health care, here's what it says: the state recognizes the right to life of an unborn child from the moment of conception prohibits artificial termination of pregnancy, and why are we again not talking about a ban, we are talking about ethics, what i want to understand what is very important to understand, if you think about it, just think about it, you can imagine that from the moment of the appearance of life on earth, from the moment of the birth of billions, billions, billions of people, there has not been a single identical person, that is, this billions of individuals, completely different, they can be similar, they can be of the same nationality, skin color, eye shape, but they are individual, and therefore, each unborn person is just an unborn new individual.

he, he can be used for treatment, salvation, even saving other people from various diseases. but let's turn to the dictionary of biomedical ethics, here's what it says: the basis of the ban on the use of an embryo or its tissue for biomedical research is the opposition of a hypothetical benefits for humanity and real rights of a specific... embryontova, watch

a short video from quite a long time ago, 2002, and so that our national perspective is not closed to us by talk about ethics, about morality, about religion, all this is very important, all this is very necessary, but at the same time we need to understand that there is a goal, fatal diseases, we can say, this is neurodegeneration, neurodegenerative diseases of the brain. this is the problem of diabetes mellitus type i and ii, this is the problem of accelerated aging, these are autoimmune diseases, this is a lot, that also, this is regeneration in a broad sense, that is , we need mechanisms, we need a certain degree of scientific and medical freedom, obviously, at some stages it is possible to quite calmly try to replace, to move away from organ transplantation and...

the so-called fetal cells, but it is impossible to obtain them without, so to speak, killing the fetus, and quite a large one, as it is believed, having reached 12 weeks of its, so to speak, existence, i want to immediately make a reservation, gennady tikhonovich sukhikh is a great professional, he is a doctor of medical sciences, he heads the center of obstetrics, gynecology.

perenotology named after academician kulakov, his merits are noted by the state, he is a knight of the order for services to the fatherland, he is a laureate of the state prize in the field of science in 2022, and so on and so forth. he accepts the most difficult cases of his life, saves a huge number of people, his role is huge in increasing the birth rate. he says something absolutely fair, with which it is impossible not to agree, the so-called... therapy it can save from a huge number of diseases, for example, from disease central nervous system, down's disease, parkinson's, alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, kidney disease, male infertility, impotence, diabetes and many, many other diseases, and if you look at it from a rational point of view, then actually, if there is such an opportunity to help people, anyway, it's... an abortion

is done and this dead fetus can help prolong the lives of other people, why can't this be done? nevertheless, in russia there is a law. june 23, 2016, number 180 fz on biomedical cell products, according to which in our country it is unacceptable to use for the development, production and application of biomedical cell products, biological material obtained by interrupting the process of development of a human embryo or fetus or violating such. this is prohibited, well, look at the picture, i will quote once again the words of academician gennady tikhonovich sukhikh, with which it is impossible not to agree, listen, the fact is that research in the field of embryonic stem cells is associated

with something controversial, the right to decide, will be whether this pregnancy will develop or not, belongs to the woman herself, tell me, where is the ethics here, is it ethical? priceless material from a biological point of view, which can not only save, but also revive another life, to flush down the drain, an absolutely fair remark. and the authors of the monograph continue this thought, high-risk newborns. if abortion is considered a violation of the fetus's right to life, how should we treat the fact that in 2000 alone in our country. about 2 million artificial abortions were performed, if in the country 2 million abortions were performed in 2000 alone, so why can't the results of this abortion be used to save another

person, well, that's fair, or is it better to just flush it down the drain, but here the question arises: why?

his rights are protected from birth, that is, in other words, our left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, on the one hand. it is immoral to use an unborn embryo, as if considering it protected by the state as a person, on the other hand , according to the constitution, only a person is considered a person someone who has already been born. let's remember once again who wrote this constitution for us in 1993? american advisers sat on two floors of the white house, wrote laws for us and wrote a constitution for us.

prepared a conclusion, it is dated 3 in the main law of our leading scientists september 1993. from the point of view of modern biology, genetics and embryology,

human life as a biological individual begins with the moment of fusion of the nuclei of male and female germ cells and the formation of a single... nucleus containing unique genetic material. it cannot be compared to an organ or part of an organ of the mother's body. therefore, it is obvious that abortion is a deliberate termination of human life as a biological individual. look how this fetus develops, look, this is a person. the authors of this conclusion are the head of the department of embryology and the biological faculty of lomonosov moscow state university, professor, doctor of biological sciences, vladimir aleksandrovich galichenkov. and professor of the department of embryology, doctor of biological sciences, dmitry vasilievich

popov. well, okay, these are the letters of the law, this is the theory, this is the opinion of specialists, professionals, and so on and so forth. and what do ordinary people think? moreover, this survey was not conducted in the middle ages, not in the last century, it was conducted in 2024. here is the opinion of the people, the opinion that a child is already a person before birth, is held by 77% of russians, 72% allow abortion only for medical reasons, according to a study by the institute of sociology of the federal research and sociological center of the russian academy of sciences. now listen, just like that point of view, just a man, just a person, just a father, this is the singer vasily vakulenko, aka the famous bastal. no, women are simply stronger because they give birth to people, simply. yes, well, life, of course, no, that it is simply. she must at some point allow that in her body,

yes, another person appeared, he grew for 9 months, i cannot imagine this, and i cannot, so she lies down and says: now is the very moment when i will give birth to a person, and there was a person in me for 9 months, he lived in me, a living person, small, that is, she walked all the time with a person, got it, can you imagine, in a woman there is a living person, not just some organ.

saudi arabia, uruguay, chile and many, many other countries. these issues are very cleverly resolved in the united states of america, by the way, in the country whose representatives wrote our constitution.

this, by the way, can become a reason for very serious problems within

the united states itself. elder paistius the holy mountain, a monk of mount athos, who in 2015 was canonized by the russian orthodox church of the klikuma of saints, said that when the state takes responsibility for committing an abortion, then the lord punishes the entire nation, when the state.

millions of people, which threatens the automatic rollback of the country to the level of an ordinary agrarian power, the loss of any chances for the formation of any significant sovereign geopolitical contour, that is, in fact , precisely that...

the population, at least at one level, the coefficient should be 2.1, almost twice, and why are we so calm about this , because the level of population decline in our country is being maintained precisely due to what, due to emigration, and this somehow relaxes us,

if you just look at the numbers, here is what alexander semelnik, professor of the department of sociology, family and demography, sociology faculty of moscow state university, says about this. listen, the extinction of a people can occur over several centuries, but long before it dies out, its territory will inevitably be populated by people from other countries, where family values ​​are more firmly preserved, and the remnants of the indigenous population will be assimilated.

not in the abortion itself, the danger is in the flow, in the conveyor belt, in getting used to treating it as a natural thing, to the lack of respect for that very life that has not yet come into the world, but it already exists, it is given by god, that is what we are talking about, in this there is, in my opinion, just disrespect not only for someone else's... life, disrespect for ourselves, how many families beg god, doctors, shamans for the opportunity to give birth to a child, for some reason they do not succeed, at the same time, having received this opportunity, we completely in an everyday way

we have the right to lose this opportunity, that is, stop. were done on the initiative of the woman, well, i had a relative who died as a result of a criminal abortion after this law was passed, but we see how completely. propaganda is being carried out today, and propaganda against abortions, which is actually quite meaningful, but it is carried out in wild ways and is not accompanied

by an offer of any other alternatives, that is, the only alternative is to simply give birth, give birth and give birth, they explain, oh, how good, this is, of course, your main goal in life, and if you don't give birth, it will be terrible, how wonderful, how wonderful, then it turns out that this...

we saw deputy yana lantratova on the streets of moscow and rated it this way in her telegram channel. i don't know who approved this advertisement, but doing this at a time when the birth rate in the country is at a terribly low level is a crime. at first glance, the topic is clear and correct, men defend their homeland, their parents, children, they are our heroes. and how will a woman, a mother, perceive this picture? today keep the child, don't have an abortion, and tomorrow he will go to war, so what is it the performer's mistake or an order and who

benefits from it, and don't we feel some specific very psychological impact on such a subconscious level, as if by chance , as if by chance, as if nothing special, this is what we are all about...

government officials of all guests, transgenders who grimace in front of those invited to the opening of the olympic games in paris, a man calling himself a woman on boxing ring, who beat real women, swimmers who hide their... and italy, because they stick out and so on, that's all fine, but a family with white children, with a pregnant wife and a military father icons -

these are fascists, that is, you understand to what level the hysteria about us reaches, among those who do not want us to exist in this world at all, and i will prove it to you once again now, you will notice that the interest is only in us, in russia, not in brazil, not in poland, where much more seriously, so to speak, laws... against abortions, specifically to russia, why? that's exactly where we come back to the question i asked a little earlier, because even the war that's going on in ukraine today, it follows the testament of, you know who, and the fuhrer's personal secretary, martin bormann, who said the following: the slavs should work for us, to the extent that we don't need them, they can

die out. the reproduction of slavs is undesirable, they can use contraceptives and have abortions, and the more, the better, isn't that the answer? that's why , after stalin issued a decree banning abortions in 1936, they were allowed for a while, you know, when during the great patriotic war...

i recommend watching it in its entirety, well, there was a man with a mustache who believed that poor, ugly schizophrenics should be sterilized, or better yet, killed, and those they conceived should be destroyed in the bud, as he said, well, actually, do you like this kind of morality, it was his fight, it was the third reich, yes, it was adolf hitler, it was there was the t4 program, by the way, a very serious program, t-4, which was ideologically justified and actually implemented, moreover, the first concept of surrogate motherhood we encounter is in t4, when m forced insemination of a woman, there one gives birth, another is given to nurse, the third to raise, so i am not sure that many who are broadcasting today, should we pay poverty, that they would have survived at all in this program, most would have been destroyed, well, let's return to history, stalin dies and my namesake... nikita

sergeyevich khrushchev on november 23, 1955 , issues a decree lifting the ban on abortions. why did he do this? this is very interesting. look, there is evidence from one of our intelligence officers who worked in washington in the seventies, oleg vladimirovich pilipets, who received it from the former united states ambassador to the soviet union, gariman. july 18, 23,