Pope Leo XIV’s recent address to the parliamentary chamber represents, in my opinion, the most brilliant intervention heard there in recent history. The significance of the moment was reflected in a final ovation of approximately seven minutes, interrupted only as the Speaker and the Pope began their departure from the chamber. While it would be unrealistic to expect absolute unanimity among those present, the message resonated differently depending on the socio-political and religious leanings of each member. But I dare say that none felt their beliefs were attacked, yet all felt challenged to reflect.

Among his words before our representatives of the State, it is worth pausing to consider a particularly courageous passage in the context of a Parliament that has decriminalized abortion:

“The defense of human life is not a partisan issue nor a matter of religious affiliation: it is a goal of civilization. All human life must be recognized and protected from conception to natural death, in every circumstance of its existence. When this certainty is obscured, the most vulnerable become the first victims, and the law loses its deepest meaning: to serve and protect every person. Therefore, the moral greatness of a nation is manifested, above all, in its capacity to accompany, protect, and love those lives that are most fragile.”

This statement about the need to protect life “from conception” acquires overwhelming force when linked to the defense of the dignity of the person within the historical-critical analysis put forward by the Pope.

A clash of realities before the law

In contrast to this position, the current legal and ideological framework rests on very different premises, arguing that personhood is not acquired until birth, or validating a law of time limits where the fetus is considered a person (and therefore protected) from weeks 14 or 22, depending on the provisions of Spanish legislation. Likewise, social reality presents complex and undeniably serious dilemmas that legislators must address from a psychological perspective: the tragedy of unwanted pregnancies, the despair of women who do not see it as possible to offer their children a decent life, and the diagnosis of possible illnesses and disabilities in the unborn child.

However, there is another set of scientific and human evidence that also demands rigorous analysis:

• Medical advances:  Neonatology and gynecology units are consistently demonstrating the viability of increasingly premature fetuses, while intrauterine surgeries are substantially improving the medical outlook for the baby before birth.
• The silent impact:  There is a large, silent group of women who suffer mental health problems after having an abortion. At the same time, it has been observed that seeing an ultrasound has motivated many women to change their minds and continue their pregnancies thanks to the support of people who welcomed them and restored their dignity.
• Perinatal grief:  The psychological reality of the grief experienced by women and their partners in the face of the loss caused by a spontaneous abortion demonstrates the existence of an undeniable human bond.

The uncomfortable hypothesis and the path of dialogue

Given this situation, it is clear that the current system suffers from dysfunctions, despite official pronouncements to the contrary. One might ask: What if Leo XIV’s words were correct and we were dealing with a real person from the moment of conception? What if we dared to question our own sociopolitical or religious convictions to consider this possibility?

Taking José Mota’s famous phrase, “What if…?”, as a starting point, the conclusion is staggering: it would imply that a genocide of comparable dimensions to the repressions of Hitler and Stalin’s regimes during the 20th century would have been committed in Europe alone. This historical analogy evokes the subsequent shame felt by many German citizens upon realizing how their support for a regime made them complicit in a brutal collective tragedy.

Recognizing this possibility does not mean being insensitive to the suffering and complex problems women face during pregnancy. However, the ethical solution to these conflicts cannot involve ending a life that is considered a person by the Pope and by a large part of the population. There is a moral obligation to seek alternatives.

The current challenge is to take up the gauntlet of Leo XIV: to abandon polarized and polarizing constructs, to open a humanitarian and creative debate that offers real solutions to the failure that abortion represents, and to seek an understanding that will eliminate this tragedy for both the unborn and their mothers. Only then will those seven minutes of applause have had immense value, and we will be on the path to creating a society of  “enormous moral greatness”  that “is manifested, above all, in its capacity to accompany, protect, and love those lives that are most vulnerable.”