The draft ruling by the US Supreme Court (ST) — cleverly made public through a leak —, which defends the change in the jurisprudence of the Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling, preventing restrictive state regulations on the practice of abortion, has relaunched the debate on the legalization of abortion.

The various protest initiatives, some of which have involved violence, directed at pro-life movements and even some US Supreme Court judges, are signs of coercion and intolerance that are unacceptable in a democracy and a State governed by the rule of law. In today's world, it is very difficult to discuss this issue and challenge political correctness.

Let’s start with the use of euphemisms. Many people don’t realize that language can be corrupted to give a positive spin to an ethically reprehensible concept or behavior. The use of the term “termination of pregnancy” conveys the idea that the pregnancy could be resumed at any time, but that is not possible. It is an irreversible decision; it is not a suspension, but an end. But today, society is full of euphemisms: “voluntary termination of pregnancy” (instead of abortion), “gender self-determination” (instead of gender dysphoria), “assisted dying” (instead of euthanasia), etc.

The main argument used by those in favor of legalizing abortion is the woman's choice (curiously, the man's choice is never mentioned, since there is also a father); in other words, freedom. The use of the word “freedom” is a kind of safe conduct to do whatever one wants, offering legislative support to a veritable nihilistic avalanche that is currently being observed in the Western world, with the approval of political parties (probably, in our country, the next legislative initiative will be the legalization of euthanasia).

In this case, the political strategy is simple and clever: freedom is used as an absolute argument. No one dares to attack “freedom”, otherwise they are labelled with a series of unflattering epithets, such as “fascist”, “retrograde”, “oppressor”, etc. In fact, this is the same argument used to defend euthanasia. There are those who argue that the various rights that a person has are inviolable, including the will to end one’s own life. However, not everything I choose is suitable for me, just as not everything I intend to choose is ethically acceptable.