Pernethics makes life a supreme reference. A too quick reading of it could be misinterpreted and lead to the hasty conclusion that it is opposed to any voluntary interruption of pregnancy (abortion). I therefore draw your attention to the following points:
Human beings are free and responsible beings and it is the couple who have the joint and several responsibility to raise the unborn child. Sometimes husbands, companions or other progenitors shirk their responsibility and leave the woman alone in embarrassment. When there is a break-up upstream, it is not surprising if there is a break-up downstream.
An abandoned woman cannot necessarily take on the responsibility of raising a child alone. She must therefore be able to make a choice, however difficult it may be, in accordance with her freedom of conscience. Just because heroic women have raised their children alone in the past and others will do so again in the future does not mean that it would become an absolute duty.
What role can an institution play in this case? An institution cannot give life and has no sensitivity. It is therefore not competent to decide in place of the women concerned, even if it can legitimately lay down standards such as deadlines for example. An institution should therefore be benevolent and, where appropriate, provide assistance to women in difficulty as far as possible. Its duty is to support life in all its forms when women are victims of a situation over which they no longer have control.
On the other hand, the institutions should under no circumstances threaten or punish women who – freely – decide to terminate their pregnancies, because not only are they free, but they also bear the consequences of their actions.
This position illustrates the difference I make between subjective individual ethics such as freedom of conscience and institutional ethics with objective references.