Infertility has no cure but inhumanity does.

3) And entrench yourself in the presidency of the Government.

The only thing certain here is that there will be no reform or setback on the issue of abortion. The Constitution will not be modified, the legislation on abortion will remain as it is, and the controversy will last in the media until a new PSOE scandal appears.

Or until the PSOE verifies in the polls that the Spanish do not buy the idea that Alberto Núñez Feijóo plans to lock women in the kitchen and prohibit them from having abortions and even voting, working, opening bank accounts and buying property.

But something will remain in the subconscious of the Spanish.

And that is Moncloa’s calculation and the reason for its sudden interest in “shielding” an abortion that has been shielded in Spain for a long time.

That said.

That the constitutional abortion reform proposed by the PSOE is a hoax does not mean that the reactions to the controversy have not been real.

And those from a part of the left have had the virtue of revealing the existence of a moral chasm in Spain that deserves, at the very least, a documentary of the National Geographic for him alone.

When Isabel Diaz Ayuso It upset Pedro Sánchez that he tried to give her lessons about abortion when she has suffered two, one such Iñaki Errazkincollaborator of do it, Russia Today y The Nuthe answered:

“I just heard Isabel Díaz Ayuso say that she ‘lost two babies’, anthropomorphizing fetuses for political purposes and attributing to them the status of full persons, which is not true in biological or legal terms in Spain, where the law distinguishes between a fetus and a person born alive (Organic Law 2/2010 and Penal Code).”

Errazkin is lucky that the law of his time considers him a human being. Because in his positivist conception of reality, Anyone would have the right to do whatever they wanted with it if that weren’t the case..

As any law student knows, the Holocaust was perfectly legal from that positivist perspective of reality. And, in fact, that was the pretext used by the Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg trials to justify the genocide: “The law forced me to exterminate the Jews, and no one can punish me for obeying the law.”

The question, in light of Errazkin’s tweet, comes up alone. What differentiates Errazkin from a sofa, an ashtray or a ball of dust?

In Errazkin’s head, only the law.

– Iñaki, are you human?

– Wait, I’ll look at it in the BOE.

We will have to recognize, of course, that making a woman who has lost two babies ugly by the fact that she considers them human “when according to the law they are fetuses” scores very high in that record of cruelty that a part of the Spanish left insists on monopolizing on a daily basis.

Then, Zaida Canterasocialist, said:

“No. Isabel Díaz Ayuso has not suffered the drama of abortion twice. She has not suffered voluntary decision-making, she has not suffered the torture of waiting or private clinics. What she has suffered are two natural spontaneous abortions like many women suffer. So no.”

Here Cantera denies Ayuso, not only the humanity of her babies, but even who has had an abortion.

Abortion, it is seen, is something that has no connection with that that Ayuso has suffered.

Because abortion, what is called abortion, is only that of those who abort voluntarily. Women who suffer a spontaneous abortion are, apparently, capricious ones who arrogate to themselves the name of “abortion” when theirs has been, bah, a “natural” thing of those that “many women suffer from.”

“It’s just that Americans distinguish between abortion y miscarriage“, some say, as if that contained a profound truth. Well, just like us, who distinguish between induced abortion y miscarriage!

But pay attention to the double twist of the reasoning.

Because for Zaida Cantera, those who suffer are only the women who voluntarily abort. That is, those who decide to abort because they do not want a child.

Not those who lose it, loving it.

In the mind of Zaida Cantera, the abortion of women who do not want their children It is morally superior to the love of those who do desire it and have the misfortune of losing it..

How dare Ayuso claim the status of “victim” when the true “victims” are those who voluntarily abort!

What is the pain of the mother who loses a desired child in the face of the “waiting” of abortionists? Hey?

And in a private clinic, hell!

Although later there are legions of socialists who come, with insistent and surprising regularity, to the Ruber. So regularly, in fact, that they already call it “the Ruberlingrad.”

Then they demonstrate, fists raised, “for public health.” Clear. For them, the luxury of privacy. For the populace, public health.

But the prize for inhumanity has gone to the representative of Más Madrid Martha Carmonawho has told Ayuso that “infertility is not cured by forcing other women to be mothers.”

And that while he accused the president of the Community of Madrid of being “cruel” and the PP of being “misogynistic.”

How much feminist sensitivity. How much sorority. How much pity for a mother who has lost two children. Marta Carmona only needed to celebrate: “To have a mother like you, it’s better this way.”

This is relevant because I have always defended the current deadline law.

But the more I hear abortionists deny the humanity of the fetus or sell abortion, not as an option of last resort, which the rest of us also finance, but as a morally superior “right” to love for those who decide to have a child, I rethink many things.

When a political idea (because abortion is a political idea) is systematically defended with arguments that are not immoral, but amoral, you begin to suspect that the correlation between amorality and ideology is direct, not casual or anecdotal.

And you just need to read Louise Perry o Mary Harringtonwhom no one can accuse of being anti-feminist, to understand, with forceful arguments in both cases, how the legalization of abortion did not sexually liberate women, but rather men and a small number of very specific women: those of the professionally successful urban upper-middle class.

“No one will take away the happiness of having had five abortions” someone recently said on the internet.

But I suspect, in line with Louise Perry and Mary Harrington, that the truly happy ones were the five parents.

It is worth taking a look at the American comedian’s monologue Louis C.K. about abortion.

In this monologue, Louis CK says he has come to the conclusion that, beyond the ideological, religious and moral rhetoric on the matter, there are only two options regarding abortion.

Or the fetus is life and in that case, says Louis CK, “abortion is murder.”

Or the fetus is not life and in that case “abortion is not the least important” and is equivalent to pulling a tooth.

And then, Louis CK says “and I believe that the fetus is life, so abortion is murder.”

Some nervous laughter is then heard among the audience.

And next line, Louis CK adds “although I also believe that women have the right to murder their children.”

And then the entire auditorium bursts into thunderous applause.

I begin to think, reading the Errazkin, the Cantera and the Carmona of life, that until now I have been one of those who applauded.

And I am deeply ashamed of it. Which I suppose is the first step towards moral clarity.

There is more humanity in the least desired fetus than in those who defend abortion with arguments such as those of Errazkin, Cantera and Carmona.