Prof. emeritus Dr. Bernard Spitz: “Abortion: between fundamental right and crime against humanity”.

Abortion, the intentional termination of a pregnancy, has long been a subject of passionate debate in society and the legislature. It straddles the fine line between the right to self-determination and the protection of the life of the unborn child. In this contribution, we wish to examine the complexity of abortion, but rather as a principle, at a meta-level, detached from concrete clinical practice. This has the advantage of not prejudicing individual, sometimes heart-rending, cases. From a broader historical and futuristic perspective, we want to situate the abortion issue within the vast field of tension between fundamental right and crime against humanity, with the aim of exploring the broadest possible perspectives that might contribute to a societal depolarization of this issue.

The ethics of abortion

One of the central issues in the abortion debate is its ethical justification. Proponents of abortion often assert that a woman's right to self-determination is paramount, giving her the right to decide about her own body and future. According to this perspective, a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy if she deems it necessary, for whatever reason.

Opponents of abortion, on the other hand, emphasize the intrinsic value of human life, even in its earliest stages. They see the unborn child as an individual with inherent rights, including the right to life. According to this perspective, abortion is tantamount to ending a human life and is therefore unacceptable. They see more humane alternatives to the often psycho-socio-economic reasons behind the demand for abortion.

Abortion as a fundamental right

In many countries, abortion is governed by laws that limit or protect a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. These laws vary considerably, from almost total legalization to complete prohibition, and can be based on various criteria such as the duration of pregnancy, the reasons for the abortion, the woman's health, various forms of state of emergency, and so on.

The right to abortion is often linked to broader concepts of human rights and fundamental rights. Universal human rights, as set out in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, represent basic standards applicable to all, regardless of nationality, origin, gender, religion or any other condition. These rights include elements such as the right to life, the right to health, freedom, equality and dignity. Balancing these rights is a challenge for legislators and courts around the world.

Inspired by fundamental rights, local legislation undoubtedly has a complex but potentially profound influence on ethical perception. When a law, or even more symbolically a constitution, legalizes or criminalizes a behaviour, it can mark that behaviour as socially acceptable or unacceptable. For example, if abortion is legal, this is generally perceived by society as a whole as ethically acceptable, although some individuals may still regard it as immoral.

Laws can also help shape social norms by regulating certain behaviours. If a law prohibits discrimination, this can help to promote a social norm and an ethical sense of equality and respect. Laws can also raise awareness among individuals and society as a whole. For example, laws governing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco can help raise awareness of the health risks of these substances. Informed consent laws in a medical context can foster a mature, considered decision-making process.

In short, laws can contribute to changes in society's perceptions and ethical standards, as well as being a barometer of ethical culture. Ultimately, universal human rights can be used to both support and oppose termination of pregnancy. For example, the explicit aim and basis of assessment of the Dutch Abortion Act (1984) is to “protect unborn human life while providing help to the unwilling pregnant woman”. No one disputes the benefits of taking abortion out of illegality, but even Simone Veil, the mother of France's 1975 abortion law, hoped that abortion would eventually become unnecessary.

Abortion as a crime against humanity

According to international law, crimes against humanity are serious, systematic and large-scale violations of fundamental human values involving population groups or parts of the population, and are considered crimes that affect the whole of humanity in its soul. It was the Holocaust, with its 6 million victims - Jews, but also Roms, disabled people, homosexuals... - that led to this concept. The genocides in Armenia (1915-1923) with 1.5 million victims, in Rwanda (1994) with 800,000 victims, in Cambodia (1975-1979) with 1.5 to 2 million victims, in Bosnia (1992-1995) with 100,000 victims, and the purges under Stalin from 1936 to 1938 with millions of victims, fall under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

In addition to genocide, brutal imperialism and colonialism, with their extermination, displacement and destruction of cultures, slavery and racism, can be considered “World's Wrongs”. It is enlightening, but also upsetting, to note that certain population groups have been denied legal and moral status by those in power. Slaves, indigenous peoples, women, LGBTQ+ individuals... have all been denied legal and moral status.

Comparison with other crimes

The Holocaust is generally recognised as one of the darkest chapters in human history. Even today, the question remains as to how a crime of such magnitude could have occurred, and whether and how it could be repeated in the future. The political and economic conditions after the First World War, as well as carefully orchestrated propaganda against ‘sub-humans’ (Untermenschen), systematic indoctrination and demonisation are cited as explanatory factors. But the institutionalisation of racist ideologies in legislation, the indifference of a large part of the population and ignorance (or the refusal to know) also contributed to the insensitivity of many to the suffering of others.

To prevent recurrences, particularly when Nazi thinking resurfaces, it is deemed important to keep the memory of this human tragedy alive. This includes educational programmes and visits to places such as Dossin Barracks, Auschwitz, Birkenau or the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem.

Comparing abortion to crimes against humanity may seem exaggerated or unjustified. However, with around 70 million victims each year, abortion is now the leading cause of loss of human life. On a global scale, this represents, irrespective of the horror of each abortion procedure, an almost unbearable mountain of suffering. Yet this uncomfortable reality divides societies in their media, thinking, policies and laws. At the root of this is mainly a lack of consensus on the value and rights of human life, the inability to accord any status to life before birth. We do not yet seem to be able to live coherently with a minimum status for the foetus.

It is not out of the question, or even probable, that, like slaves, non-whites and women, societal attitudes to foetal rights will evolve in line with scientific advances, changes in cultural norms and legislative frameworks. But the speed of this evolution is difficult to predict. Today, we can already rejoice in the fact that it would never occur to anyone to enshrine in a constitution a right to slavery, racism or the death penalty.

Lessons from history

The shameful stains of history were made possible by the systematic demonisation and dehumanisation of certain population groups or categories of people. It is important to ensure that similar rhetoric and tactics are not used in the abortion debate. It is our duty to remain critical of the media, politics and legislation for their role in trivialising a horrific and degrading practice, and for their blindness to historical perspective.

A crucial means of preventing ‘future’ crimes against humanity is education and awareness-raising. Ideally, this should be done upstream and outside the actual clinical context, which, in addition to minimal informed consent, requires above all an attitude of humane care. By raising people's awareness in a timely and objective manner of the scale of the problem, its causes and its consequences, we can help them to recognise the injustice and campaign for alternative solutions.

Constantly promoting mutual listening and open dialogue between different visions can combat prejudice and help find constructive solutions to complex ethical issues such as abortion. Confronting history is also important if we are to move towards a sustainable, more inclusive and just society.

From the point of view of a Christian philosophy, the priority remains to defend the most vulnerable groups in society: the voiceless, the forgotten, the invisible, the defenceless, those who are not immediately endearing. This includes not only preventing direct physical harm, but also guaranteeing warm access to fundamental rights, to ‘belonging’.

Conclusion

Abortion is a complex and uncomfortable subject that raises profound ethical, legal, social and historical questions, but which offers our society an exceptional opportunity for creativity and humanisation. It is undoubtedly one of the greatest ethical challenges of the next era, and it will not be solved by ignoring it. When you lose a pregnancy, you lose not only an embryo or foetus, but also amniotic fluid, an umbilical cord and a placenta. We lose not only life in its pure precocity, but also security, connection and trust. And aren't these our most pressing immediate challenges?

Original article published in Dutch on Custodes.

Watch the interview with Bernard Spitz, guest on the Chronique de Bioéthique on RCF