Every kid before and after birth retains the same natural dignity and has the right to live, the right to identity, the right to know his parents, etc. In particular, the preamble to the global Convention on the Rights of the kid states that "a child, due to his physical and intellectual immaturity, needs peculiar care and care, including adequate legal protection, both before and after birth"– says Katarzyna Gęsiak, manager of the Center for Medical Law and Bioethics of the Ordo Iuris Institute.
Dear Director, Paris, Brussels, Milan, Sydney, Berlin, these are just any of the cities where events called "child bargaining" are organised. Under the cloak of patetic slogans about parenting, motherhood, fatherhood etc., exhibitors from around the planet offer, among others, in vitro with selection of genetic characteristics of the child, adoption of children by lonely people or alleged homosexual couples, transportation of male semen or female ova, or suppression. What is the legal definition of a child, nevertheless this may sound? Who's the kid by law? On the 1 hand, it turns out that a pregnant female is not at the heart of a child, but something that can be “removed”. On the another hand, “trades” are organised so that those who want to enter into possession of a child. On the 1 hand, trafficking in human beings is prohibited, and during “child bargaining” for an appropriate amount, the applicable institutions can “settle adoption”...
Yes, indeed the situation described by your editor shows the scale of modern relativism. Interestingly, the same environments are virtually fighting for wide access to free and unlimited abortion, while at the same time promoting the financing of in vitro procedures or surrogacy, i.e. in practice, the trafficking of children, including unborn ones. In this context, the question of the definition of a kid is not exaggerated. Besides, in Polish government we have this definition – in Article 2 of the Patient Rights Ombudsman Act. According to her, the kid is “every human being from conception to adulthood”. This is the only and valid definition in Poland, which clearly indicates that the law established recognizes that the kid is simply a human being from the minute of conception. It seems to be a truism, but I think it's inactive crucial to remind you that the unborn kid is human. The average citizen does not bend over bioethical dilemmas, and from the Internet, from the media, and even from leading politicians in the country and abroad, he can inactive hear that abortion, in vitro or surrogacy are affirmative phenomena. Meanwhile, abortion, surrogacy, in vitro affects the fundamental rights of everyone – the right to life, the right to identity, etc.
Can we anticipate any country or global organization to announce a fresh definition of who a kid is in the future? Or has it already? I ask due to the fact that we are dealing with a akin situation in Canada, where fresh definitions of who (or what) is simply a woman, who (or what) is simply a man, who (or what) is simply a man, etc.
I think this trend will besides be maintained for children. I am talking about redefining specified fundamentals and – it would seem clear to everyone – concepts specified as “woman”, “man”, “family”, or “child”. Nowadays, it is trying to change the knowing of these terms and give them a different meaning, which is not based on any nonsubjective criteria, specified as biological ones. For example, 1 tries to convince us that a female is not only a individual possessing specified biological features, but besides a man self-identifying himself as a female despite having male biological features. The same applies to children – the lobby, e.g. abortions and surrogates, aims to have adults look at the kid differently depending on the situation in which they are surviving – otherwise erstwhile the parent is considering abortion, otherwise erstwhile the kid is expected by the parents.
During this year’s “child bargaining” in Paris, the local “exhibitionists” were to aid those afraid to “obey the law”. It is, among another things, a surrogacy which is forbidden in France, but is legal in Greece, Finland, the USA or the Czech Republic, and it is there that the "exhibitors" were to deal with the "substitution mothers" concerned. There were many more specified "offerings". I was reminded of the situation from the Polish yard 3 years ago, erstwhile after the judgement of the Constitutional Tribunal declaring the incompatibility of the alleged eugenic abortion with the basic law, under which the killing of unborn children suspected of illness was prohibited in Poland, Jarosław Kaczyński said: “There are announcements in the press, which all average individual understands and can handle specified abortion abroad, cheaper or more expensive”. I'm gonna ask you, is that normal? After all, this is not about any stupid kind of “prohibition of beer bear treatment” and 1 is valid in 1 of the states in the United States. This is about life and death, about human dignity, about the right to life and, in the case of surrogacy, about human trafficking!
It's not normal, although unfortunately it's becoming normal... What do I mean? The fact that for a increasing group of people (including as we see people taking advanced positions in the state...) it is common that abortion organizations regularly and unpunished (!) break the law, aid in killing unborn children and bear no consequences. For a large part of society that does not analyse the gravity of this situation, it becomes the norm. But the fact is, it's not normal, it shouldn't be. all kid before and after birth retains the same natural dignity and has the right to live, the right to identity, the right to know his parents, etc. In particular, the preamble to the global Convention on the Rights of the kid states that "a child, due to his physical and intellectual immaturity, needs peculiar care and care, including adequate legal protection, both before and after birth".
"In February 2016, for Obama's presidency in the US, the fresh York Times revealed that Secretary of defence Ashton B. Carter prepared a program that would cost about $150 million in 5 years: it was about financing oocyte freezing, as well as military sperm. It was expected that the U.S. Army would become more pro-family and its numbers would halt falling. It was peculiarly about female staff, for women more frequently than men abandon their military career after 10 years of service, erstwhile the biological clock comes to light," wrote Jean-Francois Bouvet in his book “Children on order”. In short, the point is that young women aged 20-23 collect eggs, then keep them in appropriate conditions for respective years, and erstwhile they turn 40 they are returned to them so that they can get pregnant. This is explained by the fact that insemination of a 20-year-old egg is far more likely than 30-, 35-, or 40-year-olds. On the another hand, does the State have the right to submit specified proposals to citizens and is it ethical to fund specified programmes?
This is simply a phenomenon which can be described as "fun in the Lord God" – for man tries to replace nature and artificially control the human body. I would consider it in terms of experimentation – let's see what else we can afford, what the human body can handle (in the context of delaying the age of procreation) and why it can't. I find specified attempts to modify the body, to shift the limits of its capabilities unethical. They are all the more unethical that, in the failure of specified programmes, they are one more time drastically interfered with "nature" frequently at the expense of human life. I am reasoning of in vitro failures, where the hazard of developmental abnormalities in the kid is much higher than in the case of natural conception, and which medicine then "eliminates" by offering parents a eugenic abortion. This kind of abortion which was banned under the 2020 Constitutional Court judgment.
Another issue is the trafficking of young women's ova. It turns out that it is now a thriving business, which will shortly become the norm. Let me quote the book “Children to Order” again:
"Lucie Robequain, fresh York correspondent for Les Echos, studied the highly lucrative marketplace for children in the US. Which led her to the fresh York Fertility Institute, where she met Majid Fateh. A writer revealed that a doctor, publishing ads all 4 months in a college newspaper, utilized to get an egg donor at the celebrated Columbia University, besides located in Manhattan. What about the price of these peculiar games? Students measuring more than 175 centimeters and having excellent SAT results – equivalent to a GPA – can number on up to $40,000 for their oocyte party. average girls settle for $10,000, precision the article in Les Echos. And everything is thoroughly checked: The donor must complete a thirty-page survey, in which she presents in item her physical and intellectual characteristics, sexual life, artistic talents and nutritional habits. Our clients know more about the donor than they'll always know about their husband! So clients, not patients.
How many tens of thousands of dollars would the fresh York Fertility Institute be willing to pay for oocytes from students of an even more prestigious university, which is Harvard University?"
Interestingly, most often, the acquisition of eggs is curious in alleged single-sex couples, mainly homosexuals, who then hand over "goods" to the surrogate... That's how it goes. delight comment.
This situation is best described by the word business. I think there's just quite a few money behind it. If gamet donors are offered specified sums of money, imagine what profits the companies that make these cells must make. In all of this situation, they gain companies, but it seems not only private entities... We can surely see how request for certain services is presently created, in this case, to benefit from the large interest of these services among the public. There is no uncertainty that people are deceived by creating an illusion of happiness, which they are expected to give – on the 1 hand, money earned rapidly as a consequence of the devotion of gamets, or a service offered, e.g. a "perfect" kid called to life utilizing these cells. However, life rapidly "stakes a bill" for specified uncritical pursuit of modernity and, for example, it turns out that girls who so willingly donate their cells in the future will not be able to get pregnant.
Let's decision on to the key issue of eugenics for non-signals called genetics. any countries, specified as Thailand, "ensure" future parents "the anticipation to choose the sex of the child". In addition, many studies are carried out to supply the kid with suitable features, eye color, hair colour etc. and higher intelligence. If during pregnancy it turns out that “something went wrong” then an abortion is offered to customers. Is eugenics legally permitted? Is this all that happened during planet War II that taught no one? Is it possible to “play” with the human genome and, as reality shows, with human life?
I think that fundamentally the answers to these questions can be found above. However, it seems that eugenic procedures are now hiding under pleasant and even noble slogans and presenting as serving the happiness of individuals, but besides the welfare of mankind as a whole. Regardless, it is crucial to remember that, for example, the Code of medicine introduces restrictions on interference in the human genome. For example, Article 51h(3) of the CEL states that ‘the doctor may intervene within the human genome solely for preventive or therapeutic purposes’ and that any experiments involving man should be positively assessed by an independent ethics committee (Article 46 of the CEL). In general, therefore, the “fun” of the human genome, the carrying out of experiments involving people in explanation are bound by limitations, but in practice these limitations frequently prove illusory. We have a akin situation with the provision of abortion assistance under Article 152 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code – although the rules consider this act a crime, the prosecution refuses to prosecute the perpetrators of specified crimes and they proceed to act freely, for example, by providing women with abortion pills.
To make all of this enough... We are increasingly proceeding about the following cases: we have a couple of homosexual women. 1 of them gets fertilized and pregnant. After a fewer days, doctors “take out” the embryo and “implant” the another woman. This is done in order to announce to the planet that the kid has “two moms”. We will most likely shortly see specified activities in Poland. But what does Polish law say?
The law does not specify specified situations. I mean, advancement in medicine and specified services, and besides human ingenuity as to how to complicate the substance of motherhood (as in the case described by Mr. Editor) are ahead of legal regulations. The Polish Code of household and Care adopted that the parent of the kid is the female who gave birth to them. besides according to the law, the parent of the kid will be this woman. As far as I know, so far Polish courts refuse to recognise gay couples as parents, but unfortunately I fear that this is simply a substance of time, due to the fact that specified matters are based on a circumstantial explanation of the law. And this may change, specified as the positions of UN committees, which have liberalised their position over the years on the protection of life.
While we're at Poland. Minister Kotula said that “legal abortion is not enough. There is inactive a request for legal sterilisation in Poland". delight comment.
Such ideas of left-wing politicians would be described as highly toxic and harmful, but always "wrapped" in packaging with slogans to service society, prosperity and universal happiness. In Poland, we know this from the "rightly past". Right now, it's nothing new. I think the absurdity of this thought makes it a pity to comment on it in more detail.
Finally, I would like to ask you about the thought drawn alive from Aldous Huxley's “New Wonderful World”. I am referring to the "production of people in alleged artificial uterus" which is being worked on by China's struggling demographic disaster. erstwhile a fewer months ago, the Ordo Iuris Institute prepared extended material on the subject, then the left-liberal side called the institute's staff fools, liars and naïves who spread fairy tales based on untested information. Turns out the experiments have been going on for over a decade. In the past, it has been possible to "breed in an artificial uterus" e.g. a sheep, and now it is reported that the main focus is on trying to "create the bond" between the kid and the mother. Is that the future?
I firmly believe you're not. We must remember that human plans and pride are 1 thing, but the laws of God and the nature created by him, including man, are the other. Of course, the work on this experimentation will most likely continue, possibly even lead to a situation where prenatal improvement of the kid will be technically possible outside the mother's body, but – as I mentioned earlier – the nature of the human body has its limitations and all effort to break these barriers sooner or later ends tragically. Perhaps, as in the past, experiments on humans will unfortunately consume many victims before people realize that certain limits cannot be exceeded. Your thought of a "breeding" of people is simply a clear crossing of specified a border, and I believe that there is no chance of success.
God bless the conversation.
Tomasz D. Kolanek
![[MC DATA] Experts sound the alarm. The vast majority of Poles do not yet have a PESEL number withheld](https://dzienniknarodowy.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/dowod_osobisty_c_mondaynews_pl.jpg?v=1751964025)
