no 194

• Dear Doctor Scio, it seems like everyday life The Truth is the main secular newspaper that has definitively sided with life, of family and reason, Why?

Life is sacred: all of us are alive because our parents welcomed us, cared for, helped, supported… and they didn't abort us. The right to life is the first and most important human right. I remember that the International Convention on the Rights of the Child says that «the child, due to his lack of physical and intellectual maturity, requires special protection and care, including appropriate legal protection, both before and after birth». Protection that must be given by the family, the natural one obviously, which has always been the natural and fundamental nucleus of human society. As for the reason, Yes The Truth defends reason and common sense because today it truly seems that our society has lost its bearings.

• What is the main cause??

One of the causes is that we live in a world prey to pure selfishness and extreme individualism: I'm married but I meet a woman I like, I leave my wife; I want a baby, I buy it; I don't want a baby, abortisco.

• What do you think about abortion? He doesn't think it should be regulated?

I am against abortion. The suppression of the weakest it is an expression of social Darwinism, according to which only the strongest must always prevail. A state that claims to protect the stronger party (in this case the mother, even if she is often subjected to unfair pressure and is herself unaware of what abortion is and of the risks she will run by having an abortion) to the detriment of the weakest (the child), it is the pure and simple clear representation of law of the jungle.

• But she doesn't believe that every woman can manage her body the way she wants?

But there can be freedom for a person to decide on the life of another human being? The baby is part of the human body like a kidney, with which we are free to do what we want? Of course not, the child in the mother's womb is a human being, it's not a finger!

• But abortion in the case of rape?

How can we conceive, after a terrible act of violence such as rape, a second act of violence such as abortion that eliminates an innocent child? What evil did that child do to deserve that death sentence that not even the rapist receives? You look at an ultrasound of a baby 10 weeks which is the result of a rape and a baby's ultrasound of 10 weeks which is the result of a normal pregnancy, what's the difference? They are both not human beings? Following this logic, people like human rights activist Jesse Jackson, or highly regarded singers like Eartha Kitt or a painter like Ethel Waters might have been aborted. And all the women who have the courage to carry a rape pregnancy to term declare themselves very happy to have done so.

• And in the case of malformation of the fetus?

But we are still a human society? We don't know how to see how many disabled people have contributed to the good of humanity (an example for everyone, Stephen Hawking)? Following this logic, people like Stevie Wonder, the painter Frida Kahlo, or Andrea Bocelli, they could have been aborted…