PASOK and Abortion: Human Life as a Tool for Political Division

Political hypocrisy in Greece takes many forms. Sometimes it dons the cloak of “modernization,” sometimes “progress,” and other times a supposed “sensitivity to rights.” In the case of PASOK, it chose to wear the most convenient communication suit of the era: the constitutional enshrinement of abortion.

Why? Because it needs to differentiate itself from New Democracy somewhere. And when it lacks a substantially different economic proposal, a different perspective on Europe, or a distinct stance on major national issues, it ends up making politics over the unborn child. The contemporary “progressive” Western civilization, after all, has a strange ability to turn the most tragic human situations into TikTok sketches and party hashtags.

The discussion was sparked by the proposal for an explicit constitutional guarantee of the “woman’s reproductive autonomy within the conditions prescribed by law.” This is a deliberately vague, emotionally charged, and politically convenient wording. Even within PASOK, however, there were MPs who acknowledged the obvious: that the current legislation in Greece (Law 1609/1986) already fully covers the right to abortion. There is no institutional threat today to the prohibition of abortion. No political force proposes criminalizing it. No social movement demands a return to previous times. On the contrary, there is intense concern about the number of abortions performed annually, which may even exceed 100,000.

So, what exact problem does constitutional enshrinement solve? The answer is simple: no real problem. It only solves PASOK’s political identity problem. It attempts to create a new ideological field of differentiation against New Democracy, investing in an easy form of progressivism, where anyone raising bioethical questions is automatically labeled a “dark reactionary.” The Greek Centre-Left now seems incapable of articulating serious political discourse without resorting to the familiar feminist slogans about “bodies” and “rights,” as if human life were an abstract theoretical construct rather than a real biological fact.

Because here lies the great silence in the public debate: abortion does not concern only the woman’s body. It also concerns a second, distinct human life developing inside her. This is not a “religious view.” It is elementary biology. From the moment of conception, there is a new human organism with a unique genetic code. Whether society chooses legally to permit abortion under certain conditions is a political and legal choice. But the effort to completely erase the moral dimension of the issue, presenting abortion roughly as a neutral medical procedure, constitutes deep ideological manipulation.

Yet whoever dares to speak on these matters is treated as a public danger. The feminist orthodoxy of the era does not allow questions. It does not allow doubts. It does not even allow discussion of the moral weight of abortion. Only acceptance is permitted. This was evident in the reactions sparked by Maria Karistianou and NIKI when they tried to open this discussion. The slogan “my body, my right” acts like a political spell that supposedly cancels out any further thought. Only, serious societies do not operate on slogans. They operate through dialogue, information, and awareness of consequences.

And the consequences exist. Not only biological but psychological as well. Despite the systematic silencing of any related discussion by the dominant ideological current, many women experience feelings of guilt, sadness, depression, or psychological trauma after an abortion. Not to mention the gynecological problems that an abortion can cause. This does not mean every woman will have the same experience. But it does mean that the issue cannot be handled with the cynicism of a political poster or the coldness of a party resolution. Nor can young girls be bombarded with the message that abortion is roughly an “easy solution” without mental or physical cost. Society must be responsibly and comprehensively informed, not poisoned by the reproduction of ideological propaganda by those monopolizing the public platform.

The same applies to the broader perception of motherhood. For decades, Western civilization has regarded motherhood almost as a barrier to self-realization. This was even explicitly stated in an interview by the prime minister’s favorite, Deputy Minister of Health, Eirini Agapidaki. Careers are exalted, individual consumption is promoted as the highest goal, and family formation is often depicted roughly as a “patriarchal imposition.” Then everyone wonders why Europe is aging, why societies are disintegrating, and why demographic collapse is evolving into an existential threat. These are among those shocking moments when the City falls and all its inhabitants quarrel about the gender of angels.

The solution, obviously, is not criminalizing abortion. A serious conservative approach should not resort to shouting or legal fanaticism. But it must demand an honest public dialogue. A dialogue recognizing that abortion is always a tragic act, not a celebratory “achievement.” One that promotes prevention, responsible sexual behavior, support for the pregnant woman and the family. One that provides genuine psychological information and support before and after such a decision. And above all, a dialogue that seeks to reduce abortions through social maturity and cultural reconstruction, not through coercion.

This is precisely what PASOK avoids. Because such a dialogue demands seriousness, responsibility, and moral reflection. While the constitutional transformation of abortion into a fetish offers something much easier: a few applauses from progressive panels, some social media headlines, and the illusion of ideological differentiation. The unborn child, of course, remains utterly voiceless in this discussion. Perhaps because it is the only side without an Instagram account or the right to vote. This is often how modern democracy works: it passionately protects every right, provided it is not too small to cry out.