- Opinion, like the back part of the body, so everyone has/can have their own (many do not have their own).
- But can the opinion be a reason for action?
- Can opinion be a origin of law?
- Do we have the right to kill?
In the publication:
- the legal aspect,
- the biological aspect,
- moral (ethical) aspect.
LEGAL ASPECT
So-called. "abortion compromise" and the Constitution of Poland - can fresh life be considered worthy or unworthy of existence?
The 1993 Act (called the "abortion compromise") and the removal of pregnancy – 3 admissible cases:
1. hazard to the wellness or life of a woman,
2. The indication, through studies and "other medical conditions", that there is simply a advanced probability of severe and irreversible foetal impairment or incurable illness threatening his life – until the fetus has achieved the ability to live independently outside of the pregnant woman,
3. Pregnancy due to rape (removal of pregnancy possible up to 12 weeks after conception),
After 4 years of functioning in the legal strategy of the Act of 1993, the Constitution of the Republic of Poland was passed, whose Article 38 reads:
"Rzeczpospolita Polska provides everyone with legal protection of life".
I repeat to the lefties:
"Rzeczpospolita Polska provides everyone with legal protection of life".
In 2020 The Constitutional Court rejected the anticipation of abortion in the event of severe and irreversible harm to the fetus, but besides in cases where diseases that no longer had specified a weight, e.g. Turner syndrome, have been diagnosed. But it's not about grading.
The 2020 ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal says no less, no more, that all life in Poland is legally protected, and the illness of the conceived kid cannot be the criterion of deciding to kill it. So much for the legal admissibility of abortion. A justice who understood Article 38 of the Polish Constitution could not make another decision, and if he made or abstained, it could mean that his peculiar interest was more crucial than the law he was expected to be a guardian. The article is so simple that you don't request to learn the law for 10 years. Really...
BIOLOGICAL ASPECT
- The unborn kid is not alone, he does not walk, he does not have teeth, he does not feed his mother's fluids – he dies,
- Some of the older people we know are not alone, they don't walk, they don't have teeth, they're not fed by a guardian – they'll die,
- The victims of various accidents are not alone, they do not walk, unfed by guardians – they will die,
- People of all ages are not independent, they do not walk, they are not fed – they will die.
Is it possible to conclude that any of these groups have no right to live due to their afflictions? Who's in favour?
MORAL/ETIC ASPECT
I don't justice anyone, I don't condemn anyone, and I show 3 points of the 1993 Act consecutively: example, reason and fact.
1. A threat to the wellness or life of a woman.
This is the threat of life presented by doctors to my aunt, who were pregnant (more than 60 years ago). According to them, she had specified a condition that she could die during childbirth. She didn't calculate, she didn't consider, she gave birth.
She may have died, but... she survived for almost 90 years. Her daughter lives to this day and is simply a large advocate of life – unconditionally.
2. The indication of the illness of the kid as a reason for the authorisation to remove the pregnancy.
This approval already speaks of... a fresh life. Cell fusion is the beginning of a fresh life. And it doesn't substance if it was created in natural or laboratory conditions.
In turn the explanation of combining life with consciousness or brain transplantation into another organism can besides be inserted between fairy tales, but with a deadly punch line. erstwhile a man sleeps, there is no consciousness either. Can you kill sleepers?
3. Pregnancy from rape.
The legal aspect of this point is this: since the conception occurred in violation of the law, its effects can be attempted to alleviate, here: abortion.
Even with a minimal sense of humanity, however, we cannot overlook the fact that a female who decides to have an abortion will stay a parent for the remainder of her life; she will stay the parent of a kid who was conceived as a consequence of rape.
This Sunday afternoon is simply a substance (and the destiny of the unborn) I leave you to consider and discuss. The remainder of you should be able to understand, even more so, that they have already been born. And it is not you from this Portal – it should be explained here.
Pork
Marian Kolodzier
Photo taken from: https://faithandthelaw.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/a-sad-and-evil-day-new-york-legalizes-abortion-up-to-babys-birth-day-on-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade/
Ps. The photograph has an interesting communicative – its author is Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson. And I thought the only known (at the same time harmless) Swede is simply a slag man Tony Rickardsson ;).
John Paul II in Tarnów (1987) said: I came here to watch..
So let's take a look at this picture, have a taste of it. Let's see the man.
