The judicial, anti-democratic stroke that allowed infanticide in Colombia gives food for thought about the relationship between law and culture. Since the change came, it’s a good thing it came via the judiciary’s pen, and not through the legislature. In which country would the reader prefer to live: in a perfectly democratic one where the majority voted for a PSOL of life and decriminalized “abortion” for up to nine months, or in a dictatorial country where a despot authorized “abortion” for up to nine months? I don’t blink and take the second. Between the laws and the culture, I take the culture. I would rather live on a street where no one had the courage to kill a formed fetus, despite the law, than living on a street where, despite the law, women wanted to have a flat stomach after waiting six months.
Which leads us to the question: what kind of woman is this who wants to terminate a pregnancy not at two or three weeks, but at six months? Or – judging by seven states in the United States – what kind of woman is this who wants to have an “abortion” at nine months of pregnancy?
This push for pro-abortion and infanticide laws finds an explanation easy economic: the value of fetal tissue for the pharmaceutical industry. Another explanation, still to be clarified in the future, is the existence of a certain green neo-Malthusianism that considers human life within the carbon emission calculations. An economic explanation and an ideological one, therefore. But both are external to the eventual society of infanticides. They explain the law that comes from above, but not the eventual adherence to the law. Or, in the absence of laws, adherence to infanticidal morality.
Change in the debate
Until about ten years ago, the abortion discussion was relative to the beginning of life. The pro-lifers were those who considered that life begins at conception; pro-choices believed that life begins with brain activity. Thus, on the one hand, the churches were resisting progressive pressures and, on the other hand, the Federal Council of Medicine recommended decriminalization up to three months, when there would still be no brain activity. Nobody came out publicly to defend infanticide as a replacement for early childbirth, which is the “abortion” approved in Colombia and celebrated by Brazilian progressives.
The Brazilian law against abortion predates the debate at the beginning of the life and, being more pragmatic than theoretical, lists the cases in which abortion is not a crime. If the pregnancy involves a risk to the mother’s life, the sacrifice of the woman’s life is not required. If the woman has been raped, she is not required to bear the child of the person who raped her. We can say that it is a law very much in line with Brazilian common sense: it is both difficult to find, outside progressive circles, anyone who supports the decriminalization of abortion, and it is difficult to find, outside the most religious circles, who is in favor of forcing raped women or women with risk of life to carry out the pregnancy.
Some things were tacit in our law. The raped woman would not wait six months to terminate the pregnancy, and, if that happened, there was no established right to decide to kill the fetus instead of early delivery and placing it in a neonatal ICU. A sick woman who has reached six months of pregnancy and needs to interrupt it to save her own has no reason to talk about abortion; will talk about anticipation of childbirth.
The philosophical and scientific discussion of the origin of life was a quick comet that gave way to the apology of intrauterine infanticide.
Reflex concrete in Brazil
As our law relies on common sense and does not set any limits, in
we saw for the first time the public defense of doctors killing viable fetuses, which in fact ended up happening. A ten-year-old girl was raped by her uncle since she was six years old. Only at five months of pregnancy does the family decide to take action. As an aggravating factor, the girl is diabetic. You have the ideal victim: rape and high-risk pregnancy. Who would decide the fate of the minor in the abortion issue? The same family that had waited five months of pregnancy to take a ten-year-old girl to the doctor. If child support was any use, it was to get children out of the hands of this kind of mother — not the ones who refuse to inject their children with experimental substances, which is what progressives want.
This wonderful family chose the simplest path: getting rid of the extra child. At this point, pro-lifers resumed pro-choice arguments to prevent infanticide of a fetus with the ability to survive outside the womb. In vain. Although, according to the doctors interviewed by this Gazette, the intrauterine carnage was more harmful to the child’s health than a cesarean, the act was consummated. The family let the child be raped for years, waited five months of pregnancy to take her to the doctor and chose to undergo the riskiest surgery.
One diabetic among many
The detail of her being diabetic caught my attention at the time. A police officer friend in São Paulo used to point out the fact that children in the periphery today are all diabetic and attributed this to poor diet. Poor people today consume a lot of practical junk, the kind that we open the bag and eat. Coming to Cachoeira, I heard from a police officer who works in the nearest large urban center the same observation: today the children are all diabetic.
Well: in a brief survey, we see that in 2019 it was reported that Brazil had the third largest population of diabetic children and adolescents in the world. Of course, the size of the Brazilian population, the practice of testing and the dissemination of data weigh in on this; after all, we are behind two very populous countries (India and the United States), but not China, whose colossal population must be the champion in anything that can be measured quantitatively.
In any case, a One thing that stands out in the most investigative material I could find is that: 1) The last major study with a hypothesis for the increase in type 1 diabetes among children is 1989 – or that is, the matter is left to the academic community; and 2) There are no reliable statistics on the increase in type 2 diabetes in children in Brazil – that is, the matter is left to the discretion of the Brazilian authorities.
Thus, the fact that that girl is diabetic should lead to ask if this is not another symptom of neglect on the part of the parents. That girl must not sit at the table; the classic combination of rice, beans and steak shouldn’t be a part of her life. And as far as elites are concerned, eating meat is ugly and being a carb-eating vegetarian is beautiful. Female empowerment took women out of the kitchen and that’s beautiful too. Then you buy a bag of food for your dog and a portion of a bag for your child. Then he gets fat and there’s no problem: the government campaigns against fatphobia. Then he gets diabetic and nobody wants to know why. The SUS gives insulin, someone makes money from it and life expectancy drops, along with quality of life.
What if the spike in childhood diabetes doesn’t mean that there are a lot of Brazilian children living like the girl who was raped, and they were just lucky not to find an abuser who got her pregnant. Lucky, because they don’t have parents to take care of themselves.
Statist solutions
Historically, the abortion ban was more of a moral interdiction than a matter criminal. It makes sense that this is so, given that the State is present in Western history during Antiquity and Modernity, and that, until the beginning of Modernity, not even the life of a child was taken very seriously, let alone that of a fetus. The Romans had a practice of leaving babies they could not raise in the street; the Church, even without secular power, acted against the problem by creating the Wheel, in which mothers put their children on one side and rotated it inside the convent.
What may have caused the emergence of laws against abortion? I do not know; It was a 20th century thing. But if in 2020 we miss, for the first time, a deadline for the termination of pregnancy, or an express prohibition of the intrauterine murder of formed fetuses, it is because there has been a moral degeneration. It is possible that this moral degeneration took place in the 20th century.
The problem led the government to think about solutions. Society has asked itself: “What kind of woman aborts?” keeping in mind those who put out an embryo, not a formed fetus. The easiest answer mixes economy and misandry: bad men leave women when they find out about the pregnancy, which, therefore, aborts. The solution then was to use the arm of the State to force men to undergo DNA tests and to pay supposedly alimony payments. In the Statute of the Unborn, written by two deputies in 2007 (Luiz Bassuma, from PT from Bahia, and Miguel Martini, from PHS from Minas Gerais), it was foreseen that raped women would be forced to bear the rapist’s child and receive a state pension if the rapist is not identified.
If this rape policy passes, how many unscrupulous women will not have children for the purpose of receiving state money? And why won’t they use the money to buy drugs, and suddenly even increase their income by prostituting the child? And in the framework prior to the coercion of men to acknowledge paternity and give money to mothers, would a lesbian psychopath get pregnant for child support? That’s what the mother of the boy Rhuan did, who captured the boy and killed him, when the pension stopped falling on the account. Pro-life activists should think about the unintended consequences of their public policies, as they engender mothers who get pregnant thinking about money, without having any love for their children.
I think pro-lifers should look at the critique of Social Welfare made by Sowell, who sees it as a factor of family breakdown, and that they should look at Ceaucescu’s natalism, which ended up sending children born healthy into state day care centers who, however, were retarded because they grew up looking to the wall, with no one to give them love.
Finally, if the pro-lifers resolved everything in the legislative sphere, what kind of state would be capable of watching over women’s bellies? Would it be a desirable state?
I think that the first initiative of all those who are interested in children would be to collect data on their health, because we can hardly expect children in the hands of drug addicts to be healthy. Assembling a database of healthy children and sick children, it would be good to look for factors that explain the health and illness of each group, to study the effects of State action and to think about what kind of good things it can promote. Another important thing would be to spread information about food, since the green agenda and new age spread misinformation.
