This article attempts to expose a political philosophy debate on a difficult moral issue: abortion. Assuming that in all Western democracies a central topic in this discussion is about who may or must, at the end, decide on its legality, what is analyzed here is the problem of the design and constitutional legitimacy that responds to this issue in a liberal democracy. Recognizing that there are not few occasions in which this moral debate has deeply divided society, this article is specifically intended to explain briefly what was the mechanism used to achieve the “decriminalize” abortion in Colombia and then analyze the fairness of the proceedings, the claims of those who promoted the action of constitutionality, as well as the decision of the Constitutional Court according to John Rawls’ model of justice, especially in the light of the concept of overlapping consensus. This, in order to defend the position that, at least in the Colombian legal and political model, there are serious objections against those who believe that the Constitutional Court is the competent body to close the democratic debate on abortion.
