He does not deserve to be treated as a commodity but can be treated as waste?

On December 9, the Supreme Court of Spain issued a ruling that has had repercussions in the United States.

The multimillion business of surrogate pregnancy: is the abortion case repeated?
Five important things you should know to give your opinion on surrogate pregnancy

In its decision, the Supreme Court refused to recognise a US ruling that validates a surrogacy contract (commonly known as surrogate mothers) because it is contrary to public order. On this way of trading in human lives I already published two articles last year, which can be read here and here, so I will not stop now to repeat what I already stated in those texts.

Reading the Supreme Court's statement announcing this decision, I found it interesting to see that it describes surrogacy as "violating the rights of surrogate mothers and of the children themselves, treated as mere merchandise." A commodification of human life that I already criticized here last year.

What I cannot understand is a contradiction that exists in my country. In Spain it is illegal to trade in an unborn baby, because as the court rightly says, that is treating these human lives as mere merchandise, something that is incompatible not only with the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, but also with the dignity of the person, on which Article 10 bases our political order and our social peace.

However, Spanish abortion law does allow unborn babies to be treated as mere waste, as mere things to be discarded by the mere will of their mothers, turning the fact of being an unwanted baby into a death sentence in a country where the Constitution proclaimed the abolition of the death penalty in its Article 15. Furthermore, now the government (with the support of the PP) intends to create blacklists of doctors who refuse to kill such unborn babies, simply because those doctors consider that killing innocent and defenseless human beings is seriously contrary to the ethics of the medical profession, which is aims to save lives, not destroy them.

I don't understand how the same feminists who share the Supreme Court's rejection of bellies for rent (a rejection that I also share, precisely because I believe that a pregnant mother has no right to treat the child she carries in her womb as an article that can be sold) at the same time consider that a mother has the right to kill her unborn child, simply because she does not want to. No matter how much they repeat their ideological mantras, they are still unreasonable. It is wrong to sell an unborn child, but killing it is a "right"? It is a purely aberrant way of thinking.

---

Photo: Malanie Grizzel.