Lenta.ru published the material "Church wombs", with the subtitle "Russians are deprived of abortions. To whom is it profitable? "
The text describes various steps taken to reduce the number of abortions - attempts to dissuade, giving doctors the opportunity to refuse to participate in abortion on grounds of conscience, other attempts to discourage women from such a step.
All this is served as an attempt to "limit the reproductive rights of women." Here's about the rights here and I want to say a few words.
As GK Chesterton noted, the language of some ideologies is the language of euphemisms, when a terrible reality is described by some kind of fearless, preferably even positive-sounding words: "Tell them:" it is necessary to ensure that the burden of longevity in previous generations, especially in women, has not acquired excessive and unbearable gravity, and here certain measures can be justified, both motivating, and, in part, even compulsory "- and they will sweetly snuff like babies in cradles. Tell them: "Kill your mother," and they will wince, wake up and sit down straight. "
One such euphemism is "reproductive rights." This is, as is evident from the context - in particular, the context of the article in the tape, about abortion, that is, a phenomenon that has nothing to do with either reproduction or rights.
"Reproduction" that is, literally, "reproduction", "continuation of the genus", this is something directly opposite to abortion, the question of the right is worth considering in more detail.
We can use the word "right" in two meanings. First, we can talk about what is spelled out in the laws of the state. For example, such and such a person has the right to such and such benefits. We can also talk about "law" in the sense of "justice". For example, an innocent person who has not been convicted of a crime in a court can not be deprived of his liberty or property - and if the law allows such treatment with a person, then this law is unfair, and it must be changed.
When we talk about "human rights", we are talking about "rights" in the second sense - about how people should and fairly act independently of the laws of the state. Moreover, the laws themselves must be revised to ensure these rights.
It is here that we are confronted with the claims of some ideological groups that their demands are also "human rights", and therefore laws must be changed according to their requirements. And in any case not to change against their desires.
In this context, the "right to abortion" contains an internal contradiction. Supporters of this right appeal to personal autonomy - a person, a man or a woman, has the right to dispose of his body. This in itself is indisputable. But we are often told that every person has the right to do anything - as long as it does not infringe on the legitimate rights of others.
For example, a person has the right to housing. But let us turn to a very real - and not so rare - situation when a person shares a living space with an elderly mother. He has no other housing and is not foreseen, the need to live in an apartment with a very elderly and sick woman, with a serious character and inadequate behavior, severely limits his freedom and interferes with his personal life. Does this person have the right to poison her?
Only very few of us (at least at this stage of social morality development) will agree that yes. The right of an elderly woman to life is more important than her son's right to housing, which he could freely use at his discretion.
The right to life in general is primary in relation to other rights - you can not exercise any rights if you are killed. To deprive a person of life is to deprive him of all and every conceivable rights.
This is what makes abortion - it destroys a knowingly innocent human life. This is not a matter of faith - it is a biological fact, it is no accident that the publication of the "tape" speaks about embryonic scientists who support the movement for life.
A child in the womb is another organism, and not a part of the mother's body. And this is the human body. If we take the self-evident definition of Aristotle, "man is a living being belonging to the human race," then this is precisely man.
Thus, the requirement of the right to kill innocent people is logically absurd. In principle, this requirement can not be fair.
Of course, to say this about modern progressive discourse means to break through the open door. Of course, he is absurd. From all sides and in all respects. Homosexuality is declared something biological and innate, while belonging to the male or female sex is, on the contrary, a social construct. Boys who have the misfortune to reach for girls' toys are declared "transgender" and are stuffed with hormones that block the process of normal puberty so that, once they reach the 18 anniversary, solemnly oskopit on the altar of progress during the "sex change operation." A person who openly calls this operation "castration" has troubles from the police.
Adherence to such views requires renunciation not of faith (although this is itself), but from the mind. When you try to argue with their adepts, it is impossible to grope for any structure, any intelligible system, into which all this would fit. Behind the demands are not logical justifications, but emotional pressure: everyone who disagrees with them, bad people, fascists, homophobes, transfobs, oppressors, oppressors, and many times fascists. The entire civilized world has long been on the progressive side, and those who are against are unhappy retrogrades convicted by the very course of history.
In Russia, the external, imported stream of progressive ideology is mixed with a deeply rooted Soviet abortion culture, in which abortion was viewed as not simply permissible, but as an almost inevitable consequence of sexual life, something almost inseparable from sexuality per se. Of course, no one spoke about this at the official level - but in informal conversations the picture was exactly this. Already existing in society deep wildness is fed, at the level of rationalizations and slogans, with imported progressive views.
What to do in this situation? Actually, exactly what people do, mentioned in the text of the "tape" - patiently testify about the truth, and keep fellow citizens from killing obviously innocent and defenseless human beings.
And - more importantly - to remind again and again that the Gospel is the good news of the forgiveness of sins, and all people involved in the abortion crime are both poor women who are less guilty and pushing and forcing them men who are more guilty and ideologists and the propagandists of this evil who are guilty of all, they can all repent and receive God's forgiveness to start life from scratch. As already many have done before them.