K. Stefanowska: Let us rebuild Poland. Part 10 - OUR FUTURE

However, as always, it is not a text about complaints and problems, but about solutions. What can we do about it? The issue is more hard than others, due to the fact that not all of us can simply, for Poland, take and have another child. But if biology has not yet closed the way for someone, it is worth considering it again. Children are kind to God, and He does not leave without the aid of the life which He creates, for yet it is only His decision, we can be open to this life.

But what can be done if the physical conception and birth of another kid is no longer possible for us? We must consciously and laboriously build a friendly environment for motherhood and parenthood in our environment. Consciously, due to the fact that if we don't think about it, we will most likely instinctively enter into ubiquitous anti-natalism by rushing through the tracks according to the tropics set by the left. What do you mean?

If we have children in our family, we should consciously, but with sensitivity and mildly prepare them for future parenting. Depending on the age of the kid and the degree of intimacy, you can give the baby doll to the girl, you can choose the right book, you can introduce the older kid to care for the younger. In each family, something can be planned, and the Holy Spirit will give the best advice in a peculiar case.

If we happen (and unfortunately this is simply a sight getting rarer) to meet in a shop, a tram, a bus, a pregnant female or with a tiny kid let us give them a seat, let us pass in line no substance how we utilized to be treated this way. Let us show young parents that we appreciate them, that we are happy with their children, that we support their hard work of parenting. If we have a physical possibility, let's aid get in with the trolley, or at least don't take the seats next to the space for the wheelchair, let the sleepless small mom sit down and at least these fewer minutes on the journey rest. If we can't do anything else, let's just grin at Mom, to the baby (but without touching him, due to the fact that it's not necessarily wanted by the parents) and find a good word for them.

Perhaps not everyone is aware that in any spaces, children's environments are decently treated as a different species of surviving being. And if anything else bombeleki seems to be a comic or neutral term, but grenadier is Prick are already contemptible and as specified definitely negative, and many people usage these terms regular for children.

This contempt goes much further, of course, and expresses itself in organizing weddings without children, beginning restaurants where children are not allowed, hotels where families with children are not welcome, and so on. Of course, we must prevent this by inviting full families to household celebrations, by taking children with us to restaurants or hotels and teaching them to behave in specified places. And if we see one’s children acting not rather right, remember that we were children ourselves once, and that judging a cut-off of someone’s life without knowing the context most frequently just hurts someone.

Today, in the media, alleged mainstream, it is emphasized that any people want to have children, and others like to travel, meet friends, prosecute their passions, and that is besides ok. Of course, that is not true, for even from the point of view of society and the nation, it is more crucial and essential to start a household and simply build this nation, to invest in its future. Somewhere I heard the message that having children is simply a measurement of hope - the hope that the future will be bright and good, and we as a household will manage and be able to supply the children with everything they need. How much hope is on the Vistula today?

A separate subject, suitable for a book alternatively than a column, is the medicalization of parenthood, especially of childbirth. Today, the birth process, as physiological as possible, has to take place in a hospital, where conditions are different, the environment is alien, which can already awaken involuntary and subconscious stress. From this stress and the administration of anaesthesia most frequently occurs a woman's crotch rupture or incision (sorry for physiological details). At the same time, everything is so complicated that almost half of all births are not made and end with imperial cutting. Imperial cutting is not a birth (I went through it and I know what I'm talking about) and a surgery that saves life and wellness in a situation where childbirth is not possible and pregnancy is over. It is not a childbirth, due to the fact that in a situation of imperial cutting there is not a full lot of physiological processes of birth proper, natural feeding of the baby is made difficult, maternal instinct is delayed, woman's wellness is damaged and her ability to further breed is limited. 1 cut makes it hard for another kid to have a average birth, and with the 5th C-section, doctors tremble for the patient’s life. However, today's rhetoric tells us to treat this operation on an equal footing with the birth of the forces and pathways of nature, which makes the operation more and more and more, and the children and mothers later go through life with a wellness severely damaged by unnecessary (most often) serious surgical intervention.

When the baby is happily born, it is worn to a doctor (in the first months of life most often, even all 2-3 weeks!) to receive vaccines in quantities hard to imagine due to the fact that it happens to be up to 5 (five!!!) of various dangerous, infectious diseases at the same time, on 1 visit (sic!). investigation on the safety of this kind of cocktails in specified tiny people does not exist, as the experts have alerted, however, vaccination must be given due to the fact that “vaccinations are tested and safe”. If the kid successfully passes through all of this, his parents will most likely hear that from the age of 4 months he should already be getting another things to eat too Mom’s milk. A child, who does not sit alone, barely begins to be curious in the surroundings, is already to be fed carrots, jars or soup, although even the WHO's discredited from all means present recommends feeding only milk until the age of 6 months, erstwhile this kid is already able to sit down and engage in any food.

All these unnecessary complications make the beginning of parenting difficult, sometimes besides hard to bear, which clearly discourages the reception of subsequent children both of present parents and of possible parents who hear stories of friends or tv reports.

What can we do about it? The answer seems to be patient sharing knowledge, educating yourself and others. On the issue of imperial cutting and its consequences for the parent and the kid (direct and time-out; there should never be a choice or a "cessor on request" and a hard birth is simply a reason to fight for better conditions for the giving, not o C-section on request) on feeding children (what is interesting about adult nutrition, doctors are most frequently under-learned, and at the same time they want to decide how we should feed young children), guarding the right vocabulary, giving parents the dose of proven, reliable knowledge.

Further, in man there is simply a natural request to have offspring, to pass on life. However, anti-natalists besides found a way to do this - they utilized animals, mainly dogs, but not only (More about the phenomenon called bambinicism was erstwhile written by portal pch24.pl). And so present we have “adopted” (sic!) dog (!!!) from the shelter, we have dog psychologists called behaviorists and teenagers who want to be... vets alternatively of moms and teachers. We have dogs who are trained, who are raised, who are treated, who are treated, who are taken care of, like... Thus, the natural needs of humans have been channeled into the animals. Volunteers no longer go to a child's home today, but to a shelter for animals, and among the charitable actions and gatherings on the occasion of at least Christmas there are obligatory - unfortunately - actions supporting animal shelters.

What can we do with all this? We request to remind the planet that animals, though they are surviving beings, are to be subjected to us, and in no way can we compare them with humans. Supporting a shelter for animals is simply a wicked thing if these money or objects or our time could be useful to another people - the poor, the hungry, the sick, left to themselves. so - without spending besides much time on it - specified actions should not be supported or organised, and the natural desire to aid in another way - can be utilized as a volunteer of the Noble Package (seeking all year) or another organization, or individual visit of a single surviving neighbour or single parent from an flat opposite.

It is besides worth considering having an animal at home. If we don't have it, it's simple, you don't want to effort it anymore, and if we have free resources, whether it's time or money, or just love, that we don't have anyone to give it to, it's worth looking for people to carry it to. Children's homes, foster families, single mothers who are amazed by pregnancy (this is simply a separate subject, but that is not what today's column is about) stay with nothing and without aid are the evangelical mediocre people whom we are to support with our forces. If we already have an animal, let us think profoundly about our attitude toward it. If he becomes ill, let us just put them to sleep, and the resources that this animal released in our home, let us usage them for the benefit of another people. Of course, it's harder, but nothing that has value can be inexpensive or easy, and our payment will be in heaven.

Anyone here might ask what's incorrect with having a dog if we have the right attitude to it? possibly nothing, although the dog in the city, especially in the block, by definition is simply a mistake. After all, the dog was utilized to defend the herd or farm in the countryside, where it took place for itself and its tasks. What about the city? Why does a dog like that serve? Isn't it just to pour on his feelings, time and resources that should go somewhere else?

But let's look at the another way, what's incorrect with occasional (I mean drinking once, twice a year a glass of champagne at a wedding or another celebration) drinking alcohol? most likely nothing, but founded by the large priest and visionary Franciszek Blachnicki the Crusade of Liberation A man assumes full abstinence, orders to quit even this champagne at a wedding erstwhile a year, more, does not let alcohol to be bought or donated to others, or even to serve, which frequently requires quite a few gymnastics, for, for example, how can a individual working as a waiter solve this? Clients order alcohol sometimes. And why, why all this, why so much? due to the fact that drinking can only be combated with full abstinence, due to the fact that most non-drinking alcoholics are incapable to return to controlled drinking and for them even this symbolic glass of champagne - whose company can sometimes not let go of individual - can be what will push them back down again, and if they do not just defy drinking culture alone, it will simply be easier for them.

Today, many people are sick of animals, of “dummy encephalitis”, and we can only aid them with our complete abstinence and showing them a different, average world, in which everyone - God, man, animal, plant, inanimate nature - takes his place. .

***