Only a belly can be a legitimate crime scene

panbartek.pl 2 months ago

Only in the tummy can you kill

Abortion, a conventional substitute for Poles. This could be seen if it were not for the fact that in the last year a possible practice has become an abortion on request, more specifically, a certificate. It's not a substitute. It is simply a question of whether we accept it and go towards eugenics and whether young people will be about to kill their sick parents for comfort and peace. It is so worth considering, especially since the direction of change in this area will be somewhat determined by the upcoming presidential elections.

The contemporary debate on abortion continues to arouse emotions and controversy. However, a fundamental paradox is not sufficiently criticised: in societies that declare respect for human life, a nine-month-old fetus – capable of surviving outside the womb, feeling stimuli, full developing – can be legally deprived of life, and a place that, by its nature, should be a base of safety becomes a space in which life is threatened. A kid in the womb, especially at the late phase of pregnancy, becomes a “being whose life is not yet full” in the eyes of the law, while an adult individual in a coma, not responding to stimuli and frequently incapable to function independently, is treated as a legal entity, worthy of full protection. Why, then, has a place that is simply a symbol of life and safety in the natural order of things become a place where these fundamental values are questioned?

Stomach crime

The concept of crime is associated with something absolutely unacceptable in society, with crossing borders that defend dignity and human life. However, paradoxically, the mother's belly, which by definition should be the space of protection for the child, is the only place where the life of a human being can be legally terminated. The current practice in Poland, despite the declaration of respect for life, enables abortion even in advanced pregnancy, in situations which are interpreted by any as unjustified. The majority of countries where abortion is allowed set limits, but simply allowing specified anticipation in any form raises a fundamental question of moral and ethical cohesion of these provisions.

The fetus and the adult man

For many people who defend the rights to the life of a kid from conception, the fetus in the 9th period of pregnancy is already a full-fledged human being, with a full set of human traits: the code of DNA, the ability to feel pain, the developed tense strategy and, most importantly, the ability to last outside the mother's body. In this context, treating the fetus as something that can be removed is not only a moral paradox, but absurd. On the another hand, an adult in a coma, although he may be completely unaware and incapable to respond, is treated with full respect and receives medical care aimed at restoring his or her health, regardless of the degree of his or her awareness.

In this confrontation, the question of who deserves protection becomes even more complicated. Why is simply a individual who is comatose, incapable to feel stimulus, protected by law, and a nine-month-old fetus who feels pain and is capable of living, exposed to the end of life legally? This is simply a fundamental contradiction that cannot be understood in a coherent ethics of life protection.

Potential and Life Story

Another key argument in this discussion is the possible for life. The fetus, even in fresh weeks of pregnancy, has a full future ahead of it, opportunities, dreams that can be developed. It has the possible to be part of society, to build relationships and influence the planet around it. In turn, a individual in a coma, even if he was erstwhile a complete individual, may no longer be able to return to full life. Her condition, even though she sometimes provides hope for rehabilitation, is not certain that she will regain consciousness someday.

Although any believe that the life of a individual in a coma has value due to its past and social ties, the question of whether a fetus's life, which has no history, but a large potential, deserves no equal protection, is crucial. Modern law frequently follows not so much an nonsubjective assessment of the value of life as emotions and social attitudes toward birth and death.

Mother's depression and her right to end a child's life

A serious point to rise is the mother’s depression and its impact on abortion decisions. Modern laws in any countries let abortion in the event of a threat to the mother's life or intellectual health. However, erstwhile mother’s depression becomes so strong that her emotional state is considered a threat, we ask: should a parent have the right to end the life of a born kid in order to save her intellectual health? erstwhile we talk about situations where a parent does not want to be a mother, in this case it becomes not only a wellness decision but besides a moral dilemma.

In Poland, a simple certificate from a psychiatrist is adequate to execute abortion in the event of pregnancy, even in the 9th month, erstwhile the kid is full developed and ready to live outside the womb. In specified cases, no complex evidence of a mother's intellectual wellness is required – 1 certificate is adequate to let a healthy kid to end his life. Can this truly be considered fair, given that it is the life of an innocent being who did not have the chance to express his will, and his future was ended by the emotional decision of an adult?

Murderers avoid the death penalty, and children have no right to live

Modern law, which does not supply for the death punishment even for those convicted of murder, allows the killing of innocent children in the womb. In many lands where the death punishment has been abolished, convicted murderers can avoid death, although their actions have led to the failure of the lives of innocent people. Meanwhile, innocent children in the womb, healthy and ready to live, may be deprived of life in the name of the alleged intellectual wellness of the mother, and children themselves have no rights of defence. Where is justice in specified a double standard? How can you believe that the lives of convicted murderers deserve protection and the lives of innocent children do not?

The possible of a kid and the comfort of a mother

Such consideration leads to the question of whether a kid who would be in a akin situation could morally and ethically decide to end the life of an aged or sick individual in order to relieve her suffering or due to a deficiency of adequate emotional ties? Of course, in reality the kid does not have specified a right, but this analogy emphasizes the profoundly humanistic nature of human life, where all life – regardless of age, wellness or level of awareness – deserves protection.

A kid may besides feel depressed and suicidal if he or she has to take care of a sick parent. This is an analogous situation to the 1 in which the parent decides to discontinue pregnancy due to the fact that she does not want to take care of the kid or does not feel ready for it. In the same light, then, it can be asked whether a kid should have the right to decide to end the life of a parent who is sick and incapable to live independently?

Difficulty of life and “mental comfort”

Abortion supporters, frequently referred to as “pro-choice”, claim that a female has the right to discontinue pregnancy in the name of her intellectual comfort. “My body, my business” is said to be the only hard aspect of life. Meanwhile, life brings much more challenges. A healthy kid may become ill, require 24-hour care, and may not meet the expectations of parents. Life is not a computer simulation, it's a constant struggle, rising and falling. Can intellectual comfort be a bargaining chip for the decision of another man's life?

The supporters of the “choice” call, of course, the subject of rape. Not many of them think the rapist deserves the death penalty. Even if you consider that an abortion after rape in the first weeks is justified, can you kill a kid in 9 months erstwhile it is full shaped? Where is the logic, since in 1 case we are talking about a possible embryo and in the another – about a kid ready to be born and to function without a mother?" Rape tablet is not the same as injecting poison into a child’s heart during the 9th period of pregnancy.”

NIs a planned baby worse?

In the debate about abortion, there is frequently an argument that an unwanted kid should not come into the planet due to the fact that his life will be marked by suffering and his parent will not love him. In guession, it's better not to be born than to live in under perfect conditions. But this question requires a deeper reflection: is the planned kid by definition “better” than unplanned? Can society foretell the destiny of man before he is born?

History knows many examples of children who have come into the planet under hard circumstances and yet have done large things. Abraham Lincoln – the president of the United States who abolished slavery – grew up in a mediocre compartment with a mediocre family. John Paul II – Karol Wojtyła – lost his parent very early and was raised in the shadow of war and occupation. Nelson Mandela grew up in a country torn apart by racism, yet he became an icon of the conflict for freedom and reconciliation.

On the another hand, there are examples of people from good, loving, and unchangeable families who have gone incorrect and committed terrible acts. 1 of the most celebrated serial killers, Ted Bundy, had a decent childhood, attended good colleges, and was considered a kind, eloquent man. Another example is Anders Breivik – raised in a prosperous country, Norway, surrounded by democratic culture – inactive committed an assassination effort involving dozens of young people.

Human life cannot be designed like an flat or programmed like an application. Life is not a computer simulation in which all variables are predictable. It's a series of ups and downs, surprises, failures and victories. Likewise, a kid born “not in time” can prove to be a light in the darkness, both for his loved ones and for the world. And that which had “all assurances” may lose meaning and fall into hatred or self-destruction.

Therefore, it is worth putting this question very clearly: do we have a moral right to take a man's life simply due to the fact that he was not planned? Since no of us know the future, we are besides incapable to foretell who the kid will become – and much little whether his life will have “value”. all life has potential. And everyone deserves a chance.

Liberalization without law – the conviction was, but not now

In 2020, the Constitutional Court in Poland issued a loud judgement which limited the anticipation of abortion in the event of severe and irreversible foetal impairment. This ruling echoed widely throughout the country, triggering mass protests. Critics claimed that forcing women to bear children with disabilities was cruelty and violating their dignity. On the another hand, the Court's ruling was the consequence of the existing Constitution and the designation that all man's right to life was granted to all man – besides to an unborn and sick child.

Paradoxically, however, in 2024 – without any amendment of the law and without a fresh court ruling – actual liberalisation of abortion was carried out in Poland. The Ministry of wellness addressed guidelines to hospitals in which it suggested that abortion could be performed at any phase of pregnancy, including in the case of a healthy fetus if a female gives a certificate from a psychiatrist of mediocre intellectual status. There are no time limits – even during the 9th period of pregnancy. Following the ministerial suggestions followed the lawyer General, who indicated that specified abortions would not be prosecuted criminally. As a result, despite the deficiency of amendments to the legislation, there has been an utmost change in practice that has bypassed parliament and social debate.

In all of this, the voice that should be apparent – the voice of the conscience of doctors was omitted. Article 39 of the Medical Ethics Code clearly states:

‘When taking medical action in a pregnant woman, the doctor shall besides be liable for the wellness and life of her child. Therefore, it is the work of the doctor to preserve the wellness and life of the kid besides before his birth."

But does the modern wellness strategy inactive remember this? Do those who swore to defend life inactive believe that all life is worth saving? Or maybe, in the name of temporary intellectual comfort and ideological pressure, they forgot that a kid in the womb is not an accidental collection of cells – but a second patient, equally worthy of care and protection?

The cynical promotion of killing unborn children is not a treatment, it is contrary to the Hippocratic oath (I will not give a lethal drug to anyone, even if he asks me, nor will I give specified advice to anyone, nor will I give a female a miscarriage).

No reflection on the Unborn Child

It seems that cynicism and the deficiency of any reflection on the life of unborn children are moving on. Mrs Gizela Jagielska, a doctor from Oleśnica, publically commenting on her practices, shows not only complete disregard for professional ethics, but besides unhealthy indifference to human drama. The same individual who has in his hands the life and wellness of innocent beings, without hesitation boasting on social media about pictures of a dead fetus, throwing them on his profiles, and 1 of them becomes her profile photograph on Instagram. As a gynecologist who should defend life, alternatively of expressing respect and reflection, she shows ruthlessness.

In 1 of the interviews on the channel “Zero” there were shocking words. erstwhile the editor asked her, “Are you not afraid that the kid will be healthy and the parent will be healthy and will get a receipt from the psychiatrist?” she replied, “I absolutely do not think about it.” This conviction not only shows her complete indifference to the wellness and life of an unborn child, but besides suggests that in her eyes life is only something that can be manipulated freely, ignoring all moral consequences.

When the editor suggested that it might be worth providing a second opinion to be a safety buffer, the answer was equally shocking: “No, it is just obstruction of access to abortion, a female may have 1000 different reasons for abortion, I am not interested.” Of course, the doctor forgets that abortion is not just a substance of "comfortable solution", but a moral dilemma that involves taking the life of an innocent being, which had no way of deciding his fate.

Her words and public attitude are brutal proof of how some, considering themselves infallible, completely ignore the value of life, distorting the principles of medical ethics and making the death of unborn children just another point in regular medical procedure. If the Polish State does not take firm action to prevent specified practices, it will mean that the death of children will become a legal, unlimited act.

The doctor herself, in his cynicism, publically downplays the code of medical ethics, which commands the care of unborn children, saying: “I do not believe in God. I'm judaic and an atheist. And a professional doctor – that is why I will execute and execute abortions, according to the instructions and wishes of women.” She thus admits that it is not her professional ethics or the welfare of an unborn child, but her mother's want is the main guideline in her work. Doubtless, if we had a possible death punishment for murderers in Poland, Mrs Gizela Jagielska would be perfect for executing sentences. Meanwhile, in many people's opinion, she is considered a murderer. Her attitude as a doctor is not only morally doubtful but frightening. Not for everyone, of course. For the Left candidate for President Magdalena Biejat, Mrs. Gizela is simply a hero.

Olesia — potassium chloride alternatively of cradle

If individual thinks that abortion in Poland is hard and only affects utmost cases, they should look at what is happening in the infirmary in Oleśnica. More than 150 abortions, most performed on the basis of 1 psychiatric certificate. besides healthy children, sometimes in a very advanced pregnancy. Without judgment. Without changing the law. No baby voice. A psychiatrist's signature is adequate to inject potassium chloride into the heart of an unborn child.

When Grzegorz Braun showed up at the hospital, he did not do it for the media, although of course his enemies would immediately accuse him of another "happening". He was just trying to break the mechanics that's becoming more and more like a clinical death machine. He demanded that a doctor be detained, who, without hesitation, admits in the media that the life of an unborn kid does not concern her at all, and that there is no opposition to killing as long as she receives the appropriate paperwork. And yet we have Article 39 of the Code of Medical Ethics, which is worth mentioning again, due to the fact that he is the 1 who speaks very clearly about the kid before birth:

So much for theory. Practice in Oleśnica is an ethical desert. For Mrs. Gizela, the baby is only after birth. If it's the mother's will and the paper from the psychiatrist, the children are removed. And doctors who should be the last line of defence of life become executioners of judgment.

Until the state returns to its function as guardian of the regulation of law and humanity, it is people like Braun, regardless of political colors, that will stay the last voice of those who cannot shout. Yes, he will pay for it with hate, ridicule, possibly court proceedings. But possibly 1 day, erstwhile we return to decency, individual will say, ‘ He was not standing aside. ’ In Joseph Piłsudski's day, most likely not everyone loved him for extremist statements specified as "beat whores and thieves, my count" or "whores piss you to lead, not politics to do." present it is simply a symbol of patriotism and has a street in all city.

Completion

Mother's belly should be a place of unconditional security, not a kill consent zone. In the left, progressive world, however, the other is actual – only in the belly of the parent can you kill a shaped, healthy man, and this helpless and innocent man. The punishment of death, on the another hand, is not even for the worst degenerates. In the average world, law, ethics and society should defend those who cannot defend themselves, not search comfortable justifications for force in white. It's beautiful obvious, but in these days, it's considered a home thinker. Grzegorz Braun strives for normality in Poland and is brave, possibly even radical, but without it he would not draw attention to society and the media.

As long as you defend murderers and let the killing of children in the 3rd trimester, your mother's belly will stay the only place where the crime is legal. And the only place the victim doesn't even have the right to scream.

Bartholomew Kirzych

#abortion #eugenika #olesnica #gizela #braun #beast #children

For those who have not yet heard – the words of Mrs Gizela Jagielska and her attitude towards unborn children, even erstwhile she is healthy and later pregnant.