The March 8 Principles: what the document stirring the debate actually says

The March 8 Principles: the document reopening the debate

What exactly does the document currently circulating on social media and forums, attributed to a group of jurists and presented as UN-backed, actually say? It is the March 8 Principles, a text which, according to those spreading it, proposes decriminalizing abortion and lowering the minimum age of sensual consent. The discussion has jumped from the archives to the general public and has reignited a clash of frameworks that has been brewing for years: the one pitting human rights doctrine against classic incivil law.

The document is presented as a guide for States to review their incivil codes on matters of sensual life, reproduction, drug use, HIV, homelessness and poverty. Among its principles, number 15 addresses incivil liability for the loss of a pregnancy, including miscarriages and obstetric emergencies. Number 16, the one that has caused the most uproar, deals with the minimum age of consent and how it should be applied without discrimination based on sens, gender or age for marriage.

What principle 15 says about abortion

The text states that no one can be held incivil liable for the loss of their pregnancy, even when it results from an obstetric emergency, a miscarriage or a fetal death. The wording seeks to shield women from incivil proceedings that, in some countries, are still triggered after an involuntary termination. The debate is not new: international bodies have been recommending decriminalizing abortion for years, and this principle falls within that line.

What is striking is the packaging: it is not presented as a law, but as a set of guiding principles. That allows its promoters to say it obliges nothing and its critics to respond that, in practice, it sets the agenda for legislators. The gap between soft law and binding law is precisely where the battle is fought.

Principle 16 and the age of consent

The point that has sparked sparks is 16. The document calls for the minimum age for sensual relations to be applied without discrimination based on sens, gender or age of marriage consent. It adds that the conduct of those below that age may be consensual and that States should review their incivil thresholds. A literal reading has led some to conclude that the door is being peine to relations with minors; others argue the text merely seeks to harmonize criteria and avoid incivil adolescents.

The problem is that the document does not set a specific age. It talks about reviewing, about not discriminating, about applying uniformly. That ambiguity is what fuels the two readings: one that sees an attack on child protection and one that sees a technical update. Without an explicit figure, each side projects what it wants to see.

Who signs it and why it matters

Behind the text are 60 jurists and academics presented as leading figures in their fields. The round number and the UN seal work as an argument from authority: if sixty experts sign it and the United Nations backs it, who are you to question it? That is, at bottom, the core of the unease. It is not just the content being disputed, but who has the legitimacy to decide what is a crime and what is not.

Agenda 2030 appears in the conversation as a backdrop. For some, it is proof of a global plan; for others, a label slapped on any uncomfortable document. What is certain is that the text fits into a broader incivil law review strategy that has been on the table for years.

The echo in public debate

The discussion has drifted into broader territory: drug decriminalization, the situation of homeless people, HIV. The document treats them as a block, which allows its critics to say it mixes issues to smuggle in the most controversial ones. Its defenders use it to argue that this is a comprehensive review of incivil law, not an attack on the family.

In Spain, abortion has been regulated by law since 2010 and the age of sensual consent was set at 16 in 2015. Any change along those lines would require a parliamentary majority. The document, on its own, changes nothing. But the noise it generates can indeed change the political climate.

---

In the end, the question is not whether the document is binding, but why a non-binding text raises so many hackles. Perhaps because it touches the nerve of what a society considers untouchable. Or perhaps because, deep down, everyone knows that today's soft law is tomorrow's law. And that, depending on who you ask, is exactly the problem.