Human life: the inviolable right or subject to agreements and negotiations?? Established ABORTION and artificial insemination - Legal
After having dwelt during the first three meetings, on the bioethical and social aspects of human life and its inviolable value, it is desired to stop dealing with the legal aspects of certain techniques, allowed by Italian law, threatening human life itself, from conception until its natural end.
Advocate Manuela Linares, invited by the Steering MPV Marsala to discuss the issue, illustrated to present as many over 45 years has passed since the sanction of voluntary birth control services for the startup information on contraceptive methods and their use in the context of free choice by the couple.
The rapporteur, taking into consideration the various laws that have taken place since 1930 and focusing mainly on the Law 194/78 on interruption of pregnancy and the law 40/2004 on medically assisted procreation, showed that on a cultural theme voluntary control of procreation has been placed increasingly at the intersection of moral and criminal penalties and free choice of the first women and then couples. In
concerning policies for the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, the lawyer. Linares has stated that abortion (retranslated in the legislation as "abortion") is an issue that has great moral resonance that reverberates most strongly on the psychology of people.
During his talk, plus the Linares has exposed the different cultural orientations associated with the practice of abortion - from any moral condemnation of abortion liberalization absolute - and also clarified the various cases of abortion allowed by Italian law (abortion before 90 days after conception, after 90 days of conception, in the case of minors, in the case of off-limits).
As regards the artificial insemination Advocate Linares, in addition to presenting the techniques and the various arguments for and against the Law 40/2004, has presented the various parliamentary battles that have occurred over the past 40 years and which finally led to the introduction of the new law. Act immediately attacked by radicals through a collection of signatures demanding a referendum five abrogate, totally or partially, of Law 40, led the invitation of 4 referendum, the result was nullified by the lack of a quorum.
However, a ruling made in April of 2010 in order to make effective the law itself, since the previous limit of three embryos could be implanted in the womb has been increased to 10, losing 40 of the law's original intention of the legislator who wanted to defend this limit through unused embryos from destruction or freezing.
What conclusions draw from this interesting meeting? seems very absurd and creates much discomfort and anxiety in a context where there is an obstinate desire for motherhood in a world where millions of children die of hunger or are killed before they see the light.
Highlighting the need to value life and requires the impartiality with which this requirement must be indulged is not only a theoretical approach. The field of law must take charge.
happens, however, more and more that bring together the value of life, which should be protected by law with the pluralism of society and the solutions of conflicts on human life by means of compromise and consensus always questions of the law the absolute value of the right to life and relativized. In this way, the human right that is inviolable, inalienable depends on the requirements of the majority who can argue with the laws he does. Human life becomes the subject of agreements and negotiations. You get to discuss about who should have the right to life and who's not, it is recognized the debate in parliament or even in society by means of a referendum on the denial of that right. Then in a pluralistic society the law becomes "the instrument of the will of the legislature, assuming the value of compromise which satisfies no one, however, is not accepted because it allows to avoid social conflicts" [1]. The civilization of a pluralist society has brought with it the laws made by consensus of the majority, in order to legalize the killing of man and to protect the one who kills. This is the tragic direction in which the law is about the right to life. Thus, the legislature assumes power you have the right to life and its protection. Human life, in the cases he has chosen, ceases to be good in the community of the State, the value worthy of respect and protection. When the legislature denied the right to life in relation to some human beings and the other for confirmation, then breaks the law is inviolable and inherent to the person. Conflicts with human rights that can not be the subject of agreements, consensus, voting and referendum [2]. The state dominated by the vision of law ceases to be a democratic state of law based on human rights. Become a State tyrant who claims to have the life of the weakest and most defenseless, the children's lives unborn and the elderly [3] and democracy becomes "clear or hidden totalitarianism" [4]. Then the pluralistic and democratic state "can take on certain characteristics of the totalitarian state, where the citizens do not morality, that the universal nature always and everywhere to ensure respect for human life, dignity and needs that in public life means life "[5].
[1] ŚLĘCZKA, Spor ... wokół, 102 [2] The referendum on laws about the right to life which contained legal abortion or expand the availability of abortion was made: in Switzerland, in Italy where the Constitutional Court has recognized this as a constitutional referendum, but if you wanted to introduce abortion on desire as opposed to established ones, in Portugal, where the Constitutional Court said that the referendum is consistent with the constitution but the people rejected a proposal to add new grounds for abortion. The referendum on abortion, then the right to life was also made in Ireland. In the Constitution of Slovakia and the Czech Republic is forbidden to hold a referendum on human rights. In Poland, the parliament a few times already rejected the proposal to hold a referendum on abortion instead approved le consultazioni sociali. Da esse risulta che su dei partecipanti 1710976, 1527460 erano contro l'aborto cf Grzeskowiak A., Criminal Law Protection of the Unborn in the work of the Sejm and the Senate, Ottoniamun, Szczecin 1994, 133 [3] GIOVANNI PAOLO II Evangelium Vitae, 20 [4] GIOVANNI PAOLO II, Centesimus Annus, 46 [5] BERREAU H., La loi morale-Fondamenta du droit, Ethique 1996, 22
for democratic participation in the life of the country, returns to the OTRA VOUECE. 
