Before the social debate that has opened around preliminary draft reform of the Abortion Law, Babies and more wants to join and offer opinions from different experts on this issue. Today we interview the biologist Irene García Perulero, disseminator on sexual and reproductive health issues and on issues of violence against women.
Do you think there has been enough social debate prior to the changes introduced in the Abortion Law that will take effect?
The social debate about the voluntary termination of pregnancy happened in our country in 1985, when the first law was passed. At this time not only there has not been a previous social debate since it was not an issue that society demanded, but that the scarce social debate has been in my opinion quite tricky and demagogic, as on the other hand it usually happens when it comes to a Subject as complicated as this.
Does a philosophical debate make sense as to when a person should be considered a person?
From a biological point of view or at least from my particular biologist point of view, life begins at conception. When the sperm fertilizes the ovule, there is already a different individual from their parents, again, with their unique genetic load and all their unique potential. Of course, the closer we are to the moment of conception, life is more fragile, but it already exists. The real debate would therefore be more legal than philosophical. Finding a turning point where you go from having a life without the right to protection or with less rights than those of the human being who allows it, which is the mother, to have a full-fledged human being is, for me, quite complicated.
The problem with abortion is that one of the most difficult conflicts of interest occurs almost without a doubt.
A pregnancy is a continuous and quite complex physiological process, an unborn baby exists because the mother gives her body When does the mother have the same or even less rights than the child?
Good question and I will answer with more questions. Just at the time of fertilization? When the zygote nests in the endometrium? When is there a heartbeat? When the nervous system is formed and characteristics such as pain, emotions or memories appear in a continuous and quite unknown process? When the baby is already viable outside the mother's womb? When the new human being is aware of himself?
What happens in the least restrictive countries?
Countries with less restrictive laws consider viability outside the womb as the key turning point and may be a good option, since at that time the rights of one and the other can be protected separately.
The moral debate is, in this case, an individual matter and quite difficult to judge, at least for me.
I, for example, would have enough moral conflict if I saw myself in the need to decide. I think that the emotional factor is not valued. One of the most important moments that are never taken into account when discussing these things is the moment in which the woman confirms that she will be a mother, for me that moment, which is when the personal conflict appears, is when life begins.
What is the percentage of natural abortions in humans?
As I said before, the closer to the moment of conception, the more fragile life is. It is estimated that between 30 and 50% of fertilized eggs are lost in the form of something known as micro-abortions. Scientists say that most of the women have suffered some, but since the fertilized egg is expelled during the next menstruation we are not even aware. As for the rest of spontaneous abortions, between 10 and 20% of pregnancies occur, 80% of them before week 12.
Are there biological or provoked mechanisms in which females of other species abort if it is not the right time to give birth to children?
There are biological mechanisms by which the females of the human species "abort" or directly do not conceive if it is not the right time to have children. Stress is a key factor in the number of cases of premature births or of low-weight children that increases every year in Western countries. Fortunately and I say it from my own experience, in countries like ours we are already accustomed to the high survival rates of these children, but we must not forget that a 27-week-old or one-kilogram baby survives today mainly thanks to advances scientists, not because I can survive alone. Stress is also one of the causes of increased idiopathic secondary infertility (without clear physiological causes). Anorexic or under stress women may not ovulate and without ovulation there is no pregnancy. And probably also the cause of many of the miscarriages. Animals in captivity, under stress, do not reproduce normally. And in nature many cases of infanticides are known, not only by females, but also and in a very common way carried out by males. This occurs in lions, for example, and also among some primates. If wild animals do something to abort like eating certain grass, it is a very interesting topic, but the truth is that I don't know. I don't know if it's necessary.
That a woman is forced to give birth to a child who will die within a few hours or suffer for life from malformations, or a child that is not desired, by laws made mostly by men, is it gender-based violence?
It is indifferent who has written it, although they have been 15 men is a rather curious fact. Any law that considers women as an individual who either needs guardianship, or is apparently perverse and needs containment as it seems to be deduced from all the debate generated by this law seems to me tremendously misogynist and not only is gender violence, it is violence against humanity. Violence against mothers is the mother of all violence. In the case of babies with malformations, it seems to me that the mothers and also the parents will be subjected to unnecessary extra torture.
Will this law prevent unwanted pregnancies?
Of course not and that is the heart of the matter. There is nothing in the law that allows deducing even a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. The reduction of unwanted pregnancies is also a cross-cutting issue, which affects many aspects of life in general.
Will this law decrease abortions?
The World Health Organization has already warned on numerous occasions that the most restrictive pregnancy termination laws not only do not decrease the number of abortions, but also increase maternal mortality. In the case of Spain, which already had a fairly advanced law, we must see what happens for practical purposes. Perhaps with luck the process is only a little more painful and therefore more violent. But we must take into account things like that if abortions are derived from social security to private clinics and the deadline for abortion is lengthened, it is possible that pharmacological abortions that are less invasive, have less risk and are cheaper than surgical abortions, which is another fact to consider.
Does this law not recognize that the nasciturus has the right to be born whatever the circumstances?
No. The law allows abortion in case of rape, for example.
Tomorrow we will publish the second part of this interview with the biologist Irene García Perulero, disseminator on sexual and reproductive health issues and on issues related to violence against women. We will continue analyzing the Law of abortion and its reform.
