Hitmen, the Abortion Doctors
In a recent statement, Pope Francis said that abortion is murder, and therefore the doctors who perform it are hitmen. The use of the term "hitmen" sparked great protests, even from the Belgian government. Frankly, I believe the term "hitman" is inappropriate, even from the Pope's perspective: a hitman is someone who knowingly kills for money. An abortion doctor, on the other hand, does not believe they are killing, and in any case, they do not do it for money. In fact, many doctors who declare themselves conscientious objectors are not truly so, because a gynecologist is valued for their ability to deliver babies, not for not delivering them, which is actually a simple task and does not bring any professional prestige.
But beyond the appropriateness of the term, I don't see this as
defamatory. If one considers the conceived fetus as a human being, its
termination is murder: that's all. It’s an opinion one may agree with or not,
but it’s not an insult.
Some argue that the Pope should not interfere with state legislation, but
thinking that a religious leader should not express what they believe to be
right would go against religious freedom, the first and root of all freedoms, as
it is often said. Moreover, expressing one's opinion is quite different from
imposing it on others. The Pope has no coercive means; he cannot force anyone:
his opinion can be accepted or not. There is nothing that would suggest a return
to theocracy.
It should also be noted that, in this case, the Pope is not speaking only to
Catholics, but to everyone: moral principles, even when supported by a religion,
do not concern only the faithful but are addressed to all.
On the other hand, matters of worship pertain only to believers. For example, if
we talk about the Eucharist, it refers only to Catholics; in fact, it would be
blasphemous and disrespectful for a non-believer to want to receive it. However,
advocating for the end of a conflict, for example, as an ethical matter,
concerns everyone, regardless of religious belief.
It would also be wrong to think of opposition to abortion as exclusively
religious: it is not true at all that all non-believers practice abortion
without any qualms. Take, for example, Letter to a Child Never Born by
Oriana Fallaci.
In my experience, I have known two girls who were deeply anti-Church but who still chose not to abort, despite having every reason to do so. One of them did not even want her daughter to be baptized.
Abortion is commonly discussed as a woman’s right, but it is only
a right if the fetus is not considered a human being yet; otherwise, it is
infanticide.
This and ONLY this is the point.
We have no truly objective criteria for defining this issue. In the laws, we
have decided that it becomes a child only after a certain period, three months,
I believe: who knows why. Now it happens that, if a woman considers what is in
her womb a baby, then the strongest instinct of nature kicks in: motherhood. If,
however, she does not consider it a baby, then she can abort. This is why
anti-abortionists have proposed letting the mother hear the heartbeat.
It is not a matter of morality or religion but rather a dramatic problem with no
easy solution: it depends on the perception or conviction that it is a baby or
not; everything else matters little.
I remember my emotion when I first heard the heartbeat of the child my wife was
carrying: I immediately thought that that heart would continue to beat after
mine stopped; it was my earthly immortality.
And I am a man. For a woman, motherhood is something far more emotional, the
strongest force in nature.
A solution often proposed is that a woman could give birth and then give the child up for adoption, but this is very difficult because, once she has given birth, that is her child, and maternal instinct kicks in, making nothing more important than her own child. The woman who aborts, on the other hand, thinks that it is (still) not a child. This is why the proposal is almost never accepted.
Moreover, one must not think that the issue of abortion concerns only women of "easy virtue." Nowadays, premarital sex is the norm, and we cannot consider "loose" all the women who have it. Sometimes, it even concerns married women who do not feel able to have more children. In some way, it can even be considered an act of responsibility NOT to bring children into the world if they cannot be adequately cared for due to being too young or lacking the means.