Legal validity versus moral legitimacy in the contemporary debate on abortion and medical ethics
– Legal validity versus moral legitimacy
– Medical ethics under legal pressure
– Human rights, autonomy and unborn life
In previous notes, we asked whether in countries where it is prohibited, communism might have come to an end.
In the Czech Republic, the regulation in question was approved by majority. This means that, even if there were no communist legislators at the time due to lack of representation, not everyone supported such drastic measures.
It is well known that the legality of a norm does not ensure its goodness.
Law acquires legitimacy when it is ordered toward justice and the common good, said Aristotle three hundred and fifty years B.C.
This concept would later be developed by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, adding that legislation must conform to Natural Law and, consequently, to Divine Law.
Current regulations increasingly move away from these requirements.
It is common to see legal provisions that clearly contradict their own legitimacy.
Laws that legalize abortion based solely on the will of the woman are a clear example.
Thus, in Uruguay, then President Dr. Tabaré Vázquez vetoed in 2008 a bill passed by the Uruguayan parliament that decriminalized abortion.
The main argument he put forward was that one cannot “ignore the reality of the existence of human life in its gestational stage.”
Full text available at: https://archivo.presidencia.gub.uy/_web/proyectos/2008/11/s511__00001.pdf
To this he added “the duty to protect the weakest.”
“Because,” he said, “the criterion is no longer the value of the subject based on the affection it arouses in others, or its usefulness, but the value that results from its mere existence.”
Who is more innocent, weak and defenseless than a child in its mother’s womb?
In 2012, the arguments put forward by Dr. Vázquez, who as a physician knew very well what he was talking about, still stood.
Science was increasingly clear that it is a human life and not a boil.
And that human life remained as worthy of protection as ever, for being innocent, weak and defenseless.
But President Mujica, who was not a physician, did not hesitate to sign what then became law.
According to the regulation, abortion is exempt from punishment if it occurs before twelve weeks of gestation.
The baby that illustrates this note is six weeks old.
The current left-wing government intends to extend it to fourteen weeks.
Meanwhile, in Uruguay there are more deaths than births.
According to the Ministry of Public Health, between 2021 and 2024 there were 42,746 abortions.
The norm suffers from the same illegitimacy it had years ago, but the State makes its application mandatory and institutions must enforce it.
If a physician raises a conscientious objection, another who does not have one (that is, no conscience) must be assigned.
Many physicians believe that by complying with the law they shatter their Hippocratic code.
Half a millennium before Christ, the ethical code established in the Hippocratic Oath began:
“I swear by Apollo the physician, by Asclepius, Hygieia and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods and all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, this oath.”
And among what he pledged to faithfully fulfill was:
“I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”
The fatal pickaxe of progress made the oath and the concept disappear.
Now the text approved in Geneva prevails.
It is no longer an oath to the gods, but a pledge of honor.
The closest thing to the original text is the commitment:
“I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat…”
However, something seemingly harmless, such as the obligation to:
“Respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient,” introduces a pathway to adapt to the times, to lobbies and to the World Health Organization.
The problem then becomes defining what is meant by “human rights” and “civil liberties.”
Whether there is a right of a woman to abort the child she has conceived.
Or whether the conceived has a right to life.
Here organizations such as Amnesty International appear, arguing that the right to decide on the continuation of a pregnancy derives from “autonomy and bodily rights.”
Others add that it is beneficial because, even if abortion is prohibited, it still occurs, and therefore harm is reduced by authorizing it.
That dangerous argument could end up legalizing pedophilia: even if it is prohibited, it still happens.
Or organ trafficking.
And I do not mention drugs, because they are already liberalized in many countries thanks to similar arguments and compliant politicians.
In 2021, the governor of Texas, when enacting the Heartbeat Act, said, in response to the lament of Planned Parenthood:
“Our Creator endowed us with the right to life, yet millions of children lose it each year due to abortion. In Texas, we work to save those lives.”
If it beats, it lives.
The example is not directly related to the Czech law banning communist propaganda.
But asking whether a law that authorizes abortion is legitimate or not can be a good exercise.
Perhaps we cannot do much to prevent it, but it would be a good opportunity to develop our critical sense.
Because critical thinking is what distinguishes us from sheep.
And if we do not use it, we will resemble them very closely, even if we speak a different language.