THE CENTRALITY OF ETHICAL-ANTHROPOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS IN THE CASE OF ABORTION: A DEFENSE OF REALISTIC PERSONALISM

Authors

  • Mário da Silva Ribeiro Professor de Filosofia e Teologia na Faculdade Católica de Belém (FACBEL). Doutorando e Mestre em Direito, com ênfase em Ética e Filosofia do Direito, pela Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA). Bacharel em Direito pela Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA). E-mail: msribeiro1410@gmail.com https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5921-0980
  • Lucas Fonseca Dos Santos Bacharel em Direito pelo CESUPA- PA. Mestrando em Filosofia pela Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9096-5468
  • Victor Sales Pinheiro Professor dos Programas de Pós-Graduação em Direito da Universidade Federal do Pará (PPGD-UFPA) e do Centro Universitário do Pará (PPGD-CESUPA). Coordenador dos Grupos de Pesquisa Tradição da Lei Natural (CNPq) e Razão Pública, Secularização e Lei Natural (CNPq). Doutor em Filosofia pela Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ). Mestre em Filosofia pela Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-RIO). Email: vvspinheiro@yahoo.com.br https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1908-9618

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12662/2447-6641oj.v21i37.p306-339.2023

Keywords:

abortion, ethical-anthropological foundations, realistic personalism, Thomas Aquinas, natural law.

Abstract

Objective: This article deals with the centrality of ethical-anthropological foundations in the case of abortion. Specifically, its aim is (1) to expose, descriptively, the three pro-abortion perspectives that stand out today based on different ethical‑anthropological foundations: the functionalist pro-abortion perspective, the libertarian pro-abortion perspective and the relational pro-abortion perspective; (2) to expose the misconceptions that underlies the ethical‑anthropological foundations of such perspectives; and (3) to demonstrate that the very exposition of the fundamental mistakes of the most famous contemporary pro‑abortion perspectives is supported by a specific ethical‑anthropological foundation called realistic  personalism, according to which each and every human being is a type of being marked by an intrinsic dignity from his biological origin until his death, and, therefore, holder of duties and rights that precedes state positivization.

Method: Theoretical and reflective approach according to authorized and updated bibliography. In addition to paying attention to current embryological and genetic data that point to conception as the original biological moment of a new human being, it uses the lessons of Thomas Aquinas and his contemporary interpreters, with emphasis on those that constitute the New School of Natural Law.

Results: The main current pro-abortion perspectives emphasize a single aspect of the person, reducing the other aspects to the one that is emphasized. On the contrary, realistic personalism proposes an integral vision of man's personality, declaring it ontologically, axiologically, biologically and legally without denying the possibility of knowing and observing humanity from inexhaustible angles. In the context of abortion, realistic personalism, by rational demand, denounces its common mistake, understanding that the abortive practice is usually a direct affront to the absolute moral right that the unborn child – a worthy human person – has not to be killed by someone else since the moment he is conceived.

Contribuitions: This article contains preliminary notes, however technical. Its contribuition goes back to the necessary advancement of studies attentive to self-evident ends or purposes (basic goods) that concern the personal fulfillment of human beings. More – due to gaps in the national literature at the philosophical-legal and bio-legal level, its contribution also goes back to the urgency of providing scholars with a holistic view of the ethical-anthropological foundations common today in the case of abortion. It should also be added that this article enables an in-depth study of the ethical-anthropological foundations exposed therein. It is understood, however, that the constitutive foundations of the functionalist, libertarian and relational pro-abortion perspectives are in line with a self-destructive mentality expressed, for example, in slavery, racism, the marginalization of women, contempt for the elderly and ridicule of human beings with disabilities.

Downloads

Published

2023-05-08

How to Cite

RIBEIRO, Mário da Silva; SANTOS, Lucas Fonseca Dos; PINHEIRO, Victor Sales. THE CENTRALITY OF ETHICAL-ANTHROPOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS IN THE CASE OF ABORTION: A DEFENSE OF REALISTIC PERSONALISM. Revista Opinião Jurídica (Fortaleza), Fortaleza, v. 21, n. 37, p. 306–339, 2023. DOI: 10.12662/2447-6641oj.v21i37.p306-339.2023. Disponível em: https://periodicos.unichristus.edu.br/opiniaojuridica/article/view/4698. Acesso em: 29 sep. 2026.

Issue

Vol. 21 No. 37 (2023)

Section

Artigos Originais

License

Copyright and Licensing

According to the current submission policy, authors retain the rights to their works and grant the Revista Opinião Jurídica the right of first publication, with commercial rights reserved by the publisher under the terms of the non-commercial license used. Revista Opinião Jurídica uses a Creative Commons license. The works published are under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC-SA).

This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:

 BY: credit must be given to the creator.
 NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
 SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONTENT

By submitting an article, the author(s) declare to have sole responsibility for the content of the piece and is(are), therefore, responsible for any judicial or extrajudicial measures referring to it.

1. In case of joint authorship, all authors are considered collectively responsible, except when proved otherwise.