Abortion supporters manipulate human rights slogans (which inactive substance to Polish citizens) to force public support for abortion. The appeal by legal promoters of the availability of prenatal execution to human rights is intended to give the impression that their demands are rooted in the best traditions of humanism.
The revolutionary designation of human rights, which is guided by pro-abortion propaganda, ignores fundamental rights specified as the right to life, justice and even freedom. Above that he puts no egoistic “triumph of will”. A triumph of political will, placed above unchanging human rights, leads to the dominance of force and the segregation of people on the basis of arbitrary criteria. This worked likewise in communism, in Nazism, and now in liberalism.
Consent to the legal availability of abortion is just the first step towards a society that normalises the force of the weaker and justifies it with advanced values. Read more about this in the second text in the series Abortion – the road to national horror (part one, read HERE).
Perverse rhetoric of abortionists
Proponents of the legal admissibility of prenatal execution are eager to usage human rights rhetoric. This is simply a very effective method in convincing the hesitant, due to the fact that the concept of human rights contains a crucial level of ambiguity that allows public opinion to be manipulated. This peculiarly applies to the part of the public that – although looking for moral good, erstwhile considering its view on matters specified as life protection – is at the same time powerfully influenced by political emotions.
The adherence by pro-abortional propagandaists from the widely understood left-wing language of human rights in their anti-human narratives is useful for at least 3 reasons. It besides has a deeper reason for what further paragraphs of this article treat.
Firstly, the language of human rights allows us to camouflage the violent nature of the demands and objectives pursued by abortionists. Secondly, it keeps the impression that these demands are rooted in the advanced morality and cultural heritage of the Western world. This applies not so much to distant traditions as to the sources of moral reasoning close to each living. Whether we are believers Catholics or not we join this faith, we inactive function in a space of social consciousness in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an crucial paper and a mention point. It is worth recalling that all those who before 1989 fought against communist dictatorship in our country – it was both John Paul II and the intellectuals of the lay left. The vocation of human rights present keeps the illusion of continuity between the historical issue of freedom and national independence, and the “right” to kill the unborn.
Thirdly, the emergence of communities and pro-abortion parties for human rights makes it possible to strengthen the public's belief that the root of these rights itself is an irreparable contradiction between non-negotiable values. These contradictions would be the basis for requiring any kind of concessions from the defenders of life. Finally, the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that “all men are born free and equal in their dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience, and should act toward others in the spirit of brotherhood." The 3rd article states: “Every man has the right to life, freedom and safety of his person.” In a modern head that usually cannot hierarch the most crucial goods and principles, but lists them with 1 breath as equal to 1 another, reading the text The Declaration inevitably must origin dissonance. The alleged conflict of values seems inevitable. It is mostly due to a simple confusion affecting a man without a criterion that would let him to put the innocent life before the issue of unlimited freedom.
SEE ALSO: The right to life is the most fundamental of human rights!
New “rights” far from the first vision
Human rights – those established in 1949 as a moral seal closing the horror of planet War II – have additional authority for the public. They were the consequence of a comparatively short alliance between leaders of the post-war Christian opinion and an opinion that could be termed liberal and enlightened. Many people may have thought that along with the Declaration an different historical synthesis of Christian and lay civilization was born. It is apparent that present fewer people are aware of the historical circumstances in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created, but its story is inactive present in societies. The problem we face present is that the Declaration, as well as human rights themselves, has become to a large degree only a legend instrumentally exploited by politicians.
The story of human rights now allows us to bring to society slogans that have nothing to do with the intentions of the creators of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in no way have they found their place in it. "Women's rights" separated from universal rights, the slogan of "reproductive rights", which conceals the right to take distant from another, innocent man his right to life, or, finally, perverse to the text of the Declaration (now enforced as a human right) "the right to abortion". Modern promoters of fresh human rights usually ignore the fact that they themselves see these rights rather differently from the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They're silent due to the fact that this silence is politically acceptable to them.
Revolution in Human Rights
The process of transformation in the sense of human rights, which is carried out in the global expert and decision-making bodies, met. Jerzy Kwaśniewski, president of the Ordo Iuris Institute, called the "internal revolution" a discourse on fundamental human rights a fewer years ago.
“We are [...] witnessing the silent transformation of the catalogue of unchanging fundamental rights – life, freedom, health, safety, conscience and property – into an extended catalogue of fresh rights, the intent of which is not to strengthen the guarantee, but to strengthen the profound change of society”, wrote Jerzy Kwaśniewski in 2019 in Rzeczpospolita. This recast consists of gradually abandoning the catalogue of fundamental rights, known from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to limit them to narrowly understood human rights, based solely on arbitrary principles of individual dignity and the prohibition of discrimination. In practice, this means that the catalogue of "human rights" is accompanied by further requests for legal protection, in the name of which human rights experts want to talk or which have the possible to organise political force movements around them. Consequently, human rights cease to be decently different from another forms of affirmative law. The difference is that the law – its form – in democratic countries is subject (even if indirectly) to social control. fresh human rights, debated in global bodies and tribunals, are deprived of specified control. At the same time, they are a very real tool for emphasising the sovereignty of states, due to the fact that human rights authorities are inactive active and are peculiarly utilized in global policy.
"The essence of the post-war human rights strategy was not the positivist protection of equality, but the return to the search for standards implementing the principles of justice after the night of the legal positivism of Nazi Germany. The importance of human conscience, reason and “conscience of humanity” (preamble of the universal declaration of human rights) was rediscovered in the above-mentioned text by Jerzy Kwaśniewski. Today, erstwhile the letter of the Declaration is contested, alternatively of strengthening the unchanging human rights, derived from the deepest sources of Western civilization, we see the return of the positivistic triumph of will, the return of the governments of arbitrary segregation and force against the weaker supposedly justified ultimate principles. What is the best example is the progressive legal normalization of prenatal killing and dehumanization of children at the prenatal phase of life, but not only. Physically ill, elderly, mentally ill, newborns are a large group of people at hazard of utilitarian ideas proposed as legal solutions.
SEE ALSO: Legal abortion and full disarmament. Concerning demands of the UN improvement Rights Pact
The will of the people most important?
The fact that something bad is happening to human rights, however, was noticed much earlier than in the late second decade of the 21st century. French philosopher Jean Madiran dedicated a book entitled Les Droits de l’homme DHSD in the late 1980s. At that time, erstwhile the doctrine of human rights remained in Poland – rather rightly so – large hopes, Madiran described the dusk of the post-war plan of universal moral doctrine. Poles saw in human rights a political synthesis of the best European spiritual and ethical traditions that could argue totalitarianism. Madiran, on the another hand, noticed that on the ground the debate on human rights comes to rebirth of totalitarianism, only in its democratic and liberal version.
According to Madiran, for the leftist but besides liberal environments, the applicable mention point was never the 1949 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the French revolutionary Declaration of Human and Citizen Rights of 1789, for which the structure, regardless of the order in which the individual rights were enshrined, remains the most crucial content of Articles 3 and 6. Their content gives the full declaration the right form, which we could call democratic totalitarianism. Article 3 of the Revolutionary Declaration states that “no body or individual can exercise authority that does not come straight from the will of the nation”, whereas Article 6 states that “law is the expression of the will of the general.” Both of these points together speak, no more than that, but that anyone who wants to argue the arbitrary, in fact, will of the nation, in the name of any higher – e.g. ethical or spiritual – law, can be considered an enemy of democracy. Modern democracy, according to the revolutionary designation of human rights, is simply a government of subjective desires of various collective identities representing the will of the people. If the people agree that the unborn kid or the aged are social parasites, no 1 should even discuss the “right to abortion” or “right to euthanasia” due to the fact that they are an expression of decently understood human rights. Constitutional protection of the right to abortion, which was late introduced in France, is an expression of this kind of logic.
Why, then, is the left incapable to admit that in any nations at least the expression of the democratic spirit, the will of the nation, is opposition to prenatal infanticide? Mainly due to the fact that in the revolutionary and progressive perspective, this kind of social opinion is not truly democratic, but is the effect of the pre-revolutionary world's resids, in which non-people's authorities – religion, parental power, authority of superiors in professional life played a decisive role. On the 1 hand, all these forces can be described as limiting the desire to dominate and even exterminate others, and on the another hand the possible of the nature of each of us. However, in logic, which besides reigns in the Polish debate on the protection of life, anyone who cites another sources of social order than the cool element, can be considered an enemy of democracy, freedom of choice, a supporter of arbitrary bans.
SEE ALSO: Freedom, equality, brotherhood... in killing children. Yet to change the French Constitution
Poland will go the way of France?
However, do not all experts who today, in principle, adopt positions against life, say that they "do not vote on human rights", take on the function of erstwhile pre-revolutionary – and in fact natural – authorities bypassing not always the fair will of the people? In their own opinion, no, due to the fact that in their own view they consider themselves guardians of the 3 and 6 articles of the Declaration of Human Rights and Citizen of 1789 as guardians of the very essence of human rights. The mechanics of this reasoning is simple. Things that, although being the foundation of social justice, specified as the protection of unborn life, carry even an component of commitment, e.g. spiritual authority, must be multiplied by a "will of the people" until they are yet verified negatively in the name of "true democracy". Moreover, the same logic was accompanied by political narrations, which for 8 years the centre-rights in Poland reminded about the request to reconstruct democracy in our country. The aim was to limit politics to parties that recognized pragmatic, relativistic, hedonist, and as a consequence violent rules for organising public order.
According to revolutionaries, specified as KO politicians or the Left, what people truly want is limited by selfish desires and no 1 is allowed to limit these desires. The basis for the activities of modern human rights promoters is so a kind of anthropological vision, not what people declare they truly want. And if people want something another than a vision, they should be persuaded without looking at the moral dimension of the means of persuasion. These mechanisms are very well known from history. From the position of agitators of fresh human rights, people are divided into those who admit unconditionally the 3 and 6 article of the Declaration of Human Rights and of the Citizen and those who consciously argue or nuance their importance – those are enemies of democracy, and those who are inactive in false consciousness, and who must be dragged to the side of the revolution at all costs, so that the results of polls examining public opinion agree with ideology.
It depends, among another things, on the result of the struggles of the debate on human rights, whether public order in Poland will keep its legal order in the most crucial aspects, or we will follow the way of France. The logic of revolutionary human rights is inexorable. Today's proposals of the Left and the KO, but besides Poland 2050 and the PSL, should only be considered as intermediate targets on the way to constitutional protection of prenatal infanticide. Those who today, hoping for a fresh "compromise" on the right to life, are inclined to applaud pro-abortion projects in the name of the protection of social peace, should realise that they are in an unwarranted mistake not only moral but besides political.
For: Ordo Iuris Institute
SEE ALSO:
