Ireland is not a model” “

I have read recently an interesting comment by Vladimiro Zagrebelsky relating to the change in abortion law in Ireland. I learned from it that its Author is an opponent of the so-called “right to abortion” and a great supporter of restrictive abortion laws. It would not be surprising if not for the fact that he is also an advocate of the new Irish law perversely called the “Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013”. The internal contradiction in the arguments presented, as always, could rise from ignorance of facts, be the result of logical errors in reasoning or of the luck of sincerity. The reading of the Act done by the Irish bishops is slightly different. They pointed out that the Bill means that “in practice the right to life of the unborn child is no longer treated as equal to that of the mother. This represents a fundamental shift in current medical culture and practice in Irish hospitals, which to date have provided some of the safest places in the world for a mother and her unborn child during pregnancy precisely because they were treated as two patients with an equal right to life” (http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2013/07/08/bishops-briefing-note-protection-life-pregnancy-bill-2013/). What the bishops call a “radical change”, said Author describes as search for equilibrium. He himself, however, admits that the Irish constitution is granting equilibrium between conservation and protection of life of the mother and the child. So one could expect that, instead of supporting the change, he would welcome the bishops’ suggestion that – if any change was needed – it took place at the level of “enhanced medical guidelines, which do not envisage the direct and intentional killing of the unborn”.The second false argument is that nothing certain can be said about when human life begins and what is the legal status of the human embryo. The European Court of Justice in the Case C-34/10 Oliver Brüstle vs Greenpeace has adopted a European legal definition of human embryo stating that an embryo “initiates the human development process”; therefore, the human ovule must be regarded as a human embryo from the moment it initiates the human development process, whether it is initiated by fertilization or by any artificial technique. From the moment of conception, therefore, is entitled to human dignity and must be protected. The ruling is the basis for the European Citizens’ Initiative “One of us”, which aims to increase the pro-life guarantee in the EU.It might be worthwhile to recall that during the communist time, abortion theoretically was forbidden by law in those countries, but “social considerations” was the “Trojan horse” that invalidated all so restrictive arguments. The “Trojan horse” in the law adopted in Ireland is “a real and substantial risk of loss of woman’s life of suicide” which can only be averted by carrying out abortion. In addition to Ireland, which finally reached the abortion “equilibrium”, the Author mentioned Poland, Malta and Italy as countries that have not yet achieved the “European point of balance”. Is this a suggestion that Irish law should be treated as a kind of benchmark for the “Catholic countries”? Does this moderate tone stem only from a desire not to frighten Catholics, in the hope that a similar law will be adopted also in other countries, before their citizens realize its real character?