wXre

Non capisco:

"Tutti sanno che con l'aborto si sopprime una vita umana".

Tutto si gioca lì.

Quella frase non è vera per tutti, e proprio perchè non lo è per tutti, per alcuni già dovrebbe accadere che l'aborto sia "docile" ... sia proprio un "IGV" e non più un "aborto".

Ma, allora, mi sfugge il senso del post...

ciao e complimenti

Paolo

Un due tre. A proposito di quanto hai scritto, caro Luigi, leggo una “allegra” curiosità su Ron Hubbard, il fondatore di Scientology. In una conferenza tenuta a Filadelfia nel novembre del 1952, egli sottolineò lo straordinario interesse che il nostro mondo potrebbe avere oggi, dato che sono state «debellate le malattie veneree» e «le gravidanze possono essere interrotte con la forza di volontà». Parlò infatti della capacità di indurre l’aborto in modo «psico-cinetico»: «La penicillina ha eliminato il problema della malattia e ora una ragazza può godersi un paio di raggi di energia... e interrompere una gravidanza. Niente di truculento o forzato o sconvolgente... solo assicurarsi che le tube si aprano. È molto semplice, ci sono muscoli eccetera che si contraggono ed espandono tutti i mesi in un determinato periodo. In questo modo sono state interrotte gravidanze fino a tre mesi ... non è affascinante? ... È semplicemente implacabile. Un due tre!».

Paolo,
ho scritto vita umana proprio per rimanere sull'indeterminato. E' difficile che non sia vera per tutti.
Certo i radicali ci avevano provato, ad esempio, dicendo che l'embrione è solo un grumo di cellule. Ma hanno dovuto presto cambiare argomento perché proprio non reggeva.

L'obiezione principe per difendere l'aborto consiste nel negare che quella vita umana sia portatore di diritti e che questi diritti possano essere prevalenti su quelli della madre. Su questo si discute e si può prendere parte.

Ma che lì ci sia vita umana è innegabile, con tutto ciò che comporta. Anche in termini di sofferenza.
Poi si può tentare di alleviarla, appunto, chiamandola "dolce", interruzione volontaria di gravidanza, etc etc.
Ma proprio la necessità di questo linguaggio evidenzia la presenza di una irriducibilità. Innegabile.

ciao, luigi

einzweidrei. fino a tre mesi. implacabile, non c'è che dire.
Ecco, una dei modi per raccontarla è raccontarla come se fossimo degli angeli.

Sarebbe piaciuto a simone weil e alla sua "interruzione volontaria di gravidanza". Solitamente gli angeli piacciono molto ai copywriter.
ld

Qualche mese fa, su una lista di discussione alla quale partecipo (quella dedicata a Eric Voegelin) si parlava proprio dell'aborto.
Ho mandato questo intervento.

A quarter of century ago, the Italian people was asked to vote in a referendum to abrogate a law permitting abortion. The political campaign for the referendum was directly led by the Catholic Church, and personally decided by the Pope, Paul VI. The political, organizational, cultural and economic power of the Italian Church is and was not small, and it was exercised carefully and lavishly. Since the end of WWII until 1992, the governing party had always been Democrazia Cristiana, whose leaders have always been nominated with a “placet” of Curia Vaticana; and it engaged itself massively in the political campaign.
An abundant majority of Italian people voted yes to abortion; and in my opinion, today that majority would be even larger.
Why?
Well. Let’s see how, first. The routine is always the same. When you have to break an old custom, you show the sufferings, the hypocrisies and the injustices it causes. In the case of abortion, it wasn’t difficult, of course. Rich women go to Switzerland and have a medically assisted abortion, while poor women die in the hands of “mammane” (a woman who illegally practiced abortion without being a doctor or a nurse). Victims of rape. Victims of material and moral misery, of insensitive husbands. Then you say that, when legalized, brought in the light of public attention and prevented by careful politics, abortions (drug use, divorce, you name it) will gradually decrease, maybe disappear.
So, you can vote for it with a clean conscience, an for somebody else’s good sake (altruism makes your mood brighter and your stride faster, on election day).
The day after, at first sight everything is the same as the day before. No thunders from the sky. No woman brandishing blooded knives in your neighbourhood. The smiles, the kisses, the children: identical as before.
Meanwhile, a vast number of creatures are legally, easily, efficiently, rapidly vaporized and sent in the vast oubliettes of Another World, just like many other creatures before (and after) them: extermination camps inmates, citizens of cities atomically or phosphorus bombed, suspect terrorists or political enemies receiving official visits in the dead of the night and disappearing in the deeps of natural or bureaucratic sea, etc.
If you are not a doctor, you do not see them. Sometimes, you hear rumours about them: “Maria, Giovanna, Caterina has had an abortion.” When you speak with a woman, and abortion is casually mentioned, maybe you catch a slightly different inflexion in her voice, or you barely notice that her eyes glide away, upwards and on her left, just like we do when we remember something. When something goes very wrong with your wife of fiancée or girlfriend, maybe you happen to think (with relief or revulsion) that in case she gets pregnant, having an abortion is very simple, easy, and safe.
Not much else happens. Maybe, many years later you say, “Once, people were different”; and you think or are told that you are getting old. That’s all.
Then, a day you might ask yourself: if everything is just almost the same, why did we take the pain to do all that fuss? Long pause. Coughs, noises from an uneasy audience.
Possible replies. Because human beings like to wield the power of life and death, and unfortunately women, too, are human beings. Because our society is founded on the commodity form, and you cannot deny a consumer his or her consumer’s choice. Because a newborn is an overdose of reality, and being weak, we cannot suffer a reality where such things like our death use to dwell. Because we like to think that we are good, and that our sins are simple mistakes: sins need punishment and repentance, mistakes need just correction. Because getting pregnant, a woman is possessed by a double foreign power: the power of the father, and the power of nature. If society forbids her to resist this double possession, she is not a free, autonomous individual: she is subject to alien wills. Because it was doable, as Mr. Wolfowitz famously said when asked why U.S.A. had invaded Iraq.
My reply?
Because it was (and is) easier.
The older I get, the more I believe that the best way to represent such a complex symbol like that of the original sin, is to say that without somebody’s or Somebody’s help, we always take the easier way, which leads you know where.
In Hyeronimus Bosch’s triptych, there is a picture titled (if I remember correctly) “The Garden of Delights”. There, all capital sins are committed in an atmosphere of deep serenity, mirth, quiet, joy. You look at it, and you wonder: “What is he doing? Is there some cabalistic, exoteric, Gnostic meaning in it?”. Then, you look at the picture titled “Hell”. You look better, you confront it with “The Garden of Delights”. In an eye blink, you see. “The Garden of Delights” is “Hell”, “Hell” is “The Garden of Delights”. Where’s the difference? In perception. In “The Garden of Delights”, the spectator, and the represented human beings, do not see and feel the wickedness, the sufferings, the ugliness, the horror. In “Hell”, they both do.

Mi scuso: ho scordato di firmare. L'intervento precedente è di R. Buffagni