Moral e direitos na disputa judicial em torno do aborto: uma análise jurídica das intervenções amicus curiae na ADPF 442

Abstract

Inserted in a critical context of criminalization and public health harm, abortion and its possible decriminalization gained prominence in the Brazilian scenario with the filing of the Allegation of Violation of a Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 442 in 2017. Within this context, the research aims to characterize the judicial dispute surrounding the issue by analyzing the profile of the organizations participating as amicus curiae in ADPF 442 and the legal arguments they presented. The study seeks, therefore, to highlight the legal dimension of the abortion debate in Brazil. To this end, a qualitative methodological approach is used, based on documentary analysis drawn from the electronic records of ADPF 442, available on the website of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court. In summary, 38 participants were admitted as amicus curiae, of which 26 expressed support for the action and 12 expressed opposition. Regarding the prevailing arguments, the right to life, the principle of human dignity, and comparative precedents were invoked by both pro-choice and anti-abortion groups. Rights to health, equality, and bodily integrity, as well as the competence/incompetence of the Supreme Court, also appeared in the arguments, although they were not predominant in both groups. The study concludes that legal hermeneutics allows for the use of similar arguments to defend opposing interests and that voluntary termination of pregnancy involves various social actors and reflects a patriarchal historical construction that cannot be dissociated from the law.