El Observador – On different occasions I have written on this rugged topic, even a long time ago in this same media. I consider that the so-called abortion is the most repulsive matter of the present moment. It is said that animals must be protected, which is laudable, but homicide in the maternal womb of defenseless human beings is proposed.
Sometimes it has been maintained that this should not be considered in this way since “the mother has the ownership of her body” which is absolutely true but does not own the body of another and as humans do not appear in trees and are conceived and develop in the mother’s womb, as long as there is no possibility of transfers to artificial wombs or another procedure, since the human being in act is gestated from the moment of fertilization of the ovum and, therefore, it is inexorable to respect it. It is a potential of many things just like every human being, regardless of its age, but from that moment it has the complete genetic load different from it’s mother and father.
In this sense, it is pertinent to reproduce the official statement in the Argentine media of the National Academy of Medicine resolved by its Plenary on September 30, 2010 where it concludes “That the unborn child, scientifically and biologically, is a human being whose existence begins at the moment of his conception […] That destroying a human embryo means preventing the birth of a human being. That medical thought based on Hippocratic ethics has defended human life as an inalienable condition since conception. ”
As it is said, a human embryo contains all the genetic information: DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid. At the time of the fusion of the male and female gametes – which respectively contribute 23 chromosomes each – a new cell is formed consisting of 46 chromosomes that contains all the characteristics of the human being.
Only based on an inadmissible act of faith in the most rudimentary magic can it be argued that ten minutes after birth we are facing a human being but not ten minutes before. As if before the birth it was a vegetable or a mineral that suddenly changes in nature. Those who maintain that in the mother’s womb it would not be a human in the same way that a seed is not a tree, confuse crucial aspects. The seed belongs in act to the vegetal species and is in potential of being tree, in the same way that the fetus belongs in act to the human species in potential to be adult. We are all in potential of other psychic and physical characteristics, from which it does not follow that due to the fact that time passes we mutate nature, gender or species.
From Mendel to date, genetics has come a long way, Jerome Lejeune, the famous professor of genetics at La Sorbonne, writes that “Accepting the fact that the life of a new human being begins with fertilization is no longer a matter of course. The human condition of a new being from its conception until the end of its days is not a metaphysical statement, it is a simple experimental evidence. ”
Julian Marías has well said that this brutal outrage is more serious than that committed by the gunmen of the Nazi regime, who with their murderous mind held that the Jews were enemies of humanity. In the case of abortionists, they do not claim that those innocent and defenseless beings are someone’s enemies. Marías calls abortion “Polonio syndrome” to underline the cowardly act of liquidating who – just like in Hamlet – is in manifest inferiority of conditions to defend himself from his aggressor.
The embryo-morula-fetus-baby-adolescent-adult-elderly sequence does not change the nature of the human being. Implantation in the uterine wall (nesting) does not imply a change in the species, which, as Ángel S. Ruiz points out in his work on genetics “does not add anything to the programming of that person” and says that sustaining that it is only there that it begins human life constitutes “an arbitrariness incompatible with the knowledge of neurobiology”. Extracorporeal fertilization and extrauterine pregnancy underline this assertion.
It has been said that the fetus is “unfeasible” and dependent on the mother, which is also true, as are the disabled, the elderly and newborn babies, which does not follow that they can be exterminated with impunity The same can be said of alleged malformations: justifying the killing of fetuses would justify the liquidation of deaf, dumb and invalid people. It has been said that rape justifies the misnamed abortion, but a monstrous act such as rape does not justify another monstrous act such as murder. It has been said, finally, that the legalization of abortion would prevent clandestine and unhygienic hospitalizations that often end the mother’s life, as if legal and prophylactic homicides modified the nature of the act.
Needless to say, we are not referring to natural or accidental interruptions but to a voluntary, deliberate and provoked extermination. Nor is it a question of homicide at all if the obstetrician concludes – nothing frequent in modern medicine – that the case requires a surgical intervention of such magnitude that one must choose between the life of the mother or that of the child.
Pecuniary reasons for abortion are usually claimed, the child can always be adopted for adoption but not killed for crematistic reasons, because as noted with macabre sarcasm, in his case “for that it is better to kill the older son as he swallows more food” .
The fight against this large-scale parricide is much more important than the fight against slavery, because at least in this frightful case there is always the hope of a successful Spartacus, while in homicide there is no possibility of reversing the situation.
By Alberto Benegas Lynch