of the "woman thing" and are now thought in the "child tumor" which can be removed as a troublesome growth. It is destroying the personal nature of the human. Thus one speaks of the right to dispose of her body. But apart from that the child is not part of the body of his mother, but "someone actually implanted in the body of his mother's body," the alleged right does not exist. No one is allowed mutilation, the other, at the last minute the government, preventing it. And if I want to throw out a window, go the police and firefighters and force prevented me.
The core issue is the denial of personal man. So forget fatherhood and motherhood is reduced to sustain an intruder, which can be removed. It rules out any use of the 'who', the pronouns you and me. As soon as they appear, all high-rise building to justify abortion as a monstrosity collapses. Is not this exactly? Do not be an ongoing process of 'depersonalization', ie 'deshominización "of man and woman, both forms irreducible, mutually dependent, which makes human life?
If maternity and parental relationships are abolished, if the relationship between the parents is reduced to a mere biological function without persistence beyond the act of generation, without any personal significance among the three people involved, what is human in all this? And if it is imposed and widespread, if at the end of the twentieth century humanity lives according to these principles, will not be compromised, who knows when, that same human condition? Therefore I think the social acceptance of abortion, without exception, the worst thing that has happened in this century is nearing its end.