From John Paul II to Mujica: the right to life in dispute

From the papal denunciation of a “culture of death” to Tabaré Vázquez’s veto and Uruguay’s subsequent legalization of abortion.

FROM JOHN PAUL II TO MUJICA

In the previous article, we began with Discépolo’s lyrics, which harshly criticized the reality of the world in which he happened to live.
“Today it turns out it is all the same / to be honest or a traitor!… / Ignorant, wise, or a thief, / generous or a swindler!”
“Everything is the same, nothing is better,” laments the Argentine lyricist in “Cambalache.”
Thirty years later, Paul VI promulgated the Pastoral Constitution “Gaudium et Spes,” seeking an open dialogue with humanity.
In that document, social ills are understood as consequences of socioeconomic misery, ignorance, war, disparities in technical development…
There is no accusation of political or international actors as direct promoters of those scourges.
“The international institutions, whether worldwide or regional, that already exist are deserving of recognition from humankind. They are the first attempts to lay the international foundations of the entire human community in order to solve the very serious problems of our time, especially to promote progress everywhere and avoid war in any of its forms,” the text says.
Although it does not ignore that “if firm and honest treaties on universal peace are not established in the future […] humanity, already in grave danger despite its admirable science, may perhaps be fatally dragged toward that hour in which there will be no peace other than the dreadful peace of death.”
In any case, the message extends a vote of confidence to the “diligent and uninterrupted” work carried out by the various international organizations.
A confidence that, thirty years later, seems to have faded.
John Paul II points to those responsible.
He speaks directly of a “culture of death.”
He says that this structure is “actively promoted by powerful cultural, economic and political currents.”
These positions are “bearers of a conception of society based on efficiency.”
And who imposes them?
The pope then points directly to “international institutions dedicated to encouraging and planning veritable campaigns to spread” these policies.
Read: UN, OAS, WHO…
What does this imply?
That those who, “because of their illness, their disability or, more simply, their mere presence,” are regarded as useless, become a burden and are seen as enemies from whom others must defend themselves or whom they must eliminate.
The pope reasons that, from that perspective, those most in need of protection, love and care are precisely the ones who are despised.
Thus, he speaks of “a war of the powerful against the weak” and of a “conspiracy against life.”
In that context, he turns to the demographic problem. In wealthy countries the birth rate declines, while in poor countries it increases.
And that declining rate is caused by “contraception, sterilization and abortion.”
Because the powerful believe this situation could represent a threat, they resort to conditioning economic aid on the acceptance of an anti-natalist policy.
In other words: if they do not legalize abortion and euthanasia, and promote other less explicit ways of restraining demographic growth, there are no loans.
What most concerns the Roman Pontiff is that these policies enjoy “the multiple and powerful support they receive from a broad public opinion.”
Paradoxically, while “the inviolable rights of the person are solemnly proclaimed […] the right to life is in practice denied and violated […] at birth and at death.”
Indeed, he sums it up:
“How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when it is permitted to kill the weakest and most innocent?”
He also devotes attention to democracy. He points to the prevailing “ethical relativism,” which allows a parliamentary majority to decree the elimination of the unborn, forgetting “that the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes.”
Because “at the basis of those values there cannot be provisional and changeable ‘majorities,’ but only the recognition of an objective moral law.”
And such laws “as abortion and euthanasia legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings.”
Nor does he forget the role of the media, “frequently accomplices in this conspiracy, creating in public opinion a culture that interprets [these practices] as legitimate aspirations of individual freedom, which must be recognized as true and proper rights.”
As was to be expected, the Encyclical received objections from secular sectors and thinkers.
There is no need to develop them here because these positions, as the document itself states, are constantly presented in the media.
But it is worth recalling that in Uruguay in 2008, President Tabaré Vázquez, a physician, socialist and Freemason, vetoed a bill legalizing abortion “in full on grounds of constitutionality and expediency.”
Because “Legislation cannot ignore the reality of the existence of human life during gestation, as science clearly reveals. Biology has advanced greatly. Revolutionary discoveries, such as in vitro fertilization and DNA with the sequencing of the human genome, make it clear that from the moment of conception there is a new human life, a new being.”
It seems the scientific reasoning was not sufficient.
Apparently, the interpretation is that before the twelfth week, when a woman’s child magically mutates into a human being, it is merely a collection of disposable cells.
The legislators returned to the charge and, six years later, President Mujica enacted the law, as he would later do with the legalization of marijuana.
In a world that seems to have lost its way, from its silent pages the Encyclical continues to proclaim the ideas coined by Tertullian in the year 197:
“He is already a man who will one day be one; every fruit is contained in its seed.”

Culture of death
Democracy and moral law
Abortion and political power

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics