A fewer months ago, I discussed a communicator with my colleague, a Catholic according to his assessment of believers and practitioners (I do not judge), but all points to the fact that not knowing what work means in the community of the Church (a individual who, among another things, should follow the decalogue), who is Christ's mystical body on earth (another substance - which is not the subject of this entry, I immediately point out: it is not how it works out to carry out the mission; remember, people are a component of the church, sinful and susceptible to attacks of the Evil One).
What does that mean? Communities (including each in the Church) and members are full liable for what they do to apply the decalogue themselves, but besides to set an example and more importantly: to pay attention to others and to be liable for the execution of the commandments of the decalogue. This means opposing any action that violates the commandments. This means standing up for temples, standing up for any violation of the commandments of the decalogue, including the defence of Life. all life. besides the unborn. Especially due to the fact that this life is absolutely dependent on us already alive, completely defenseless. It's our duty. Meanwhile, how did it work with my friend voting for the PO? Catholic? A liberal person?
Still a small digression:
On purpose, there is no word in the title: unborn. due to the fact that if this is not life for PO voters, then their life is not life either. What does that mean? The words of many (philosophers, church fathers, moralists) say plainly: if we kill unborn life, what, then, in any unknown future, will not lead to the equalization of this act, with the killing of a surviving and functioning person, erstwhile it is shown that for any reason it is no longer useful for specified a created society to accept specified a falsehood?
So I'm going to go over the words of a colleague utilizing quotes from our correspondence:
"No 1 in modern Poland or Europe will find an explanation that abortion is not killing a man. Everyone has that knowledge."
This is the answer to my: "The superior value due to your religion is the defence of life, the defence of fact and the defence of the household - all 3 you broke" (by voting for pro-abortionists who are in the coalition on 13 December, the coalition transfers work to all members and participants due to the fact that they together constitute the governing power). Of course, his answer does not include fact as such, but his private viewpoint. At his reply, the [wish] thesis which sounds and is besides a quantifier:
Nobody (in Poland and Europe) finds an explanation (explainations?) That: abortion is NOT killing a man.
What this means according to the logical knowing of what we read: People can't find an explanation for killing (abortion) It's not killing (man) Is that true?
We know very well that there are many environments that openly question Europe and find the explanation that: "Killing is not killing" (the words are: abortion, removal - they effort to avoid words specified as murder, crime, death, killing the unborn at the linguistic level. According to scientific, medical (not religious) knowledge, life (everyone, not only human, animal as well) arises erstwhile 2 cells containing genetic material are effectively combined, causing the formation of a fresh individual, absolutely different in terms of genetic code compared to their parents. An effort to halt its improvement during the prenatal period (prenatal pregnancy), external interference from a logic point of view, cannot be anything but an effort annihilation This fresh life. Therefore, is this not a deprivation of the anticipation of surviving by an emerging individual of a species? Isn't that what killing that individual is? execution - due to the fact that individual knowingly deprives lives (in case of talking about a human individual during prenatal, human period Being), this developing biological organism? Is there area for another terms? Logic, technological cognition tells us there isn't.
However, for any reason (for now we do not analyse this thread) there are a full bunch of people (not only in Europe but besides in the world) who do everything possible to correct this logical order of things, bringing the evolving human body to all kinds of substitute terms, specified as: something that connects cells, a cluster of cells, a fetus, etc. This is intended to weaken the real fact that was long ago determined by discipline that we are dealing with a fresh Life. Then it's not actual what my friend says. There is simply a full group of people and organizations questioning biological reality. At the same time, we are incapable to penetrate their minds and we cannot answer the question: do they do it with full awareness of the usage of lies (and so they know about Truth Life, but for any reason they effort The Truth undermine, hide, cover up)., or we are dealing with believers in (generally speaking, without getting into the location of the origin of specified false faith) A lie, saying it's not a human being. Human. Thus, it is not true, what my colleague tries to force that; "NIKT in modern Poland and Europe finds no explanation..." the established thesis contained in the further part of his statement, indicating and applying negation here: that abortion is not killing a man. It is, of course, a fact that: Abortion is simply a death to the fresh Life - man.
Thus, the double mistake of my coalition friend and PO because: There are people and groups in Poland and Europe who think it is not a fresh life, and so they think it can be killed. The contradiction itself. If it's not life, then you can't do that thing if it's not life - kill it. You only kill life.
Quantifier: Everyone has that cognition - it's just a lie. We are incapable to prove that 100% of the population actually knows that it is life, let alone that abortion is his killing (murder on a fresh life actually). Causes can be multiple. The deliberate exclusion of truth, or utmost ignorance leading to erroneous (false) conclusions. Which has frequently happened in the past. And it can besides have in poorer and thus uneducated regions of Europe today. It was said (there are many certificates of mothers) that pregnancy is simply a kind of disease, and its removal is the removal of the problem). Abortion for social reasons - for PRL.
In the remainder of the discussion, the colleague writes:
"No 1 introduces an abortion warrant."
Is that true? And here again we have a kind of manipulation. At this point, no 1 is imposing specified an order, due to the fact that they cannot introduce it even through the last parliamentary vote. However, an abortion ban is being avoided. Current attempts are to usage the Guidelines on: legal provisions on access to abortion.
We are talking about conditions that let abortion (trying to find a solution to how to extend it), as well as the circumstances that find abortion (two independent conditions that may origin abortion: life-threatening or health-threatening for a pregnant woman).
Family Planning Act does not specify the closed list of indications to abort pregnancy where pregnancy poses a hazard to the life or wellness of a pregnant woman.
Is it possible to make a legal product that will lead to an explanation, a gateway, the creation of an indication to interrupt it, by people who, as I have proved above, have a different attitude to whether life conceived is life at all? They may be people with the skills and capabilities to make specified a product.
Again, a logical mistake and a false one. Nobody introduces an abortion order (killing life) due to the fact that they cannot introduce it, which does not mean that; it is not actual to presume in the above conviction that: No 1 wants to do that. due to the fact that attempts are being made to circumvent this order ("Guidelines introduce rear door rules that let wider and non-verifiable deprivation of the life of conceived children" - Blissy Kmieciak; sociologist of law, bioethic). The analysis of possible cases of the usage of specified "practices" is not part of the subject of this entry, but it is simply a wide range, starting with the mediocre will of those who believe as above, that life is not life (political reasons, worldview, medical ignorance, not knowing of medical knowledge) and ending with the shallowing of aid - e.g. a one-time visit of a pregnant woman, deficiency of intelligence, not taking the right action - and again for many different reasons; deficiency of time, skills, ability to admit the problem and bad will.
Back to the zero-one message of a colleague in the sentence: Nobody gives an abortion order.
After a brief analysis, I wonder: logical error, or deliberate manipulation? That's what he knows, only my PO supporter. As he says of himself: Catholic believer and practitioner.
Finally, his last sentence:
People have full cognition and freedom of choice. On the basis of this, they can comply with the 5th commandment.
As I have already proved above, there is no set of people with full knowledge, or there are people with full knowledge, but for reasons unknown to us, they deny it, but we besides have an unknown number of people (and that, I believe, a large collection of people) whose cognition we simply do not know. So freely generalizing and assuming that All everything knows and everyone adheres to moral (not even God's law - the 5th commandment) of natural law, is at least unauthorized if it is not simply a bad will serving manipulation. Rather, I do not fishy that a colleague is simply a good man, but he is highly morally and ethically confused, as 1 can presume by reading the passages of his statements. At best: at least not knowing the logic of their statements. Can you ask yourself why that is? I bet that he was manipulated; he was played on his emotions, utilizing just the same manipulation that is contained in his toos (which possibly is unaware) and which; I assume: they are a duplication of what he heard somewhere and recognized - without a greater leaning over them - as true.
Finally, unfortunately, I must examine the last part of the statement, which shows the worst side of his approach to combating the killing of unborn life.
On the basis of this, they can comply with the 5th commandment.
What does that mean? According to me, this statement, on the basis of which he as a PO voter believes that he has clean hands and a clean conscience, due to the fact that on the basis of (above the false reasoning and erroneous assumptions proved by me) he concluded that he is completely autonomous and completely aware of the decision. Just now; whose? First, he did not compose whether it was the decision of a pregnant parent or those who could influence her decision and force even, secondly, he assumes that individual may or may not follow the 5th commandment. This is simply a very dangerous message if we realize it in general, referring to the human set in its entirety. This is simply a breach in the doctrine of faith. It means that those who believe in God, and so should follow the Decalogue in view of the order of religion contained and in the teachings of Jesus Christ, in the Bible, until yet in the DECALOG itself - to which he refers, in this peculiar situation have a choice; they may not gotta comply with the command of the 5th commandment!
So what's it like? A friend of mine defined a very general collection: people. He didn't say "unbelievers." due to the fact that he couldn't - due to the fact that they don't believe, so the contents of the decalogue for them are not credible anyway. In turn, there is no choice for believers: if they believe, they must follow the instructions of the contents of the decalogue as well as the content of the 5th commandment. We can be more circumstantial about the content and meaning of the 5th commandment, calling after the "name" act: NO MORDUJ (and so do not consciously take life - defenceless, all the more so - I request specified clarification, due to the fact that erstwhile we are dealing with the defence necessary, among another things in the KKK is approval to defend your wellness and life as well as your family, so the self-killing of a individual who can take your life or your household may not concern the order of the Decalogue, but this is not the subject of the above entry, I make this digression only due to the order of application and interpretation).
All the more so for a Catholic, a Christian has no choice at least in terms of the analysis of the doctrinal content and the wording of the 5th commandment. Whether they apply to it or not in life is simply a completely different analysis, we request to incorporate metaphysical conditions, and thus the influence of Evil (Satan) actions on us. However, we at the level of explanation and knowing of the commandment CAN NOT choose differently. Our knowledge, but above all declared religion and commitment to adhere to the decalogue, clearly states: DO NOT MORDUJ. We have no choice. Or his freedom. The emergence of the notion of "free will" of man, erstwhile speaking of a individual believing in God, in Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit, erstwhile he has already decided that he believes in Him and accepts His Decalogue already determines the human individual to follow at all costs the approved commandments of the Decalogue, through religion in the absolute infallibility of the Holy Trinity. erstwhile again: there is no place for choice, ability to comply or not in the ontological explanation of decalogue orders. Accepting the fact that we are sinful and commit our sins through the action of the evil spirit, weakening our religion and bending our will power to its whispers, we scope the phase called: committing sin. This, however, is rather different from our voluntary consent to the truths contained in the decalogue.
Returning to the conclusion of my colleague again: I fear that he has created a dangerous precedent in himself, explaining to himself that he is not liable for another fellow members of the church community, not his case whether individual chooses evil or good, whether individual kills or not. He believes that "everyone knows everything" - as he writes and thus is their business. Therefore, it can vote on those who, from any (not full known by us) reasons are in favour of killing innocent increasing children in the wombs, whether it is by enabling unwitting mothers - of this act (and again here I show that words, "all", "no one" have been reproduced in reality - I have repeatedly read parent accounts, or even heard that they did not full realize what they were doing), or the creation of rights that enable them to do so.
But as a associate of the community of the church, he has no right to do so! due to the fact that he should, in accordance with the sound of the decalogue, do everything by: all his attitudes and actions to prevent breaking the commandments of the decalogue in which he believes; through his religion in God. The smallest of these actions is to refuse to vote for those who want to break the principles of the Decalogue. Of course, he should besides engage in another activities to the degree he can. This is how the community of the Church works. I would add: a conscious community. Another subject is this: awareness of members of the community of the Church. However, it is no longer the subject of this entry. It would have become besides extensive.
Ending.
My large concern is washing my colleague's hands, washing hands known from the Gospel pages. How many present do this by turning their backs to life, to brothers in faith. Even worse: losing your consciences just in specified a false, manipulated and twisted logic. What leads them to this? This is the question to which each of us, members of the Church, should search answers.
