| Summary: | This paper is the result of exploring the contact zone between the freedom of conscience (and religion) exercised by professionals providing healthcare services, in the form of conscientious objection, and the right to voluntary abortion as invoked by the beneficiaries of these services. Is there a right to voluntary abortion or any positive obligation of the State to provide or to ensure these services are provided on an effective basis, what is the legal nature of the conscientious objection, do the two conflicting rights ever meet in the same plan and, if so, under what conditions one of them prevails or their balance is supposed to stand, at what point discrimination is set to arise in the equation are deeply sensitive topics which have the tendency to elude shaping a comprehensive theory. Without undervaluing the creative effect which court case law might eventually have while settling disputes, the legal science holds the burden to build such a theory, providing answers meant to serve as ante factum guidelines. The broadness of the legal conditions for voluntary abortion should truthfully reflect the general moral attitude within the society concerning the exercise of this choice, since only maintaining this equation can effectively hold the basis for balancing the two conflicting rights, which both express the same principle of personal autonomy.
|
|---|