Not everyone had cars, for many the only means of communication was the bus line. Communication wasn't perfect, buses were comfortable, but sometimes they were late. There have besides been times erstwhile 1 of the courses fell off the schedule. fewer people knew that these problems were not always blamed by the carrier. There were times erstwhile an unknown perpetrator crossed tires on a bus. Sometimes it was the car owners that paved the way for buses due to the fact that they thought they were obstructing their lives, causing slowing traffic on winding and narrow access roads to the city. And so the dissatisfaction of the inhabitants with bus communication began to rise, fueled by fresh information that the carrier is inept that delays in moving could be the consequence of bad will. There were even voices saying that there was no difference between whether or not there was communication. And so any of the inhabitants, utilizing the cars offered to them by the car owners, began boycotting communication. After a short period of time, the carrier went bankrupt and residents of these towns were cut off from the city overnight, unemployed, incapable to educate children, were practically cut off from shops, offices, entertainment. Convicted of vegetation, they began to see the horror of the situation, but they did not see their responsibility in it.
A fewer days before the election in column 1-8-15-22, I asked: “Whose Poland will be on 22 October? Will Poland inactive be free and sovereign?“ We have already learned the answers to these questions on October 17, after the authoritative election results were announced. But it was on October 22nd, on the next Sunday of this series of events initiated by the march of a million empty hearts, that the diagnosis and explanation of the causes of what happened. First Sunday morning I received an email from CitizenGo. It says: “The PiS organization has not answered the questions contained in the CitizenGO Pre-Election Questionnaire, which afraid the values we profess and preach, which may indicate a tactical avoidance of a clear position on matters that are crucial to us. Inconsistency and inconsistencies in the presentation of conservative values by the Law and Justice have definitely contributed to the failure of as many as 41 mandates compared to the 2019 election". A firm diagnosis and a strong charge. I'm going to church for Mass. The words from this email cauterize in my head even after the Mass begins. And through this confusion thoughts pierce the words of the Gospel, the Gospel of October 22: “The Pharisees went distant and consulted as to catch Jesus in the speech. So they sent their disciples along with Herod’s followers to say to him: “Teacher, we know that you are truthful and the way of God you teach in truth. You don't care about anyone due to the fact that you don't look at a human being. So tell us, what do you think? Are you allowed to pay the taxation to Caesar or not?». Jesus saw over their perverseness and said, “Why are you investigating me, hypocrites?”
Christ taught: “Let your speech be: Yes, yes; no, noIt’s okay. ” But erstwhile he was asked a question, which was to be a trap, a question of a political nature, to which both the answer ‘yes’ and the answer ‘no’ would have been interpreted against him, he avoided this form of answer. In fact, he asked: “Why are you investigating me, hypocrites?” It has not even been 2 hours since I read the diagnosis sent in my email and received an explanation through the Gospel. Although our speech should be so, yes, no, no, these are situations where it is better to avoid answering the question. So let's go back to politics and 1 of the questions that CitizenGO directed before the election to the ruling party: “Will you stand up for the right to life of unborn children and will you argue the current claims to extend abortion due to your mother's intellectual state or any another reason? I'd alternatively not answer that question.“. Let's consider purely theoretically, not going into debates about the intentions of the organization as a whole, and even more so, its individual members, 2 possible answers to this question: yes or no. If the PiS had responded "no", it would have been openly against natural law, of course losing the support of most likely a large part of its constituents. The case here seems clear and clear. However, if the PiS had answered “yes”, as expected by the authors of the question and many voters, it would not have even exceeded the 25% threshold, losing not only to the PO but besides to the 3rd Way. Why would she say that? I will give any examples: Example 1 of parish X: a young female in a pandemic goes to confession and then to Holy Communion in a mask with a red lightning sign, a sign of hatred. Nobody's responding. I ask her after Mass if she knows what she's doing. She responds that she only fights for legalization of abortion due to the fact that it is simply a human right due to the fact that it is her right, the Catholic right. Example 2 Y parish: parishioners active in the life of the Church and in parish structures hang on their homes banners of the women's strike, participate in black marches. Example 3 parish Z: a proposal to set the pro-life exhibition in the church; the parish priest does not agree, arguing that the exhibition is controversial. Example 4 of parish N: The parish priest during the sermon explains that he cannot criticize abortion due to the fact that it is simply a subject that touches more than half the parishioners. And possibly the example 5 Cardinal Nycz stated after the last election: “The fresh social and political context that emerges after the elections can be affirmative for the community."
The full opposition over the full 2 terms of the United Right Government attempted to make the subject of life and abortion the main subject of the debate. More, she tried to make a riot on the streets and lead to a violent overthrow of the government. The Law and Justice Department was very skillful to avoid making abortion the subject of an election run aware that abortion supporters were unfortunately more than its opponents in Poland. In this context, it could be said that the goal justified the means. After all, the Government of the United Right did not in any way question the provisions of the Act of 7 January 1993 on household Planning, and in November 2020 the Constitutional Court decided to defend children with suspected illness, which was a form of tightening up existing legislation. The allegation that the protection of children's lives was not introduced by the Sejm Act is absurd. In this way, heated debates were avoided at the parliament's mouthpiece, picketing the Sejm through black marches, and possibly even trying to make a forceful coup. The protests following the decision of the TK no longer had this strength and momentum. all protest held after and not before making any decision always has a lower power of destruction. Thanks to specified prudent, gradual decisions, Poland presently has 1 of the best legal regulations protecting life from natural conception to death from all countries in the world.
So did the pro-life organizations not realize all this? Did they truly think that young girls, women, had adequate cognition and awareness of abortion? They hear that the cardinal calls something affirmative for the community of believers a social context allowing abortion on request. They see that people supporting the alleged "women's walk" and black marches go to church and enter communion. They see that in many cases priests stay passive and avoid the subject. So why didn't pro-life organizations go with brotherly instruction to the cardinal, did not engage with youth educators, including clergymen, catechists. Why, finally, have pro-life organisations not taken the hard way of educating, raising awareness of the public, but of choosing the counter-effective way of insisting on politicians, so that they will be the ones who are legally "settling" this problem for them, for us? An example is the United States, where the way to repeal the ultimate Court judgement in alleged casesRoe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood were long but effective. Life defenders alternatively of pushing politicians have taken a heroic effort to educate young girls, dissuade them from abortion. This resulted not only in saving the lives of many unborn children, but in a gradual change in public awareness. Following the repeal of the 1973 SN judgement in June 2022 in many U.S. states, most of the population accepted the change of laws as apparent and natural.
The rules are like the following example. After completion of the road works, all railings and markings were cleaned. However, neglect left a drastic velocity limit in force during the work. Most drivers break regulations in specified a place, do not respect this regulation due to the fact that they do not realize its legitimacy. Therefore, alternatively of expecting politicians to tighten up the rules on life protection, there should be emphasis on education and awareness. On education, due to the fact that the question of erstwhile fresh life begins has been proven and settled by science. It is not a question of explanation of this or another Church, it is not a question of belief or superstition. From the minute of conception, a kid that we can call an embryo or fetus, as in the subsequent stages of his life, we call it a newborn, an ass or an infant, has its only unique DNA code. The DNA code of an unborn child, due to the advancement of science, can be determined by a mother's blood test. This is now rather simple, non-invasive and not very expensive. Why don't pro-life organizations tell us why teachers and educators don't talk about it, why they don't yet teach priests and catechists. After all, the commandment “do not steal” is not a fanatic of Catholic religion but a civilian law in force in all civilized countries. There is no request for legal regulation. There is no request for appropriate interpretation. There are people with specified shaped consciences who think stealing is simply a bad and unacceptable thing but driving on a stowaway or extortion taxation return do not consider stealing. Also, the command to “don't kill” is not a fanatic of Catholic religion but a civilian law. As you can see, however, many request a appropriate explanation of erstwhile life begins and erstwhile it ends. Not by religion, but by science.
However, the milk has spilled, and no one, even if he gets a deep reflection, will always go back. Although we had a good, imperfect but good law on the protection of life so far, it was broken and bypassed. But it may now be that, in a certain time perspective, although the leftist – liberal majority in the Polish parliament will impose a barbaric law on us, this law will become an empty evidence over time. due to the fact that as you can break a good law, so you can not usage the opportunities that give a bad law. So possibly pro-life organizations will start an action that could be called "When you think of abortion." The intent of this action would be to propose and aid all women who are willing to have an abortion to execute a blood test to find DNA. The declarative component of this action would be further medical assistance, provided investigation reveals that the DNA of what this female wants to remove is the same as her DNA. If it's her body, possibly any "guzz," she needs help. If the test results show that this thing, this fetus, has its DNA, different from the woman's DNA, that it is simply a separate being, then a female should admit that it is her baby in her womb. Left-wing – liberal law, to which we have contributed by making specified decisions and not another decisions at the ballot box, will deprive children of their protection. But women, based on technological cognition and not church commandments, will be able to make an informed decision whether to benefit from this left-wing law.
Mr Bogdan
