occasion of the death of the "nobel emeritus" Miguel Delibes, the
daily ABC published in its third an article that the writer felt satsfecho
:
progressive free ABORTION
Twice this article by Miguel Delibes earned the honors of the Third ABC The first in 1986. Of the author he felt particularly pleased. Today, in honor of the great novelist like develop and present the case develops, we return to play.
E n these days when so frequently tell tions are manifestations in favor of abortion on demand, called my attention to a gri to that, as a natural requirement ral, the protesters chanted: "We parimos, we decided we ." In principle, the claim seems incontestable tion and so it would be if it was birthed something inanimate, something tomorrow could not, in turn, challenge that requirement, that is, in part interested da, now speechless, such an important decision. The defense of life sue him everywhere based on ethical, moral generally religious, and what was discussed in principle is whether the fetus is or is not a be the bearer of rights and must res from the moment of conception tion. I think this can lead to arguments Byzantine for and against, but one thing is clear: Miguel Delibes fertilized egg is a living thing, a project be, with a code gene itself that in all probability stability will be at all if we already have reason artificialmen you truncate the process feasibility. It follows that abortion is murder (seems very strong that qualify the abortionist a murderer), but interrupted life is not the same suppress a full-fledged person to prevent an embryo consumes development for the reasons it tions. The importance of this dilemma is that the fetus has no voice yet, but as pro project of person he is, it seems natural to take Gillen his defense, since is the weak dispute.
L American sociologist Priscilla to Conn, a interesting essay, considers abortion mo co a conflict between two values : holiness and li dom, but may not be the starting point gives appropriate to raise the issue. The terms holiness not seem to include a component reli gious in the matter, but from the moment legislation is not only for believers, would look for other arguments other than the notion of sin. With regard to freedom, we must ask at what point should a fetus recognize that right and then solve on behalf of what freedom can be denied a freedom embryo birth. The supporters of abortion without constraints worldwide demand freedom for his body. That is fine and reason is always that their use did not prejudice third. The same freedom that they could be required gir embryo if it had voice, though a more modest level: the freedom to have a body po morning to have him with ma my freedom now and alleged claim their reluctant mothers. Surely the right to a body should be the head the most basic human rights code in also include the right to dispose of him, but of course, subordinate to the other.
And the fact is that abortion has come to in cluirse between the tenets of modern "progressives." In our time is almost inconceivable ble a progressive pro-life. For them, anyone who opposes abortion on is a retrograde position, co mo they say, leaves much people, socially advanced, with the ass in the air.
past, the mo progresis answered a scheme very simple: to support the weak, pacifism and nonviolence. Years later added to this progressive creed the defense of nature. For progressive, labor was weak against the employer, the child against adult, black versus white . had to take sides with them. be challenged to progress were war, nuclear energy, the death penalty, any form of violence.
E n therefore had to opon ERSE the arms race cough, the atomic bomb and the gallows. The progressive ideology was clear and was quite suggestive follow. Life was what first came what was to attempt to improve their quality pa ra the dispossessed and powerless. There was, then, ta area ahead. But there was the problem of abortion chain free, and the ca the polemic on whether or not the fetus was a person, and, before him, hesitated progressivism. The embryo was life, yes, but no person, while the mother was already suspected and to take decisions. not thought that the life of the fetus was most vulnerable to of the worker or the black, perhaps because the embryo did not have a vote and was politically irrelevant. Then he began to give way in a seemed immutable principles: protection of the weak and non-violence. Against the embryo, a helpless and defenseless life, may infringe with impunity. Never mind their weakness if they are disposed of through violence painless, scientific and sterilized. Other fetuses silenced, they could do mani street manifestations, could not protest, they were even weaker than the weakest whose rights protected progressivism, nobody could rrir recovery. And a phenomenon Similarly, some pro gressive they said: This goes against my beliefs. If progress is not to defend the life, the most small and needy, assault so cial, and precisely in the era of contraception you, what I paint here? Because for these pro Congressmen who still defend the defenseless and re chazan any form of violence, this is still adhering to the old principles, nausea also occurs at an atomic explosion, a gas chamber or a sterile operating room.
Miguel Delibes
of the Royal English Academy
