Abortus (Abortion) - by Dominis (HR, ENG)

Pobačaj... Mnogi govore o ovom pitanju. Napisane su mnoge knjige, članci, vode se mnoge rasprave i političke debate ali kao da je sve to bez većeg utjecaja na ovo pitanje. Ne postoji konsenzus oko toga da li je pobačaj pravo žene ili bi trebalo štititi pravo djeteta na život. I kojem od tih prava dati prednost. Za sada vlada neodređenost koja ipak dopušta da, do donošenja nekog opće prihvaćenog rješenja, žena odlučuje o ovom pitanju. Na suprotnim polovima tih dvaju mišljenja nalaze se dvije struje „pro-choice“ (za izbor) i „pro-life“ ( za život). Svaka od njih nudi svoje odgovore i daje razloge za opravdanje svojih stavova. Ja ću u ovom radu pristupiti s kršćanskog gledišta ali ću pokušati biti što objektivniji i iznijeti gledišta racionalnog čovjeka našeg doba.

Pobačaj, kojeg se još naziva abortus, dolazi od latinske riječi „aborior“ što znači umrijeti prije rođenja. (Ramon Lucas) A definicija pobačaja bi mogla glasiti: namjerno odstranjenje ploda nakon začeća. Pobačaj je pitanje kojim bi se morale baviti mnoge znanstvene grane kao što su demografija, zdravstvena struka, ekonomska struka ali u svojoj jezgri ono je prije svega moralno pitanje. Koliko je važno ovo pitanje vidimo tek onda kad pogledamo statističke podatke. „U svijetu se godišnje izvede oko 45 milijuna abortusa, a polovica su nestručni, kriminalni. U SAD je učestalost abortusa nedopustivo visoka, 1,2 milijuna godišnje, a više od polovice otpada na adolescentice. Pedeset posto svih trudnoća je neželjeno, a od njih polovica završi namjernim pobačajem. U mladih Amerikanki 80% trudnoća je neplanirano. U Europi su pokazatelji povoljniji, učestalost pobačaja je manja. (Velimir Šimunić)“ Premda se broj legalno induciranih pobačaja u Hrvatskoj od 2000. smanjuje moramo svakako uzeti u obzir da, iako za sada ne postoji konsenzus, tom biću u ženinoj maternici, kojeg ću ja zvati djetetom, jednog dana možda budu priznata ljudska prava pa možda svaki abortus postane ubojstvo za koje se može dobiti, u nekim državama, čak i smrtna kazna.

Papa Ivan Pavao II. na početku svoje enciklike Evanđelje života donosi bitnu stavku koja istina stavlja emociju u prvi plan ali emocija i jeste jedan od ispravnih putova za rješavanje ovog pitanje. Jer što li na svijetu izaziva više emocija od rođenja djeteta? Pa veli: „U osvit spasenja, rođenje jednog djeteta proglašava se veselom viješću: ˝Evo, javljam vam blagovijest, veliku radost za sav narod! Danas vam se u gradu Davidovu rodio Spasitelj Krist, Gospodin˝ (Lk 2,10-11). Rođenje Spasitelja sigurno je razotkrilo ovu ˝veliku radost˝; ali u Božiću je otkriven i puni smisao svakog ljudskog rođenja, i mesijanska se radost pojavljuje tako temeljem i ispunjenjem radosti svakog djeteta koje se rađa (usp. Iv 16,21).“ Dijete je blagoslov za čovječanstvo, narod, mjesnu i vjersku zajednicu, obitelj i na kraju i za same roditelje. I nikako mi nije jasno kako je moguće da ono što u jednoj osobi ili kod više njih donosi toliko radosti može kod neke druge osobe ili više njih donijeti toliku tjeskobu. Ono je i dalje dijete jednak uzrok sreće roditeljima koji su ga htjeli i onima koji ga ne žele. Samo da mu dopuste da se rodi brzo bi im to dokazao. Pobačaj je uvijek pogreška.

Nadalje, oni koji se trebaju brinuti za zdravlje djeteta izvrću se u njihove sudce o pitanju života i smrti. Savjest je na kušnji. Pokušavaju se uvjeriti da tek začeto dijete nije ljudsko biće ali opet u njima postoji svijest da je život nemoguć bez začeća. A ako je nemoguć bez začeća to začeću daje vrijednost jednaku bilo kojoj drugoj fazi ljudskog života. Živan Bezić će reći da „jednom začeto dijete ima neotuđivo pravo na svoj život.“ Ako je dijete već začeto prekasno je za ispravljanje svojih vlastitih „pogrešaka“ bez teške i objektivne povrede morala i djetetovih prava. To da majka traži ubojstvo vlastitog djeteta Živan Bezić će nazvati „etičkim apsurdom“. Ona koja je kroz stoljeća stvarala, a i danas stvara civilizaciju. Ona bez koje nema budućnosti sada se okreće protiv vlastitog potomstva i mjesto toplog krevetića priprema mu crni grob. Ali još je veća moralna odgovornost onih koji nagovaraju majke na takav čin i koji se bore za pravo na pobačaj.

Neshvatljivo je kako jedno može nekome biti toliko dobro dok je u pogledu nekog drugoga toliko zlo. Ili ipak moraju priznati da je dijete dobro za sve ali zbog nekih svojih razloga pronalaze opravdanje za taj moralno zli čin. Tada pobačaj postaje izabrano ali ne i nužno zlo. Ali ako pobačaj u nekim slučajevima i jeste „nužno zlo“ onda bi se trebao vršiti u iznimno rijetkim situacijama, a ispravan bi stav bio da se i u tim situacijama pokuša naći dijalog s roditeljima ili majkom kako bi učinili sve da i to nedužno dijete, bilo bolesno ili plod silovanja ili incesta, ipak bude rođeno. Jer svatko ima pravo na život i nitko ne bi smio preuzeti toliki moralni rizik da usmrti ijedno nedužno ljudsko biće. No danas se s pobačajem koketira kao s nekim lakšim medicinskim zahvatom. Pa imamo žena koje su izvršile pobačaj tri, četiri, pet puta. U svijetu postoji čitava industrija koja se bavi isključivo pobačajem. I čitave kampanje se vode u reklamiranju i poticanju žena na ovaj čin. Pobačaj postaje nešto sasvim uobičajeno i moralno nepodnošljiv i zločest čin postaje sasvim banalan sve dok se (muževi i) žene koje su ga počinile jednom ne susretnu sa svojom savješću i ne shvate da je kraj njih sada trebao stajati sin ili kćerka ili više sinova i kćerki koje su oni najčešće radi svog komoditeta, ili nekih drugih nižih razloga, dali uništiti na samom početku njihova životnog puta.

Sveti papa Ivan Pavao II. iznosi, a to je i službeni stav Crkve da ljudski život započinje začećem i da od tog trenutka više ne pripada ni ocu ni majci i neće nikad postati ljudsko ako nije bilo već od tada. (Usp. Sv. Ivan Pavao II.) Jasan je to stav i posve racionalan za svakog tko želi čuti. Biblija ne sadrži izravni govor o pobačaju ali zato vrlo strogo govori o ubojstvu. Tako imamo Petu Božju zapovijed koja glasi: ,,Ne ubij!“ No premda Biblija ne govori o pobačaju stav Crkve bio je jasan od početka kršćanstva tako možemo naći govor o pobačaju u djelu Poslanica Diognetu (Epistole pros Diogneton) najvjerojatnije nastaloj u II. stoljeću ili prvoj polovici III. stoljeća gdje nepoznati pisac ovako opisuje kršćane: „Žene se kao i ostali i rađaju djecu, ali ne odbacuju još nerođene djece.“ Crkva smatra da ni jedan razlog ne može biti opravdanje za pobačaj. No majke često nisu jedine koje odlučuju o ovom pitanju, često u tome sudjeluju i očevi i obitelj i drugi čimbenici u društvu. Slučaj iz 2012. godine koji se dogodio u Irskoj potaknuo je rasprave o pobačaju. U Irskoj je tada pobačaj bio zakonom zabranjen. Dogodio se slučaj da je trudnica bila bolesna, a liječnici su odbili intervenirati jer bi to značilo smrt fetusa. Tek nakon što je ustanovljena smrt fetusa izvršili su operaciju ali je bilo prekasno. Irski biskupi su u izjavi dali doznanja da bi se ipak u prvom redu trebao zaštititi život majke čak i ako to znači smrt fetusa. Ali to je stav i svake racionalne osobe. No stav je Crkve, a to bi mogao biti i stav svake nepristrane osobe da ako nije ugrožen život majke (što su rijetki slučajevi, a imamo i tako predivnih svjedočanstava majki koje su darovale svoj život kako bi beba preživjela) ne postoji niti jedan moralno opravdan razlog za prekid trudnoće, a čak i u tom slučaju pobačaj je i dalje moralno zao čin.

Bog je sve stvorio kao dobro (Usp. Post 1, 31). Tako dijete ne može biti zlo i u tome ćemo se svi složiti. Ono može majci ili roditeljima ili obitelji i društvu izgledati kao teret u nekom trenutku ali to je u najvećem ako ne i u svakom slučaju pogrešna predodžba. Istina o vrijednosti ljudskog života od začeća do prirodne smrti ostaje trajna bilo da je se priznaje ili ne priznaje. Bilo da je Ustav ili državni zakoni priznaju ili ne priznaju. To je još jedna bitna činjenica po pitanju pobačaja. Prepuštanje odluka državi „osobna odgovornost (se) prenosi na civilni zakon odricanjem od vlastite moralne savjesti... (  Sv. Ivan Pavao II.)“ Ako zakon dopušta zašto bi itko to dovodio u pitanje i zašto bi se povlačilo pitanje morala i savjesti tamo gdje država snosi odgovornost. Papa Ivan Pavao II. vidi zajednički korijen svih tih tendencija u etičkom relativizam koji obilježava veći dio suvremene kulture. Ali savjest nipošto ne ovisi o javnom mijenju i državnim zakonima. Istina se u savjesti ne može relativizirati. Savjest je sasvim osobna stvar, i premda može biti krivo formirana, nemoguće ju je zagušiti kada jednom prepozna teški moralni prekršaj kakav je pobačaj.

Što se tiče drugih čimbenika u činu pobačaja kao što su doktori i medicinsko osoblje stav Crkve je jasan. „Formalna suradnja u vršenju pobačaja teški je grijeh. Crkva taj prijestup protiv ljudskoga života kažnjava zakonskom kaznom izopćenja. "Tko sudjeluje u vršenju pobačaja, upada, ako dođe do učinka, u izopćenje unaprijed izrečeno samim time što je učinio prijestup" i pod uvjetima koje Kanonsko pravo predviđa. (KKC br. 2272)“ A mogu i sasvim mirne duše zazvati „anathema sit“ na svakog onog tko nagovara mlade majke na pobačaj, sve do njihova iskrenog pokajanja. Crkva zauzima sasvim realan stav s obzirom na učinjeno zlo i bilo bi poželjno da država (Ustav suvremenih demokracija) drži u svojim okvirima iste takve standarde. Možda bi se na nerođene trebala primijeniti slične direktive kao za manjine. Ako bi se kriminalizacijom abortusa ograničilo pravo na pobačaj mogli bi očekivati manji broj neželjenih trudnoća, više moralne standarde u društvu i veći natalitet. Tome se suprotstavlja stav liberalnih krugova kako bi takva kriminalizacija bila uzrok više nestručnih pobačaja koje bi onda dovodile do veće smrtnosti žena. Ali to nije posve opravdano. Jer ta majka koja bi pristala na takav pobačaj činila bi ubojstvo protivno zakonu. A svako kriminalno djelo se čini na vlastitu odgovornost i s prihvaćanjem mogućih posljedica. Jednako tako država je dužna zaustaviti ubojstvo svake odrasle osobe, a ako bi djetetu u majčinoj utrobi bilo zajamčena sva ljudska prava, koja su mu dužna biti zajamčena, onda bi majka nestručnim pobačajem činila kazneno djelo prema djetetu dovodeći svjesno i sebe u opasnost. Dakle, „ako se javna vlast ponekad može odreći sprečavanja nečega što bi izazvalo veću štetu, kad bi bilo zabranjeno, ona ipak ne može nikad prihvatiti da ozakoni kao pravo pojedinaca - makar oni bili većinska sastavnica društva - povredu nanesenu drugim osobama nepriznavanjem jednog tako temeljnog prava kao što je pravo na život. Zakonska tolerancija pobačaja (...) ni na koji se način ne može pozivati na poštovanje savjesti drugih, baš zato što društvo ima pravo i obvezu štititi se od zloupotreba koje se mogu dogoditi u ime savjesti i pod izlikom slobode. (Sv. Ivan Pavao II.)“ Dakle, nije pravedno reći neka se djeca ubijaju legalno kako ih majke ne bi ubijale ilegalno dovodeći i sebe u opasnost.

„U kontinuitetu sa svom tradicijom Crkve jeste nauk o potrebi suglasnosti civilnog zakona s moralnim... (Sv. Ivan Pavao II.)“ Moral ne smije biti relativiziran sa strane državnog zakona. Ne može se za jedno tako važno pitanje kao što je gubitak ljudskog života reći kako je to za jedne zlo, a za druge nužno zlo ili, stravično je i čuti, dobro. To je moralno zlo bez obzira na različite poglede i nužde i takvim bi ga civilni zakon trebao priznati. Ne kao nužno zlo već kao zlo. Nužda je na primjer i čovjeku koji je siromašan ali to ne može biti razlog da nešto ukrade. Premda bi mu siromaštvo bilo olakotna okolnost ipak ono nije razlog da se krade. S obzirom na sve do sada rečeno shvaćamo da je pobačaj teško pitanje koje ipak ima jasno moralno rješenje. Pobačaj je moralno zlo. I to mora biti jasno rečeno. Pobačaj se ne smije činiti. „Ništa i nitko ne može odobriti ubojstvo nedužnog ljudskog bića, zametka ili začetka što god bio, dijete ili odrastao, starac, neizliječivo bolestan ili umirući. (...) Ne postoje privilegiji niti izuzeci za nikoga. (Sv. Ivan Pavao II.)“ I u slučaju kada je pobačaj jedini izbor za spašavanje majčinog života i ako zbog njega nastane i neko dobro on i dalje ostaje, kao što smo već naglasili, moralno zao čin jer je i dalje jedan ljudski život izgubljen.

Postoje primjeri zemalja u kojima se pobačaj vrši samo u slučajevima kad je u pitanju život majke ili kod silovanja i incesta, a to su npr. Švicarska i Španjolska. Dok je u Hrvatskoj dovoljan razlog za pobačaj već taj da majka ne želi zadržati dijete. No naglašavam da ni u Španjolskom i Švicarskom slučaju nije posve ispravan stav jer pobačaj nije okarakteriziran kao moralno zlo već kao nužno zlo i dalje se dovodi u pitanje vrijednost nedužnog ljudskog života.

Neki nude kao rješenje edukaciju o kontracepciji ali to nije moralno prihvatljivo rješenje jer potiče seksualni nemoral. Neka od prihvatljivih rješenja bila bi financijska pomoć trudnim majkama i njihovim obiteljima, zakonom omogućiti ženama vraćanja na isti posao nakon poroda, a iznad svega rješenje svih pitanja morala pa tako i ovog je pridržavanje uz zdravi nauk Crkve. Odgajati mlade kršćanskoj čednosti i ljepoti kreposnog života. Crkva ima odgovore na sva društvena pitanja ali sekularizacija društva je pridonijela tomu da se Crkvene moralne zasade i vrijednosti napuštaju, a upravo se osjeća da to sve više fali modernom društvu.

Na kraju, svi smo rođeni. Svi smo bili zametak i fetus, ili kako mi je draže reći, dijete u majčinoj utrobi. I kako je danas gubitak svake već rođene osobe na bilo koji način gubitak koji osjeća čitava zajednica i društvo tako je i gubitak svakog nerođenog djeteta gubitak velikog potencijala za svijet, a prije svega ono je moralno neprihvatljiv čin. Kako branim i imam pravo braniti svoj život tako mi moja savjest govori da moramo braniti svaki ljudski život čije je „ja“ jednako vrijedno kao i meni moje. A Bog poznaje svaku dušu i svaka mu je jednako vrijedna jer „kosti moje ne bjehu ti sakrite dok nastajah u tajnosti, tkan u dubini zemlje (Ps 139,15).“

Pobačaj je tema o kojoj bi se moglo govoriti godinama i tema oko koje se lome koplja jer je teško postići konsenzus oko ovog pitanja. Liberalni dio svijeta uglavnom zagovara pravo majke da odlučuje. Premda i u liberalnim krugovima postoje pojedinci koji smatraju da je dijete čovjek od začeća i da je pobačaj zlo. Tom zaključku su došli sasvim racionalnim razmišljanjem. Konzervativni krugovi osuđuju pobačaj ali oni konzervativci koji su na istaknutim pozicijama svakako pokušavaju izbjeći ovu temu jer im donosi negativan publicitet kod većine. Za sada je, nažalost, teško očekivati neko zajedničko rješenje ovog pitanja. U budućnosti kako se svijet bude razvijao možda se ponude neka nova rješenja kao što bi bilo uzimanje ploda iz majčine utrobe i razvijanje u umjetnom okolišu laboratorija. Ali ta tema otvara druga moralna i etička pitanja i zahtijevala bi jedan čitav i mnogo opširniji rad, možda i knjigu. Nadalje tko zna koja još rješenja može donijeti budućnost. Ali za sada mislim da bi bilo važno koliko je moguće ograničiti razloge za pobačaj tako da to ne bude kao bilo koja druga manja operacija. Već bi to bio korak u pravom smjeru. Jer ne možemo kao društvo 21. stoljeća dozvoliti da za pogreške roditelja, premda ponavljam kako dijete nikad nije pogreška, plaćaju njihova djeca. Etika i moral vrište, a stupanj razvoja se pokazuje u pogledu na najslabije u društvu, a najslabija manjina koja je još uvijek nepriznata jeste upravo manjina nerođenih. Kako su se manjine kroz povijest izborile za svoja prava tako se mi, a najviše oni istaknuti u društvu, moramo izboriti za prava ove manjine makar većina to ne podupire. Priznati prava te manjine bio bi pravi pokazatelj etičkog i moralnog razvoja našeg društva. Dakle, prvi korak je priznati da su začeta djeca uopće manjina!

LITERATURA:

Bezić, Živan, Etika i život, Đakovo, 1995.

Hrvatska biskupska konferencija, Katekizam Katoličke Crkve, Glas Koncila, Zagreb, 1994.

Lucas, Ramon, Bioetika za svakoga, Split, Verbum, 2007.

Poslanica Diognetu, (3. 6. 2011.) http://www.zupa-sveti-kriz-du.hr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133:poslanica-diognetu, (14. 7. 2020.)

Sv. Papa Ivan Pavao II., Evangelium Vitae, Kršćanska sadašnjost, Zagreb, 1995.

Šimunić, Velimir, https://ivf.hr/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/KONTRACEPCIJA-I-NAMJERNI-POBAČAJ.pdf (13.7. 2020.)

 

ABORTION

Abortion... Many discuss this issue. Many books, articles, discussions, and political debates have been written, but it seems to have little impact on this issue. There is no consensus on whether abortion is a woman's right or if the child's right to life should be protected, and which of these rights should take precedence. For now, there is an ambiguity that still allows a woman to decide on this issue until some widely accepted solution is reached. On opposite sides of these two opinions, there are two movements: "pro-choice" and "pro-life." Each of them offers its answers and provides reasons to justify their views. In this paper, I will approach it from a Christian perspective, but I will try to be as objective as possible and present the views of a rational person of our time.

Abortion, also known as "abortus," comes from the Latin word "aborior," which means to die before birth (Ramon Lucas). A definition of abortion could be: the intentional removal of a fetus after conception. Abortion is an issue that should be addressed by many scientific fields such as demography, healthcare, and economics, but at its core, it is primarily a moral issue. The importance of this issue becomes evident when we look at statistical data. "Around 45 million abortions are performed worldwide annually, and half of them are unprofessional and criminal. In the United States, the abortion rate is unacceptably high, with 1.2 million abortions performed each year, and more than half of them involving adolescents. Fifty percent of all pregnancies are unwanted, and half of them end in intentional abortion. In young American women, 80% of pregnancies are unplanned. In Europe, the indicators are more favorable, with a lower abortion rate" (Velimir Šimunić).
Although the number of legally induced abortions in Croatia has decreased we must consider that although there is currently no consensus, the entity in a woman's womb, which I will refer to as a child, may one day be recognized as having human rights, and perhaps every abortion may become homicide for which, in some countries, one could even face the death penalty. 
Pope John Paul II, at the beginning of his encyclical "Evangelium Vitae," brings forth an essential point that truly places emotion at the forefront, and indeed, emotion is one of the correct paths for addressing this issue. For what in the world arouses more emotions than the birth of a child? He states: "At the dawn of salvation, it is the birth of a child that is proclaimed as joyful news: 'I bring you good news of great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord' (Lk 2:10-11). The birth of the Savior marks the birth of true joy; but it also presents a deep theological reality expressed through the symbol of light: 'The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world' (Jn 1:9)." A child is a blessing for humanity, the nation, the local and religious community, the family, and ultimately, for the parents themselves. I cannot fathom how something that brings so much joy to one person or many can bring so much anxiety to another. A child remains a source of happiness for parents who wanted them and for those who do not. Only allowing the child to be born quickly would prove this to them. Abortion is always a mistake.
Furthermore, those responsible for the child's health become their judges in matters of life and death. Conscience is put to the test. They attempt to convince themselves that the newly conceived child is not a human being, yet deep down, they are aware that life is impossible without conception. And if life is impossible without conception, conception imparts the same value to life as any other stage of human existence. Živan Bezić would say that "a child once conceived has an inalienable right to its life." If the child is already conceived, it is too late to correct one's own "mistakes" without a grave and objective violation of morality and the child's rights. Živan Bezić would call a mother seeking the murder of her own child an "ethical absurdity." She, who has created civilization throughout the centuries and continues to do so today, is turning against her own offspring. Instead of preparing a warm crib, she is preparing a black grave. But even greater moral responsibility lies with those who persuade mothers to commit such acts and who advocate for the right to abortion. 
It is incomprehensible how something can be so good for someone while being so evil in the eyes of another. Or perhaps they must admit that a child is good for everyone but find justification for this morally wrong act due to their own reasons. In such cases, abortion becomes a chosen but not necessarily necessary evil. However, if abortion is indeed a "necessary evil" in some cases, it should be performed in extremely rare situations. The correct stance would be to attempt to engage in dialogue with parents or the mother even in these situations, trying everything possible to ensure that even an innocent child, whether ill or the result of rape or incest, is still born. Because everyone has the right to life, and no one should take such a significant moral risk to end the life of any innocent human being. Today, abortion is flirted with as if it were a minor medical procedure. We have women who have had multiple abortions, three, four, five times. There is an entire industry worldwide dedicated exclusively to abortion. Entire campaigns are run to promote and encourage women to commit this act. Abortion becomes something entirely commonplace, and a morally unacceptable and wicked act becomes quite banal, until (husbands and) women who have committed it meet their conscience and realize that by their side should now stand a son or daughter, or several sons and daughters, whom they most often, for their own convenience or other lesser reasons, allowed to be destroyed at the very beginning of their life journey.
Saint Pope John Paul II states, which is also the official stance of the Church, that human life begins at conception and from that moment on, it no longer belongs to the father or mother and will never become human if it wasn't already from that moment. (Cf. Saint John Paul II) This is a clear and entirely rational stance for anyone willing to listen. While the Bible does not explicitly mention abortion, it strongly condemns murder. Thus, we have the Fifth Commandment of God, which reads, "Thou shalt not kill!" Although the Bible does not specifically address abortion, the Church's position has been clear since the beginning of Christianity. We can find a reference to abortion in the work "Epistle to Diognetus" (Epistole pros Diogneton), most likely dating from the 2nd century or the first half of the 3rd century, where an unknown author describes Christians as follows: "They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring." The Church believes that no reason can justify abortion. However, mothers are often not the sole decision-makers on this issue; fathers, families, and other societal factors are often involved. A case in Ireland in 2012 prompted discussions on abortion. Abortion was then legally prohibited in Ireland. A pregnant woman was ill, and doctors refused to intervene because it would have meant the death of the fetus. Only after the death of the fetus was confirmed did they perform the operation, but it was too late. Irish bishops stated in a statement that, above all, the life of the mother should be protected, even if it means the death of the fetus. However, this is the stance of any rational person. But the Church's position, which could also be the position of any impartial person, is that if the mother's life is not endangered (which is a rare occurrence, and we also have such wonderful testimonies of mothers who have sacrificed their lives for their baby to survive), there is no morally justifiable reason for interrupting the pregnancy, and even in that case, abortion is still a morally evil act.
God created everything as good (Cf. Genesis 1:31). So, everyone can agree that a child cannot be evil. It may seem like a burden to the mother, parents, family, and society at times, but that is mostly, if not always, a mistaken perception. The truth about the value of human life from conception to natural death remains constant, whether it is recognized or not, whether it is acknowledged in the constitution or by state laws. This is another crucial aspect of the abortion issue. Surrendering decisions to the state "transfers personal responsibility to civil law by yielding to the denial of the right of conscience... (Saint John Paul II)" If the law allows it, why would anyone question it, and why would the question of morality and conscience be raised where the state bears responsibility? Pope John Paul II sees the common root of all these tendencies in ethical relativism, which characterizes much of contemporary culture. However, conscience does not depend on public opinion and state laws. Truth cannot be relativized in one's conscience. Conscience is a completely personal matter, and although it may be improperly formed, it is impossible to suppress it once it recognizes a grave moral offense like abortion.
Regarding other factors in the act of abortion, such as doctors and medical personnel, the Church's stance is clear. "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. 'A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,' by the very commission of the offense, and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2272) The Church can rightfully invoke "anathema sit" on anyone who persuades young mothers to have an abortion until they genuinely repent. The Church takes a very realistic stance considering the wrongdoing, and it would be desirable for the state (the constitution of modern democracies) to maintain similar standards within its framework. Perhaps similar directives to those for minorities should be applied to the unborn. Criminalizing abortion could potentially limit the right to abortion, leading to a decrease in unwanted pregnancies, higher moral standards in society, and increased birth rates. This is countered by the position of liberal circles that criminalizing abortion would lead to more unsafe abortions, subsequently resulting in higher maternal mortality rates. However, this argument is not entirely justified because a mother who would agree to such an abortion would be committing a crime against the law. Every criminal act is undertaken at one's own risk and with the acceptance of potential consequences.
Similarly, the state has a duty to prevent the murder of every adult person, and if all human rights guaranteed to a child in the mother's womb were ensured, as they should be, then the mother, through an unsafe abortion, would be committing a criminal act against the child, knowingly putting herself at risk as well. Therefore, "if public authorities sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which – were it prohibited – would cause more serious harm, they can never morally justify permitting a situation within which the law of the strongest prevails over the dictates of the justice. (Pope John Paul II)" Legal tolerance of abortion cannot, in any way, be invoked in the name of respecting the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself from abuses that might occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom. So, it is not just to say that children should be legally killed so that mothers don't kill them illegally, putting themselves at risk in the process.
"In continuity with the Church's tradition, there is the teaching about the necessity of the conformity of civil law with moral law... (Pope John Paul II)" Morality should not be relativized by state law. For such an important issue as the loss of human life, one cannot say that it is evil for some, a necessary evil for others, or even, shockingly, good. It is a moral wrong, regardless of differing perspectives and needs, and civil law should recognize it as such. Not as a necessary evil but as evil. Necessity, for example, applies to a person who is poor, but that cannot be a reason to steal something. Although poverty might be a mitigating circumstance, it is not a reason to commit theft. Given everything said so far, we understand that abortion is a complex issue with a clear moral solution. Abortion is a moral wrong. And this must be stated clearly. Abortion must not be performed. "No one can ever legitimately claim the right to destroy directly an innocent human being, be it an unborn child, as is sometimes said, or an adult, an old person, one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. (...) There are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. (Pope John Paul II)" Even in cases where abortion is the only choice to save the mother's life and if some good results from it, it remains, as we have already emphasized, a morally wrong act because one human life is still lost. 
There are examples of countries where abortion is performed only in cases where the mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape and incest, such as Switzerland and Spain. While in Croatia, the sole reason for abortion is that the mother does not want to keep the child. However, I emphasize that even in the cases of Spain and Switzerland, the stance is not entirely correct because abortion is not characterized as a moral wrong but as a necessary evil, still calling into question the value of innocent human life. 
Some offer education about contraception as a solution, but this is not morally acceptable as it promotes sexual immorality. Some of the acceptable solutions would be financial assistance to pregnant mothers and their families, legally enabling women to return to the same job after childbirth, and above all, the solution to all moral issues, including this one, is adherence to the healthy teaching of the Church. Educating young people in Christian chastity and the beauty of virtuous living. The Church has answers to all social questions, but secularization of society has contributed to the abandonment of Church moral principles and values, and it is increasingly felt that modern society lacks them.
In the end, we are all born. We have all been embryos and fetuses, or as I prefer to say, children in the mother's womb. Just as today, the loss of any already-born person in any way is a loss felt by the entire community and society, the loss of every unborn child is a loss of great potential for the world, and above all, it is a morally unacceptable act. Just as I defend and have the right to defend my life, my conscience tells me that we must defend every human life, whose "self" is equally valuable as mine. And God knows every soul, and each is equally precious to Him because "My bones were not hidden from You when I was made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth" (Psalm 139:15).
Abortion is a topic that could be discussed for years, and it's a subject around which opinions vary widely, making it challenging to reach a consensus. The liberal part of the world generally advocates for a mother's right to choose. However, even within liberal circles, there are individuals who believe that a child is a human being from the moment of conception and that abortion is wrong. They have come to this conclusion through entirely rational thinking. Conservative circles condemn abortion, but prominent conservatives often try to avoid this topic as it can lead to negative publicity among the majority. Unfortunately, it is currently difficult to expect a common solution to this issue. In the future, as the world continues to develop, new solutions may emerge, such as removing the fetus from the mother's womb and developing it in an artificial laboratory environment. However, this topic raises other moral and ethical questions and would require a much more extensive study, possibly even a book. Furthermore, who knows what other solutions the future may bring. For now, I believe it is essential, as much as possible, to limit the reasons for abortion so that it is not treated like any other minor medical procedure. Even that would be a step in the right direction. As a 21st-century society, we cannot allow children to pay for their parents' mistakes, although I reiterate that no child is ever a mistake. Ethics and morals cry out, and the level of development is reflected in how we treat the weakest in society. The most vulnerable minority that is still unrecognized is the minority of the unborn. Just as minorities have fought for their rights throughout history, we, especially those in prominent positions in society, must fight for the rights of this minority, even if the majority does not support it. Recognizing the rights of this minority would be a genuine indicator of the ethical and moral development of our society. So, the first step is to acknowledge that conceived children are a minority!
LITERATURE:
Bezić, Živan, Ethics and Life, Đakovo, 1995.
Croatian Bishops' Conference, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glas Koncila, Zagreb, 1994.
Lucas, Ramon, Bioethics for Everyone, Split, Verbum, 2007.
Epistle to Diognetus, (June 3, 2011) http://www.zupa-sveti-kriz-du.hr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=133:poslanica-diognetu, (July 14, 2020)
St. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, Kršćanska sadašnjost, Zagreb, 1995.
Šimunić, Velimir, https://ivf.hr/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/KONTRACEPCIJA-I-NAMJERNI-POBAČAJ.pdf (July 13, 2020)