This study is a gloss to the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of October 22, 2020, in which the Tribunal declared the so-called unconstitutional eugenic (embryopathological) premises as a premise for legal termination of pregnancy. The adopted research methodology was as follows. Firstly, it was analyzed whether the right whose infringement is legalized by the ordinary legislator constitutes a constitutional value. Secondly, the problem boiled down to the question of whether the legalization of infringements of this right is justified on the basis of constitutional values. On the one hand, there is the constitutional human right to life. The ordinary law extends it to protect this life in the prenatal phase. The human right to life is fundamental, but it is not an absolute right. On the other hand, no one may be subjected to cruel and inhuman treatment. On the other hand, this is how one should treat forcing a woman, against her will, to give birth to a non-viable fetus. In such special situations, the ordinary law grants the right to abortion. The legislator does not introduce abortion compulsion. Thirdly, it was examined whether the ordinary legislator complied with the constitutional criteria for resolving a conflict. It was analyzed whether the principle of proportionality was respected when resolving collisions between constitutionally protected rights. Conflicts of this type may be resolved differently in a moral dimension than in a legal dimension. In extreme situations, in conditions of a conflict of two fundamental values, the law should not – in advance and „blindly” replace the will of involved citizens. The eugenic (embryopathological) premise, as a premise for legal termination of pregnancy, did not violate the constitutional right to life.