These have been, for days, the two major topics of discussion in a not-so-distant galaxy called Madrid. At first glance, it may seem like a return to the times of the Transition and the films of the uncover, guy Gee with the divorceBut beyond the picturesque, in the background of these capital fights there is a regression in terms of fundamental rights and the very conception of society that affects us all.
The issue of abortion goes beyond the debate on the so-called conscientious objection of doctors who refuse to perform abortions, pointing to the place and rights that women may or may not have in a democratic society. To begin with, the expression conscientious objection is wrong here, because conscientious objection, when it exists, is exercised against a mandate that is considered abusive: the example we all have in mind is the objection to compulsory military service (which some countries are now considering reinstating, or are preparing to do so, within the involutionary drift that is shaking the West). On the other hand, a public health doctor refusing to assist patients in the exercise of their legal right to abort is not strictly speaking a conscientious objection, but a breach of one's own obligations.
Questions: Should a woman be able to decide on her own to have an abortion, or should she have the approval of the child's father? Should abortion be protected by public health care, or should women go elsewhere to get an abortion? (It's curious that Ayuso's pro-life sensibility doesn't extend to the 7,291 elderly people who died unattended in Madrid's nursing homes during the pandemic.) Should abortion be permitted in private clinics but excluded from public hospitals where there are "conscientious objector" doctors? And the main one: Should a woman have the power to make her own decisions, or should she be conditioned and supervised by what her environment, primarily the men in her circle, imposes on her? The so-called pro-life entities and ideologies are, in reality, nothing more than defenders of the age-old patriarchal privileges, from when women provided for, gave birth, nourished, and remained silent. They also remained silent, or mainly, when they suffered aggression and abuse. They said, "Shut up." This is where many would like to return, because they see the foundation of an authoritarian model of society that they yearn for: they think it worked.
As for bullfighting, it's obvious that both bullfighting and any spectacle based on violence against animals are forms of barbarism unacceptable to any minimally educated society. Calling this "culture" is, quite simply, indecent and shameful. Now, the PSOE doesn't dare legislate against it, and Abascal gets votes from being invited to watch as one. matador tail-cutting, or whatever those people do. In short, Spanish nationalism continues to speculate, and that (plus certain amounts of money and obscurantist fanaticism) is what keeps the party.
