Abortion, the law of exceptions, and the difference between a less bad law and a pro-life law

For years there has been a certain debate, also within the pro-life movement, about the advisability of returning to a law of exceptions.

Without life there can be no individual or freedom: seven liberal arguments against abortion
11 common arguments in favor of abortion and the reasons that prove them false

The difference between a law of exceptions and a law of time limits

To clarify, in Spain (and other countries) there is a time-limit law in which abortion is considered a right, establishing certain time limits within which it is entirely legal to terminate the life of an unborn child, without giving any reason. Between 1985 and 2010, Spain had a law of exceptions , in which abortion was decriminalized in certain exceptions, outside of which it continued to be considered a crime. The grounds for that law were: serious risk to the physical or mental health of the mother, rape, and fetal malformations.

Last year I already explained here what happened with the 1985 law: theoretically, these cases should have been exceptional situations, but the law became a legal loophole because of the mother's mental health case, a case for which no justification was required, which terribly increased the abortion figures. In 2013, I already pointed out here that a law based on specific circumstances is theoretically less harmful than a law based on time limits, since the latter, by classifying abortion as a "right," contributes to its normalization. But I also indicated then that, in practice, the 1985 law based on specific circumstances served to treat abortion as a right, by including such ambiguous grounds as the risk to the mother's psychological health. A risk that was not assessed in any way: it was enough for the mother to cite it to simply get rid of the baby.

A case of strict application of a law of exceptions: Poland

Is it possible to drastically reduce abortion with a law of exceptions? Experience shows that it is. In October 2020, I already explained the case of Poland here. During the occupation of the country in World War II, nazi Germany eliminated all legal protections for unborn babies in Poland. The nazis directly intended to use abortion as another method of extermination against the Polish people. The communist dictatorship maintained this lack of legal protection for unborn babies. Thus, two totalitarian regimes eliminated this legal protection for prenatal life in Poland. During the communist period, the country reached an annual figure of 137,950 registered abortions in 1980, a figure never reached in Spain despite having a larger population.

With the arrival of democracy, in 1993 a Law for the Protection of the Human Fetus was passed in Poland which only permits abortion in certain cases and penalizes doctors who perform illegal abortions, not the mothers. By 2001, Poland had reduced the number of abortions to 124 per year. However, as I explained at the time, there was a resurgence in the number of abortions in the country: in 2019 there were 1,110 abortions in Poland, 96% of them under the eugenic pretext. Following an appeal filed by several members of parliament from the Law and Justice (PiS) party, the Polish Constitutional Court ultimately outlawed eugenic abortion, declaring it incompatible with the Polish Constitution, whose Article 38 guarantees "the legal protection of the life of every human being."

The difference between a less bad law and a pro-life law

The case of Poland demonstrates what can be achieved with political will in the defense of life. Obviously, that country would not have taken the step of abolishing eugenic abortion if the idea existed that laws based on specific circumstances were the right thing to do, and not simply the lesser evil. I believe it is important to distinguish between the two. A pro-life law is a law that protects the lives of unborn babies at all times, because there is nothing that justifies the act of killing an innocent and defenseless human being. A law of exceptions, when strictly applied, may be less harmful than a law based on time limits (it was in the case of Poland, as we have just seen, but in Spain it was a legal loophole due to the introduction of a very ambiguous provision), but it will never be a pro-life law.

To understand the difference, simply ask yourself a few questions: Would a slavery law that tolerated the possession of slaves in exceptional circumstances be acceptable? No democratic country would allow such a thing, because the right to freedom is one of the foundations of democracy. Would a murder law that decriminalized certain homicides committed with premeditation, cruelty, for a price, or to facilitate or conceal another crime be acceptable? Logically, many would say that this would be opening a Pandora's box that would threaten us all. Would a theft law that allowed taking another person's property using violence in certain cases be acceptable? I know some would gladly support it (after all, that's what socialism is), but we would be facing a law of the jungle.

Abortion has gone too far in its injustice simply because its victims have no voice, and the voices of those of us who defend the human rights of unborn babies have been demonized to aberrant extremes, as if it were acceptable to present the act of killing and dismembering the weakest members of our species simply because they are unwanted. In this landscape where evil has gone so far, taking steps towards the protection of prenatal life is always a positive thing, but without forgetting the ultimate goal, which is zero abortion, a goal that is as legitimate as the goal of zero slavery, zero murder, and zero theft. That crimes will continue to occur (and they will) is inevitable, but it should not be promoted by the law, because if we do, we will end up conveying the idea that using violence against others, even the most defenseless, to achieve something is legitimate, and it is not under any circumstances.

Regarding abortion in cases of rape and when the mother's life is at risk

I don't want to end these lines without addressing two arguments that I know some will cite as legitimate. One is the risk to the mother's life. Today, abortions on these grounds are extremely rare, thanks to advances in medicine. In any case, we would be facing a situation in which an adult would prefer to sacrifice the life of a baby rather than risk their own. No one can be asked to perform a heroic act, but I wonder what kind of society we want when we establish by law that the life of a baby is worth less than that of its mother.

Regarding abortion in cases of rape, I already addressed this issue here three years ago. In a rape case that results in pregnancy, there are two victims: the woman who was raped and her child. It is radically unjust and absurd that in a rape case, the only person sentenced to death is one of the victims, and not the rapist. And it is completely absurd that this injustice occurs in countries like Spain, which have abolished the death penalty even for the most heinous criminals.