No to abortion: when the state starts doing good

Le Regard Libre N° 42 - Diego Taboada

The denial of abortion rights in Argentina revealed a little-discussed malaise that runs through societies: the determination of states to decree and impose what is right, while forgetting to enforce what is just.

The Argentine Senate’s rejection of the bill to legalize abortion last August brought a sudden halt to a campaign that had kept Argentine society on the edge of its seat for many months. The opposition between the «green» scarves—advocating for the right to a «free, safe, and free-of-charge» abortion—and the «sky-blue» scarves—pro-life activists supported by the highly influential Catholic and Evangelical churches— has dominated the political and media agenda in recent months, even as the country was going through—and continues to go through at the time of this writing—a critical economic situation that is a worrying reminder of the crisis and inflation the country experienced at the turn of the century.

The controversial nature of the bill, which was approved in extremis The debate in the Lower House revealed starkly divided positions between supporters and opponents. Driven by a «feminist and social» movement, the bill did not garner unanimous support either among women or within the working classes. In fact, the momentum often came from conservative quarters. Despite the variety of viewpoints, no consensus emerged, with everyone digging in on their positions. The heated debate even spilled over into the non-political sphere when some women took to social media to express outrage that a supporter of legalizing abortion could remain friends with an opponent and respect her opinion: «How can you be friends with someone who would be willing to let you die in a back-alley abortion clinic?».

The point here is not to take sides on the issue of abortion, but rather to examine the role of the state in a matter where positions seem irreconcilable, especially since moral considerations are at stake and neither side is willing to compromise. If there are issues where consensus is impossible, what is the state’s legitimacy in imposing its own view?

Liberal Demands

Although the fight for abortion rights originally emerged from nonpartisan movements, the political parties were quick to capitalize on this popular movement at any cost. At every street demonstration, the parties—mostly on the left—were out in force, even though, paradoxically, it was a right-wing government that opened the debate. The most striking example of political co-optation for an outside observer was undoubtedly that of former President and now Senator Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a Peronist who has always been fiercely opposed to abortion. But with elections a year away and corruption scandals on the horizon, this «change of heart» came as no surprise. 

However, it is indeed liberal demands that are being voiced by the majority of women in favor of abortion. The central argument? The freedom to make decisions about one’s own body without the state or anyone else having a say. In a sense, politics—the «affairs of the city»—should not interfere with an issue that is purely private, nor should it attempt to impose a «public» morality on the matter. And it is precisely this reflex—which has always been criticized by liberals—that is now being adopted by feminist movements: how can we justify the state making decisions about matters of the private sphere in the name of some moral code? In the case of abortion, religious morality will be invoked, but in other cases, it will be social justice or «the common good,» opening the door to all sorts of abuses. 

Ensuring justice rather than the greater good 

The debate on abortion in Argentina shows that there are issues on which positions are irreconcilable, particularly when it comes to ethical questions. Indeed, when we believe that God is on our side, or when we act based on our own conception of the «common good,» it seems more difficult to reconcile conflicting positions. If the state intervenes and takes sides with one of the two camps by using its power of coercion (in this case, by preventing—even democratically—women from accessing abortion for religious reasons), it will automatically discriminate against one of the two parties, even though it has no legitimacy to do so, and in no way guarantees fair treatment for all.

That is why, given the impossibility of adhering to a single moral code in a society—which is, by definition, governed by pluralistic and diverse conceptions—the state must simply ensure that justice is upheld, without yielding to the temptation to impose its own definition of the good. Everyone may have a different conception of the good, but a certain idea of justice in which everyone has a place can reasonably be found. This liberal conception of the state is the only way to address issues involving different moral codes within the same society without discrimination.

And yet, on this issue, much of the debate has centered on what is right—deciding on the appropriateness of an abortion—when the real question should have focused on what is just. And in this case, justice does not consist of imposing the majority’s view on a minority, but of guaranteeing every individual the freedom to make decisions about their own body, regardless of personal considerations. The denial of the right to abortion thus highlights the problems that can arise from overly intrusive state interference in the affairs of society, as society is forced to accept a single viewpoint that, although held by the majority, is far from just.

Write to the author: [email protected]