Aspectos Legales En El Aborto

In our country, abortion is regulated in all states by penal codes. They stipulate that women are excluded from criminal liability if they terminate their pregnancy in 10 legally permitted situations or conditions: the new legal regulation is based on a mixed system of deadlines and indications that can allow significant improvements. The system of delay of up to 14 weeks implies the recognition that in the first weeks of pregnancy, the woman`s right to decide carries more weight than the continuity of the embryo. The indication system would allow the termination of pregnancy after the deadlines and before the 22nd week in 2 cases: in the serious danger to the health or life of the pregnant woman and in the detection of abnormalities or serious malformations in the fetus. The reform also indicates that amending the law is just as important as amending the law to prevent the number of unwanted pregnancies and to get to the root of poor health education, the inaccessibility of contraceptive methods and the insufficient participation of doctors and nurses in the public health system. Unfortunately, the proposal to extend the age of women to 16 to fully manage their autonomy, as well as before the rest of the health care measures, has focused too much on the debate on abortion legal reform. Do they always and in any case have objections? To deserve such institutional support, the conduct of the objector as such must be fragmentary, irreproachable, committed, non-opportunistic, in the dignity and purity of the ethical faculties of the objection. Sometimes, when the media talk about conscientious objection to abortion, the duplicity of some doctors who raise objections in their working hours in the public service but do not do so when they are engaged in their private practice is often highlighted. This is an extremely serious accusation that has never materialized in formal complaints to the medical society or the administration of justice. In the unlikely event of such behavior, those who practiced it would be entitled to severe moral censorship and severe disciplinary sanction, since such behavior is not only a painful example of moral duplicity, but also constitutes a prohibited legal offense: redirecting patients to private consultations for self-serving purposes from public consultations of any kind. In the permissive society, conscientious objection is a defender of fundamental rights against the tolerant laws of controlled crime. The doctor who opposes abortion, despite the dictates of intolerance and lack of solidarity that some throw at him, is a full citizen who loyally defends the right to life of the unborn child enshrined in the constitution.

His joyful but explicit testimony prevents the silent and blissful anesthesia of professional and social conscience. Indeed, since the entry into force of the law, there has been an escalation in the annual number of abortions, as shown by the data published by the Ministry of Health and Consumer Affairs in accordance with the decree of 16 June 1986. It is common knowledge that not all abortions performed under Law 9/1985 are reported to the health authority. The magazine Tribuna of the last day 9 pointed out that for fiscal or other reasons, only a third of abortions performed are reported. According to available data, the number of abortions has stabilized in recent years at around 45,000. The enormous asymmetry that exists between the number of abortions performed in hospitals – a logical place to assess and treat cases of therapeutic and eugenic indications – and those performed in private clinics is particularly striking. The first barely reaches a thousand, or less than 3%. In an interpellation in Congress to the Minister of Health to confirm and explain these data, Mr. Griñán said that these figures resulted from data provided to the ministry by regional governments and that the information required by law did not contain any data that could give rise to the massive public preference for private clinics.

From the perspective of integrative civil ethics, no one doubts that abortion should be decriminalized and regulated. However, it should never be considered a method of contraception or a recommended option. In any case, the regulation of abortion does not promote its use, nor does it force a woman to make an unwanted interruption or a decision against her conscience. Experience in Europe shows that where it has been more permissive in terms of deadlines, the total number of deadlines has not increased. Public opinion is divided on conscientious objection to abortion. There is a constant debate between those who believe that after decriminalization, it is unfair for the doctor to deny it to those who ask for it, since they believe that doctors and nurses are mere technicians whose moral values must be subject to a legal dynamic, and those who, on the contrary, claim that in a society of free and responsible persons, no one can be forced to perform an act that seriously violates their moral or professional conscience. China was the opposite. He published it completely in 1970, but due to a deep demographic crisis, the country announced in 2021 the ban on unpacking for medical reasons. [12] [13] We are also witnessing a psychosocial development that tends to surround opponents with antipathy and unpopularity. The opponent no longer always provokes reactions of civil tolerance or ethical admiration. On the contrary, it faces serious legal and professional difficulties, the incomprehension of the leaders and a significant part of the journalists and the public. There is a curious social phenomenon: selective antipathy towards conscientious objection to abortion, which is contrary to the support given to conscientious objectors of military and submissive service, which, if not by saints or civilian heroes, then by idealistic people.

Many authoritative voices have argued about the possible unconstitutionality of voluntary abortion in Spain for socio-economic reasons. In order to heal healthily and to reconcile the new fourth indication with the three previous ones, legitimized by the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court on the 11th. April 1983 in the name of the king, it is said that the woman considers that the intensity of the conflict – personal, social or family – which leads her to request abortion has a gravity of the same magnitude as the serious danger in which her life or health runs. The first of the hypotheses of the 1985 law. Accordingly, it is up to the doctor to assess and certify that there is a serious danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman, a danger which, in his opinion, has no alternative but the sacrifice of the life of the unborn child. It is a terrible statement that a doctor competent in the practice of his art and respectful of life would never dare, so terribly charged that he is of professional and human responsibility. In the future law, the doctor no longer has to judge: the woman asks him to make a decision that she makes and in the justification of which he does not enter. It is the subjectivity of the woman that decides the intolerability of pregnancy, which determines the intensity of the emotional, painful and relational disorder from which she suffers.

The woman presents a certificate attesting that the previous administrative procedures have been completed: the doctor provides only her manual and technical skills. He is not legally entitled to inquire about the reasons for the intervention requested. The countries that emerged from the merger of states where abortion on demand was legal at the time of unification show the year in which it was legalized throughout the national territory (for example, Germany, Vietnam). Countries are counted even if they were not independent at that time and the year refers to the date on which the law or court decision in question entered into force, which may be different from the year in which it was adopted. But while the need for abortion is common, access to legal and safe abortion services is far from guaranteed for those who need them. Unlike legal abortions performed by trained medical providers, unsafe abortions can have fatal consequences. So much so that unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal death worldwide and also result in five million largely preventable disabilities, according to the WHO. Article 25(1) has been and is misunderstood by many. On the one hand, some criticize it because they see it as a cowardly capitulation, like institutional pants down. At the opposite extreme, others dismiss it as an insult to those who perform abortions, as a self-righteous accusation, as a backwardness of morality already expired.

At its core, it is an explanation of ethical consistency given the imposing power of the law.