Legality alternatively of: don't kill. Do you gotta start afraid?

Easter Monday. tv inPoland24. Program: Conspiracy Theory. Leading: Magdalena Ogórek and Grzegorz Braun. The participation of respective twelve people of different political, worldview orientations. Among topics specified as energy, mining, agriculture, the legal order of Poland and the European Union, the fresh killing of a nine-month-old kid in a infirmary in Oleśnica has been markedly revived. As for the fact that it was a murder, that it was done as in Auschwitz and another German camps, by injection into the heart of poison there is no doubt. The behaviour of the doctor, his perpetrator, after this act of murder, is provocative, not only demonstrates her absolute rejection of moral principles, not only due to spiritual reasons, but besides due to natural, simple reasons: bonum faciendum, malum vitandum – to do good, incorrect to avoid, as well as, in this case above all, the commandments of all doctors, regardless of their views: primam non nodere – do not harm first. A doctor from Oleśnica with a stone face prided herself on her work. I'll admit I wouldn't ask her for medical aid in any way. The analogy with practices in German lagras is most justified here. The difference is that Mengele and others like him were incarcerated on the basis of natural law, due to the fact that no affirmative law was adequate here, and the woman from Oleśnica is in no danger, due to the fact that she and others in that infirmary are killing children legally.

And here we come to an crucial minute of the subject. The co-host of the program, Mr. Grzegorz Braun, in very circumstantial words, called the doctor's act by name as a serial homicide. This led to a discussion, especially on the part of a clearly excited young man about left-wing views. More young people were like him. He was supported by an MP from the Polish 2050 group. For these gentlemen, the killing in Oleśnica was legal and so not worthy of moral judgment, nor a mention to human rights. On the another hand, they considered Mr. Braun's intervention in the infirmary worthy of punishment, which they read as assault. The associate here referred to insisted that the doctor's activities were determined by his professional preparation, so the doctor always takes the occupation to aid another man. The specified generalization of specified a thesis cannot withstand criticism. as evidenced by court proceedings and medical sanctions.

The MP quoted here was besides bitter as a protector of the practice of taking the lives of their children, and their mothers were born to take his arguments seriously. However, as an MP, it can do much to advance the killing of unborn people. As long as it's legal. How does this relate to the public good that a associate should seek? due to the fact that the Decalogue isn't even worth mentioning.

A young man, equally determined to defend abortion, as a legal thing gives even more concern, due to the fact that what can society anticipate from specified a thing? Should not those who come after us be afraid of specified people who sit in parliaments, in governments and give their neighbors negative selection in cradles and couches of pain, those with expired pesels? They'll kill God first, and it'll go even easier with a man. This Cucumber and Braun program reminds me of something important. If 1 day in Germany he would have spoken this bolder, possibly there would have been no Hitler, no Auschwitz, and no food for specified young people who present evoked those times, having no thought how bad they were.