top of page

The worst crime in the world

The bloody Green Wave that promotes murder


The worst crime in the world

The Colombian Constitutional Court appears to have drawn from the same source as its Brazilian counterpart, authorizing by judicial decision the practice of abortion up to twenty-four weeks of pregnancy, six months, under any conditions. You didn't read it wrong, the decision allows the murder of human beings up to six months old.

There are several points that must be addressed, such as the way in which legalization occurred, the lie behind “safe abortion”, the life that the procedure will destroy, whether legal or illegal, the morality of the mother who is capable of killing his own son and the groups that organize themselves to promote this practice.

First of all, treating abortion as a form of murder is not a mistake, either from the human aspect, after all an innocent life is being taken, or from the legal aspect, since the aforementioned crime is included in the list of crimes against life in our legal system. legal. In Brazil it must be taken to the Jury Court, at least until an Olympian decides that such an atrocity is convenient for him, which brings us to the first point to be faced.


The killer maneuver

To understand the strategy used in Colombia to allow murderers of their own children to go unpunished, just observe, here in Brazil, how LGBT activism managed, through a decision by the Federal Supreme Court, to create the crimes of homophobia and transphobia without the parliament had done. Even the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the greatest law that governs the nation, being clear with regard to crime, must have a law that defines it, which requires the creation of a norm by the National Congress, this requirement is repeated in the first article of the Penal Code, the so-called principle of legal reserve.

Creating a crime or changing it, in Brazil, is a prerogative of the Legislative Power, so the publication of a criminal rule by a body of other powers should not be allowed, whatever the justification. However, in the case of the crimes of homophobia and transphobia, not only the Constitution, but the entire essence of the concept of democracy were shamelessly thrown into a latrine to meet the desires of groups and delusions of power.

This is not a mere formal violation, therefore, it is not necessary to check whether such a principle is recognized in the Colombian legal system, unless that country is admittedly a dictatorship, like all other countries juristocracy is. The judicialization of politics and judicial activism do not take away from parliamentarians the power to legislate or from the ruler to direct the public machine, in fact, it takes away the will of the people by handing over to others the ability to choose for citizens, the true victim of such a nefarious practice is precisely that which grants a mandate to members of the legislature to express their will, as well as doing so with the ruler, hoping that he will adopt the public policies that are dear to them.

Using false premises, a certain group imposes its dictatorship over the population, in a true anti-democratic act, now defeated political agents and magistrates who share their worldview, even if dystopian, shamelessly usurp the mandate of others by calling themselves as a supra-human sect that has the power and duty to guide the direction of the nation.

The idea of ​​elected representatives in a democracy lies precisely in the fact that they must represent the will of the people, the real sovereign, so that, when a certain practice is disapproved in a society, in theory, norms are created to prohibit it. On the contrary, behaviors considered desirable are encouraged. For this reason, a bill that is not approved reflects, except in distorted cases, what citizens expect from their representatives, since, if they do not meet these expectations, they will suffer rejection in a future electoral election.

A norm that is not successful in the legislative process, in principle, is not welcome in the legal system, its forced entry into this being an attack on democracy, considering that in such a model the people are not, merely, an element of the State, but the reason for the existence of the State, as it is a servant of the former, not being, under any circumstances, its holder. Of the elements that make up this figure, the territory in which sovereignty is exercised is indispensable, however, speaking of democracy itself, the people are the masters of the State, and not the other way around.

The fact that the Legislative Power seeks to reflect the will of the true sovereign, in itself, is the fatal obstacle to the judicialization of politics and judicial activism, because, as an example, we can deal not only with abortion, but with homophobia itself, which legislators were unwilling to, respectively, allow and prohibit such practices under penalty of not representing their voters. The aforementioned list can also include the release of narcotics, which despite a massive favorable campaign, does not find popular support, which results in the impossibility of decriminalizing the use and sale of drugs.

Of course, there may be some distortion of the popular will, as flagrantly occurred in the approval of measures that restricted the trade and possession of firearms in our country, considering that the people expressed themselves directly in one direction and the National Congress decided to legislate in the opposite direction, but it is known that this was a time when part of the parliament negotiated with the Executive Branch the approval of projects in exchange for undue advantages, literally, betraying those who delegated to it, through voting, the ability to decide in the name of the people, It was the episode known as “Mensalão”.

For this reason, what was done in Brazil, in the case of homophobia, and in Colombia, in the recent liberalization of abortion, is not a mere formal violation, since the people of both countries did not elect politicians who defended such practices, assuming that the citizens of these nations are contrary to such norms, however, a minority incapable of approving, within the scope of the legislative process, what is in their interest, in a tyrannical way, takes advantage of a Judiciary that constantly nods in favor of your guidelines to force the nation to bow to their will.

In Argentina, abortion was approved through the legislative process, which does not make it any less reprehensible, however, the people of that country chose terrible representatives, since they still see themselves deluded by caudillismo, which can be observed in the state of affairs that took over the nation, not coincidentally, misery and authoritarianism befell Argentines, not by a trick of fate, but by the result of their fateful choice. Colombia did not choose to murder its future generations, such a harmful practice is due to a group that, despite being a minority, occupied what should have been the house of justice and took away the right to choose from its citizens, the blood of innocent people is dirty the hands of the Argentine people and the robes of some Colombian magistrates.


There is no safe abortion

One of the biggest lies told on the subject is that women who have an abortion illegally subject themselves to something dangerous when, if it were legalized, the procedure would pose no risk to the woman. There are three factors that must be observed to realize that such a narrative is decontextualized.

The first, and simplest, is the fact that every abortion results in death, the nature of the procedure is nothing more, nothing less than taking a life. This would be enough to put an end to the theory of a humane abortion, as there would be no more inhumane conduct than purposefully taking the life of an innocent person even before birth.

Regarding women's health, as strange as it may be to worry about the health of a criminal when he commits a crime, there are in fact those who argue that the police should act without lethality even when faced with a criminal who puts the life of the victim at risk. police or a third party, the abortion procedure is invasive and medications capable of inducing pregnancy termination have considerable side effects. Interestingly, in Brazil, people who ignore the possible damage that such medication can cause, recently stated that a not so aggressive drug, which could be used to prevent a certain virus, was almost a suicide pill.

In addition to the medication used for this purpose having side effects, it is necessary, in most cases, to perform a so-called scraping to remove the remains of the murdered fetus. Even if it is carried out in a hospital with infrastructure, such a procedure puts the life of the pregnant woman at risk, that is, it will result in the death of the innocent child and could result in a fatal outcome for the mother, if it is appropriate to call such a person a mother.

Finally, there is a fanciful allegation, based on Marxist delusions of class conflict, which points out that abortion is more dangerous for poorer women, presenting the following point of view. The richest could carry out this procedure in a clinic, which is clandestine in prohibited countries, as in the case of Brazil, while the poorest would need to use non-clinical methods, introducing objects into the uterus or similar actions.

In a country whose murder, in question, is permitted, the difference between social class would also imply different conditions for carrying out the procedure, since the poorest would depend on the public network, and the richest could do it in health units. well-structured, that is, coming out of hiding and practicing this abysmal conduct with greater fanfare. The poor ones, as always used as a trick, would not be given the benefit, as they would do so, as a rule, in health units in terrible conditions, or even, in the same way as they do in countries where it is prohibited. Anyone who believes in safe abortion is looking at an illusion, but to assume that the public system, in Brazil the SUS, will be able to carry out procedures of this type with due safety, is, at the very least, mentally alienated.

Perhaps, with the speed with which Brazilian public health operates, by the time the abortion occurs, the real victim is already in college or in military service, leaving criticism regarding the delay in life-saving procedures aside, there is no way to demand Public health dedication to actions that aim to kill innocent people without diverting efforts that could, and should, be used to save lives.

Health resources must be intended to improve the quality of life or save them, never to reap them, the use of public resources to kill innocent people, especially without the consent of those who will bear such costs is abominable, especially because it takes away from that who needs medical attention for an abject purpose.


Prevented from even trying

It seems like a cliché phrase, but we will never know how many geniuses humanity could have lost or, in fact, lost to abortion, since we are left to wonder if great personalities could be victims of such crimes, or even how many others would have been born to change the world. The only thing that is wrong with such a premise is to imagine that personalities who stood out in history are more important compared to anonymous ones, therefore, the correct thing to do would be to question how much humanity lost due to such a practice, since each one did part of the construction of the present, having its role, for better or worse.

The vile practice of abortion takes away the chance for a human being to experience what life would offer them, as well as for humanity to have a chapter in their history. Ignoring questions of faith, as it would be unacceptable for someone who spies on a soul in man to seek to prevent it from fulfilling its mission, life is a right that must be guaranteed, especially in the case of an innocent and defenseless being, therefore, It would not be acceptable, even for an atheist, to accept abortion.

An individual who rejects the idea of ​​having a soul, that is, of having something divine or special in their being, considering themselves to be just a pile of cells (it is important to keep this expression), should be even more firm in combating abortion, In view of this, believing that human existence would be summarized in its material life, beginning at conception and ending with death, in a way that would deny the existence of its victim. By not believing in the existence of something greater, which would be the salvation of the soul deprived of living, or in reincarnations, which could be a future chance for its victim, the practice of such an infamous act would be even more serious.

Reducing the human being to a pile of cells, thus disregarding his life as something divine or special, an atheist who defends the practice of abortion should not demand respect for life from others, that is, he could not question the trivialization of the murdered person, any whatever, as it would give a fictitious value to the human being who does not believe to exist. This is not to say that the lives of atheists do not matter, or even that they do not care about human life, but if they see value in existence, they should not admit selectivity when protecting it, simply by denying that there is something special in each person. , as well as, for not believing that there is divine salvation for that being deprived of living.

By a logical analysis, admitting that there is no experience of atheism, it would be correct to state that an atheist who values ​​human life as the only translation of existence, summarizing everything to the material plane but considering that some legal assets require greater protection, would have to disapprove of abortion for the fact that it prevents such an existence, being the only one of that being, on the other hand, one who considers an embryo or fetus as a mere set of cells, could not agree with any protection for human beings, considering, no exist special end in creatures, not even their own lives should enjoy guarantees.

There is also the fallacious expression “my body, my rules”, which is so mistaken because it simply ignores the fact that there is another individual's body in the mother's womb, therefore, “the rules” do not apply to the body of a third party, with the former having the protection in relation to the right to life.

The theory that before birth, or even the formation of the central nervous system, we are reduced to a pile of cells, must consider that any one is alive, therefore, from fertilization, the prohibition would be the fairest.

For those who believe in something beyond the material, such an act is even more reprehensible, because if there is divine justice, accountability will be held for such murder, being certain that it usurps the will of the created and interrupts the mission of a child of God It's too unhealthy.

The so-called place of speech must also be faced, despite this resource, being useless, as its sole purpose is to remove others from the debate simply because it is considered that experience is necessary to discuss a certain topic, being a shield used to silence arguments that cannot be overturned. Claiming that a man does not have legitimacy to deal with the issue is just a stupid artifice, as it translates into the dishonesty of those who want to avoid opposing arguments. Simply refuting the allegation that a man could not deal with abortion, by simply stating that only a fetus or embryo could deal with the issue, after all, the life that is intended to be taken is not that of the woman or man already born, in short, it can- It would be said that “if you have not been aborted, you have no place to speak to debate abortion”.

Trying to exclude men from the debate, claiming that the harmful practice is affecting women, makes other mistakes, such as ignoring that experts speak out on the subject according to studies, and for this reason, their opinions must be taken into consideration. On the other hand, parents also have their lives affected due to abortion, since their children are murdered, so that the mother unilaterally decides, in addition to a cruel attitude against the one who is about to be born, deprives the father of the power and duty to protect her son's life, asserting that, indirectly, there is another victim of barbarity when only the woman can give her opinion.

Anyone who defends abortion must, obligatorily, fight for a man to have the “right” not to recognize a child and, in doing so, be released from any duties towards him, given that abandonment by the father It is also the fact that an individual does not take responsibility for his actions and avoids his obligation to his descendant. It would be simple to compare abandonment to abortion to treat them equally, both are reprehensible behaviors, but in one of them, the ascendant literally kills his child, therefore, the deliberate murder of innocent people is much worse.

No one can defend a parent from abandoning their children, however, there is no denying that killing the child would be even worse. Reading sick sentences like: “While abandonment refers to the lack of responsibility for children", the second is restricted to a woman's right to decide about her own body. With due respect, only a psychotic person could consider that a father or mother who does not take responsibility for their children is worse than the one who kills them and still calls them the right to decide over their own body, as if the body, and the life, of the child was not being destroyed.

To address the topic, the journals present stories of abandoned children by their ancestors, but they forget that in the case of abortion, there will not even be life, there will not be a single chapter for that being, just a book with all its pages torn out and the person who removed them is, precisely, the one who should love it , guide you and help you write your story.


Vile as the worst of tyrants

Speaking of abandonment, there are many tyrants in the history of humanity who failed to recognize their children or left them to their fate, however, even among despots, the reports of parents killing their children are considerably reduced when it comes to murder, that is, few reached the point of acting against their own blood, destroying the one they helped give life and would continue their legacy.

Killing one's own children is, indisputably, an atrocious conduct worthy of the worst human beings, especially given the mission of parents towards their descendants and, in the case of abortion, being an innocent person, someone who had done nothing to justify violence. defensive, Cases such as the girl Isabela Nardoni or the boy Henry Borel are examples of perversity, however, trying to minimize abortion as being a less vile practice than these is to create a factoid for legitimate deaths of innocent people to be allowed or minimized to meet the desires of an abject agenda that destroys everything it touches.

We would be facing the “murder of good” in the blurred vision of a sick society, because whoever exterminates their child in the womb is in no way different from the one who does it in childhood, yes, I am stating that in the field of morality, unfortunately the law does not give the same treatment, anyone who performed an abortion is no better than little Isabela Nardoni's father or anyone else who murdered his innocent son in a cowardly way. Honestly, even if he were an adult deserving of such a sentence, it would be difficult for a parent to have the capacity to end his child's life, and could even allow his own to be taken away so as not to have the blood of his offspring spilled for him.

There is no way to mitigate the evil that is capable of taking the lives of those who have not yet been born, especially when it comes to your own child. Not taking responsibility is unhealthy, but killing for that is far beyond, as well as making light of a life in order to ease the conscience of the irresponsible and dissuade them from doing evil among those who should love unconditionally is the worst of crimes and makes an individual a being as nefarious as the genocides in history, it cannot be denied that a being capable of killing his child, if he had the power and motivation, would do so with as many as he deemed necessary.


Abortionist sects

The defense of abortion is not limited to the actions of a few, there is an entire association orchestrated to promote and try to legitimize the murder of innocent people, a kind of contemporary worship to Molech, who sees in the death of children a way to propagate his unhealthy faith in a false god, corrupting people's souls, since, human degradation It is a way of weakening the individual and the key to controlling them. It may seem silly to talk about Moloch for some, but the way that progressives seek to confront the Christian faith can lead those less informed to accept him as a revolutionary figure, who in the imagination of those who have been indoctrinated becomes liberating, by way of illustration, a statue of Molech was erected in the Coliseum.

We only have to look at who the artificial actors behind abortion are in the world to understand who the practice of killing children in their mothers' wombs serves. A quick search takes us to the blog Article 19, false defender of freedom of expression, or opposes a possible CPI whose objective would be to discover who finances pro-abortion NGOs, it is observed that it is nothing more than a subsidiary of the international Article 19, which has as donors, for example the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, as well as several governments and other entities, what a surprise. On the front of the fight for the legalization of abortion, we find other entities such as Azmina, which has in its list of financiers, Google and, again, the Open Society Foundation.

It seems that we already have enough to dispel the argument that it would be a conspiracy theory to believe that there is a large global pro-abortion network, but we have arrived at the Anis Institute, que recebera considerable amount from the Workers' Party and defends abortion and constantly opposes the current government, nothing is by chance. Abroad, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation finance the Planned Parenthood Federation, which is nothing more than an NGO defending the murderous practice.

Curious how revolutionaries claim to fight against oppression while lying in the beds of the powerful, a relationship that, in itself, should call into question the “good intentions” of these people and open the eyes of their lower clergy followers, but they seem to be unconscious vassals, or even worse, knowing that their speech is empty and only serves to hypnotize the most foolish. The so-called Big Tech stands alongside this agenda, to maintain unilateral communication, turning what should be a debate into a true pro-abortion monologue.

As a rule, they treat the supposed right to kill children in the womb using expressions with a certain air of euphemism, as they know the seriousness of what they are dealing with, they use arguments such as reproductive rights or they try to treat it as a health issue, when in fact it is a matter of murder. .

The so-called Green Wave, a movement that originated in Argentina, spreads across Latin America seeking to quench their thirst for the blood of innocents, they are treated as defenders of human rights, when they are against the grain, as their intent is expressly opposed to article 3, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

In truth, this is a sick agenda, like so many others promoted by revolutionaries, to degrade society, since, as mentioned, an individual who was capable of murdering his son, will become devoid of morals, being , at best a servant only of the law, we know that norms can be enacted to meet the will of those in power, even in disregard of formalities, so that such a human being, stripped of humanity, nothing more Will a vassal relay the will of his masters.

Desiring not to bow to the law, will be reduced in rags who are a group of bewildered people, constantly used because they are, in the mentality of the powerful, disposable and ignorant, which perhaps explains the inability to see how much the side that claims to fight against a system is controlled, protected and financed by those in top of the same system they swear to fight.

However, pro-life groups have risen up against tyranny and their fight against the horrendous practice of abortion is increasingly gaining strength.

May the lives of innocents be sacred, may parents recognize the importance of their mission and may future generations have values ​​as their greatest legacy so that they can live in a better world.


Article published in Revista Conhecimento & Cidadania Vol. I No. 07 March 2022 edition - ISSN 2764-3867

Comments


Featured Posts
bottom of page