Without a legal definition of abortion, we will soon be talking about “postpartum abortion”

Brazil allows abortion in case of rape, as well as in case of risk to the mother’s life. It is reasonable to understand abortion as the termination of pregnancy at a stage when the embryo or fetus is not yet able to live outside the uterus. Termination of pregnancy is not the same thing as abortion. The termination of pregnancy is even proposed by the pro-life doctor Jacyr Leal as an option to abortion for women at risk of life: that is, even if the law allows these women to have an abortion, they must have the option of letting the embryo develop and carry the pregnancy for as long as possible, until it is terminated. Then the premature fetus is taken alive and placed in a neonatal ICU.

This should be a common-sense distinction: spontaneous abortion does not need delivery; fetal death needs delivery. Miscarriage does not generate a stillbirth. I think Congress should give a legal definition of abortion, because if it doesn’t, we’ll soon be talking about postpartum abortion. Peter Singer, the philosopher of vegetarianism, has been championing the idea for at least 26 years. Pro-lifers who are against all forms of abortion should think about this and temporarily ally themselves with the CFM, throwing the defense of “late abortion in the lap of the butchers”.

In the case of the seven-year-old pregnant girl months, the discussion was not whether she should be spared a pregnancy. It was not whether, after penetration, a fertile 11-year-old girl should not be given a morning-after pill, nor whether, soon after discovering that her infant daughter had been raped (the that should happen early), a mother should not take her daughter to a hospital for an abortion. The fetus was going to be born anyway, whether by cesarean section or vaginal delivery. The discussion is whether the child should be stillborn or not. To be stillborn, the state would have to kill her before she was born. The Intercept, O Globo and a handful of “legal operators” who do what they want even though they are public servants decided to that the State should kill the fetus, so that it would be a stillborn. A jurisprudence is generated and, if there are any doubts, someone calls the Supreme Court.

Brazil is a democracy only in name. Judicial activists are in charge here, and what we call the press is actually their propaganda tool.

Story not told

The story of the pregnant girl was very poorly told. Indeed, at that age sexual intercourse is rape in the eyes of the law; and the law allows abortion in the case of rape. The girl’s mother took her to the hospital with more than five months of pregnancy wanting to have an abortion. Given the advanced stage of the pregnancy, the hospital denied it, even supported by WHO guidelines. Then the child’s mother called the Public Ministry to resolve the problem.

When the mother of a little girl shows up at the hospital wanting an abortion for her five-month pregnant daughter, it is inevitable to conclude that there is something wrong with the mother. It is impossible for her to have realized only at five months that a girl of 10 or 11 years was pregnant, and it is very likely that she was conniving in the abuse. The judge then took the girl out of the house and put her in a shelter. The process ran in court secrecy and went public with the Intercept, which released a selection of videos of the judge’s hearing with the girl and her mother. How did the Intercept get this material? According to journalist Sílvio Grimaldo, from Brasil Sem Medo, the mother’s lawyer is a columnist for Catarinas, a feminist portal from Santa Catarina that also released data on the confidential process. It is no bold assumption that the activist lawyer passed the data to the Intercept.

It is also assumed that the case was pro bono

, or paid by an NGO, as the girl’s mother is poor. Another important fact is that the baby’s father would be the child of the girl’s stepfather, and that sex between them was regular as consensual as possible. In other words: apparently, the parents let everything go and, only when the girl became pregnant in a way that she could not hide her belly, the mother decided to take action. But then she found out that she couldn’t have an abortion anymore. Somehow, the vultures of activism found out about the case and finally a free lawyer for the girl’s mother appeared.

The media pinpoints the type of crime they want to cover nationally. Datena always showed domestic violence, but Jornal Nacional only started to show domestic violence when there was judicial activism in favor of the concept of “femicide”. Children and more children are abused throughout Brazil; some get pregnant. But, it seems, there were now “lawyers” dedicated to finding a particular case, a lawyer ready to defend in court and a press ready to propagandize intrauterine infanticide. It is worth remembering that this occurs shortly after Colombia, at the stroke of a pen, released infanticide up to six months of gestation. And it is good to note that the conception of abortion as a human right, used by activists, follows the same model that has appeared in Spain now.

As for the girl and her mother, it is likely that they will have to change their city ​​or even state. Because the fame must have spread throughout the city, and the immediate consequences can be more serious than having a discreet delivery in another city and giving it up for adoption.

“The woman” always is a victim

From the coverage of the ex-press, it seems that rape is a perfectly normal thing, a natural consequence of the Patriarchy. She doesn’t wonder about the rapist’s punishment, or how the hell her mother waited five months of pregnancy to take action. The entire tone of denunciation, in the case, was directed against the judge and the prosecutor – portrayed as agents of the Patriarchate, and not as women. The victims of the Patriarchy were the mother and the girl. The executioner, the Patriarchy – not the eventual rapist.

On the morning of 23 in June, the Brasil Sem Medo confirmed the rumors that circulated on the internet: the baby’s father was the son of the girl’s stepfather, a boy of 13 years old who lived in the same house. Only at the end of the afternoon, after the infanticide had been carried out, O Globo reported that it had heard “from sources linked to criminal investigations, which are carried out in secrecy, that the girl admitted in a statement police have had sex with a 13 year old boy. A source says that in addition to the victim, the other minor confirmed that it would have been a ‘consensual relationship’.” With this context, it is understandable why the judge spoke of the child’s father at the hearing. Two things stand out there: first, it took place after the infanticide; then, the omission that the “consensual relationship” took place at home. In other words, it took place under the eyes of the mother, who had nothing as a victim.

It is understood that the story had a happy ending. Happier, only if the hospital had “aborted” a 5 month old fetus. Nobody wonders how a year old girl had a boyfriend with whom she did more things than our grandmothers did with their fiancés. She must have started the erotic life without having any instinct for it. Possibly the same happened with the boy – let’s remember that the body of boys usually matures later than that of girls. My guess is that someone exposed these two to pornography. The police must investigate whether this person was not at least one of the adults in the household. And public opinion, if it still existed, should clamor for the accountability of these two.

Abortionist Utopia

What kind of world do progressives want? All their efforts are aimed at giving “sex education” to children who shouldn’t be interested in the subject. The internet is there, it’s true, but so are well-meaning parents. There are many parents who think their children are safe because they are indoors, but let them run wild on the internet. This is a danger, and a public enlightenment campaign in this regard would be welcome.

The internet must, indeed, be under the control of national states: just as crimes committed in physical territory are the object of police, digital crimes should also go through the same process. Instead, we see judicial activists calling for private agents – the Big Techs – to act as sovereigns and punish crimes that do not exist in the Brazilian legal system. We have seen a massive curtailment of the internet. But this restriction turns exclusively to political activity and to criticism of medical-sanitary postures linked to Covid. It is legal to defend chloroquine and call for anti-democratic demonstrations; therefore, private entities are asked to exercise censorship. On the other hand, the CV and PCC can freely disclose their funks on YouTube and their promotions on Twitter. On other platforms, girls learn that it is perfectly normal to sell nude photos, although possession of nude photos of minors is a crime.

In short: the internet needs legal limits that already exist; even so, any attempt to limit it is limited to the illegal limitation of freedom of expression. Defending the closing of the Supreme Court cannot; apology for the CCP, you can. Claiming that Covid came out of the laboratory cannot; apology for child pornography, you can.

What solution do you offer us for drugs? Decriminalization and asylum movement – ​​that is, preventing the drug addict from being arrested or hospitalized, ensuring that he remains drugged. What solution do you offer us for the sexualization of minors? Talking about sex to the child. Then she knows how not to get pregnant. But if you get pregnant, you have a miscarriage – at 9 months, if need be. At 9 months after birth, preferably, as the world is overpopulated and we need to reduce our carbon footprint. Added to all this is the glorification of “female sexual freedom” at the expense of marriage. The world will be good when every little girl takes contraception class at school before menarche and is mature enough to live with the rotating stepfathers her empowered mother provides. To endure this life, or rather, “deconstruct patriarchal prejudices”, nothing like the use of alternative substances.

It remains to be seen if it will stay that way. If so, let’s just stop calling it democracy. We live in a progressive jurisprudence operated by NGOs foreign to Brazil’s interests. Does anyone see an institutional way out of the situation? If so, let me know, because I don’t see it.

Back to top button