The funniest title among those of Italian newspapers who commented on Judgment of the United States Supreme Court who denied abortion the dignity of constitutional law is undoubtedly that of Press of Turin, a newspaper formerly owned by the Agnelli family and today by the Gedi, presided over by Gianni Agnelli’s designated heir, John Elkann. The impression he shouted on the cover, like any mimeography of a social center, “America that hates women”.
The title is a lot of fun, because Gallup polls show that a third of American women declare themselves pro-life rather than pro-choice, and because among the “amicus curiae” who have presented favorable opinions to court judges to annul the Roe v. . Wade there are also many women’s associations. One in three American women hates herself, is she a masochist?
Get rid of a professional hurdle
But if you then read the articles of the commentators to whom The impression offered her the forum (male colleagues had no right to speak) we better understand what this hatred would consist of: in short, legal abortion allows women who had become pregnant against their expectations to get rid of an obstacle that would hinder his studies. , careers, professional successes, economic independence, etc.
Therefore, those who want to limit or ban abortion want to deny tertiary level education and social mobility to generally understood women. He sees them as competitors in the race for power and prestige within society, and takes advantage of the misfortune that nature has inflicted on women and is called pregnancy to keep them at stake, prevent abortion or, of course, another way, complicating it. .
Pregnancy as a disability
We have already stressed many times that the abortive conception of pregnancy as a disability is the main path that will lead us to the complete artificialization of procreation, a decisive step on the path to posthumanity. In the name of equal opportunities and equality between men and women, women will first be abolished (thanks to reproductive technologies and the laws promoted by those who “love” women), and then human beings tout court, replaced by technological devices in turn destined to be replaced by obsolescence. Before that, abortion (understood as the vision of abortion as a human right) will lead us to the complete subordination of life to the economy, understood as the unlimited material growth of the individual and the community.
Reading the Wall Street Journal of June 26 it turns out that the impact of abortion on the economic prospects of the individual and society was actually one of the arguments that both for and against the old Roe v. Wade has been brought to the attention of the court. Associations and expert groups on both sides tried to show that their position on legal abortion had positive economic consequences, while negative had negative economic consequences. There are many studies that in the last fifty years have tried to show that thanks to legal abortion women benefited from a better level of school and academic training, no longer married in adolescence, climbed places of increasingly profitable work and society saved on prison costs because fewer children were born destined for crime.
More recent studies have questioned these findings, referring instead to women (who have gone through an abortion) trapped in increasingly shorter relationships, which negatively affected their level of poverty and personal dissatisfaction; and the rising rates of single mothers because men who were not responsible for abortion laws abandoned them when they did not agree to resort to the easy path that the law opens. One such study, signed by 43 women investigators, was presented to the Supreme Court to persuade judges to overturn the Roe v. Wade. Other studies simply conclude that legalizing abortion did not have a significant impact on women’s education and job prospects.
There is nothing sacred anymore
This approach to the issue of legal abortion is mortifying when it is adopted by the pro-life, because it adopts the logic of abortionists, that is, that according to which the right to life of the conceived is subordinated to the material benefits that derive -no or not to individual parents and society. This is called the reification of human life: human life in its various forms, conditions and stages is one thing, and it is up to the individual and society to assess the extent to which this thing is advantageous or disadvantageous to the realization. of its objectives.
Establishing whether what is conceived deserves respect due to the sacredness of life or not, because it is only one thing among others, becomes irrelevant. There is no longer anything sacred, intangible in this world: if it is not convenient for the aspirations of the individual, for economic growth, for increased profits and sustainable consumption, nothing will be respected, nothing will be welcome, nothing or nothing. one can boast of an intrinsic dignity that imposes inviolability.
Towards the total substitutability of man
But a human being has the rights of a human being, and the fetus is a human being because it has a different DNA from that of the mother, some pro-life argue. I wish it was that easy. The dignity of the fetus as a human being is not established on the basis of scientific evidence (and this applies to both pro-life and pro-choice, which speak of a “grouping of cells”). but from an ethic. judgment based on an anthropology. The more anthropology has a materialistic approach, the more one can limit the assertion of human dignity.
If reality is one and the same matter identical to itself and measurable in quantity, the definition of a human being who as such has inviolable rights will be increasingly reduced. Paul Singer can say in good faith that even babies before a certain stage of development or seriously ill are not people and can therefore be legally removed:
“The principle of substitutability allows you to kill the malformed newborn and proceed to another pregnancy.”
We are all potentially obsolete
And what was slavery but a social institution that established that certain human beings were not fully human, so much so that they could be used as things by other human beings?
And what is war but that particular state in which some human beings — the enemies — lose the attributes of inviolability of human beings and can be killed like a game?
And because tomorrow it could not be decided, by a majority, that those convinced of the illegality of abortion, of the nullity of same-sex marriages, of the need not to expose primary school children to indoctrination of sex experts, are they obsolete human beings, who have not kept pace with the evolution of the human species and are therefore less human than others and cannot have the same rights?
The imperative of saving
Once the materialist paradigm is dominated, there are no limits to potential changes in the recognition of humanity — and its rights — to man in its various stages, from the zygote to the elderly. And since current materialism is of an economic nature (it is not that of Feuerbach), the definition of human being will respond to the imperatives of economics, those relating to the endowment of individuals and those relating to the need to save. by the state. .
Human beings are expensive for the public patrimony, and if they cannot consume at will it is useless for the market: it will be necessary to restrict more and more the definition, to make the accounts work.