and this is an operation that is done to the fetus, that is, to another creature, a living person, this is of course the greatest achievement of science and medicine, but what is surprising is that many lawyers believe that there is little chance of this law seeing the light of day, it is strange why this is so, because, let's say, there are countries in which the rights of an unborn person are protected by law, these are words... and the czech republic, ecuador, honduras, guatemala, chile, hungary, the dominican republic, madagascar and many many other countries. and we do not need to go far even walk. abkhazia, a wonderful post-soviet country with a rather tragic history, adopted an amendment to the law on health care in 2016. 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, which i want to understand, which is very important to understand, if you think about it, just think about it, you can imagine that from the moment life appeared on earth, since the birth of billions, billions, billions of people... there has not been a single identical person, that is, these are billions of individuals, completely different, they may be similar, they may be of the same nationality, skin color, eye shape, but they are individual, and therefore, each unborn person is precisely an unborn new individual, a new unique being, the highest creation of nature. but

if we break away in thinking about universal human ethics, about religious ethics and so on, we will simply come down to earth let's think about - the practical meaning of what we want to talk about, because we know that the results of termination of pregnancy, that is, this embryo, it can be used for treatment, salvation. even saving other people from various diseases, 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 the purposes of biomedical research is the opposition of the hypothetical benefit to humanity and the real rights of a particular embryo. here, watch a short video, quite a long time ago 2002.

that is - cells - liver or mesanchemic stem cells, taken from the second trimester fetuses. in this video gennady tikhonovich sukhikh says that aborted human embryos can be used as a medicinal raw material for sick people, using the so-called fetal cells, but it is impossible to get them not, so to speak, from ...

the number of people, its role is huge precisely in increasing the birth rate, he says something completely fair, with which it is impossible not to agree, the so-called fetal therapy, it can save from a huge number of diseases, for example, from diseases of the 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, in fact, if there is such an opportunity to help people, anyway, this abortion was done, and this dead fetus can help prolong the life of other people, why can't this

be done, nevertheless, in russia there is law, from june 23, 2016 number 180 fz. on medical 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 the human embryo or fetus or disrupting such a process, this is prohibited, but look at the picture, i will quote the words again ... once again academician gennady tikhonovich sukhokh, with which one cannot but agree. listen, the fact is that research in the field of embryonic stem cells is associated with something controversial. the right to decide whether this pregnancy will develop or not belongs

to the woman herself. tell me, where is the ethics here? is it ethical to flush biologically invaluable material that can not only save, but also revive another life down the drain, an absolutely fair remark. and the authors of the monograph high-risk newborns continue this thought. 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 there were about 2 million artificial abortions were performed. if in the country. to use in order to save another person, well , it is fair, or is it better to

simply flush it down the drain, but here the question arises, why were 2 million abortions performed, and what number of these 2 million abortions were mandatory, necessary to save, say, a woman's life, here a conflict arises between in the cause-and-effect relationship, you understand what i'm talking about. and now let's see how this law number 180 fz correlates with article 17, paragraph 2 of the constitution of the russian federation. look, the basic rights and freedoms of a person are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth, that is, legally, a child in the womb of the mother, he is not considered a person, 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, we consider it immoral to use an unborn embryo, as if considering it protected. state as a person, on the other hand, according to the constitution, only a person is considered a person the one who has already been born, let's remember once again who wrote this constitution for us in 1993, american advisers were sitting on two floors in the white house, writing laws for us and writing the constitution for us, by the way, or all the laws, all the decrees that yeltsin and gaidar... adopted, i was a member of the government, i remember, they bring all this in english, and then they sit there urgently translating, translating, translating at 12 o'clock, at one o'clock in the morning they gather us, we still won't have time to read anything, all these pages are still hot, and even

the translation is so crudely done there unsuccessfully, there you know how it is not in russian, everything is sitting there - in favor of the west, in favor of themselves, despite the fact that in september 1993 of the same, anticipating what was written in the main law, our leading scientists prepared a conclusion, it is dated september 3, 1993, from the point of view of modern biology, genetics and embryology, life... century as a biological individual, begins from the moment of the fusion of

the nuclei of male and female germ cells and the formation of a single nucleus containing unique genetic material, its cannot be likened to an organ or part of an organ of the mother's body, so it is obvious that abortion is an intentional termination of life. of a person 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 faculty of biology of lomanosov moscow state university, professor and doctor of biological sciences, vladimir aleksandrovich galichenkov and professor of the department of embryology, doctor of biological sciences, dmitry vasilyevich popov.

another person appeared, he grew for 9 months, i i can't imagine it, and i can't,

so she lies down and says, now is the very moment when i will give birth to a person, and there was a person inside me for 9 months, he lived in me, a living person, small, that is, she walked around with a person all the time, i understand, can you imagine a living person in a woman, not just some organ, but just a living person in you, he pushes there, imagine what is happening in a woman's head emotionally, then suddenly... "we are familiar in principle, good, good day, and then what can you do to a man stronger, cooler that a woman gave birth to a person, i just can't imagine, nothing, nothing, i really want you to understand me correctly, there is no talk at all about such a ban on abortions, that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about individual attention to each case, if i may say so, especially since we have..." world experience is very serious experience, abortions are completely banned, for example, in andorra,

honduras, nicaragua, el salvador, malta , the philippines, the vatican, in a huge number of countries, they are banned, except in exceptional cases, most often this is medical indications, in venezuela, egypt, indonesia, iraq, iran, liechtenstein, micronesia, mauritania, the united arab emirates, algeria, brazil, bhutan, qatar, costa rica, mali, morocco, monaco, lithuania, nigeria, peru, poland, 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, as well as with the death penalty, which is allowed in some states. abortions are prohibited in some states, for example, in alabama, arkansas, louisiana, missouri,

oklahoma, tennessee, texas, south dakota and other states. in america, since 2022, the supreme court of the united states has overturned the right to terminate a pregnancy at the federal level, adopted in 1973, that is, the state, it has folded itself. responsibility for this act, that is, it is decided, it is decided by the people living in this particular state, despite the promotion of lgbtq. values ​​in america in the countries of the civilized world, at the same time, these are the very farmers who feed america, they continue to live by their own laws, which, by the way, can become a reason for very serious problems within the united states itself. elder pais and svyatogorets, a monk of mount athos, who was

canonized as a saint in the russian orthodox church in 2015, said that... when the state takes responsibility for committing an abortion, then the lord punishes the entire nation, when the state renounces making this decision, then the sin falls on the specific person who committed it. in our country, this issue is not addressed at all regulated, given that, by and large , we are facing a very serious demographic problem. remember, we talked about this in one of our issues. today, russia remains one of the world leaders in the number of abortions. why is that? here is what andrey vladimirovich milekhin, professor at moscow state university and doctor of sociological sciences, writes in his report demography. according to the un forecast, if current

trends continue, by the year 200 russia's population will... which threatens the country's automatic rollback 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 , exactly what those who want to destroy our country are trying to achieve, but... without any bombs, without blood, without violence, with their own hands, this issue is already being raised at the official level, listen to what our president's press secretary dmitry sergeyevich peskov says: every year there are fewer of us, we live in the largest country in the world, there are fewer of us every year, and

this can only be dealt with by increasing average coefficient. and one, almost twice. and why are we so calm about this? because the level of population decline in our country is maintained precisely due to what? due to immigration. and this somehow relaxes us, if you just look at the numbers. here is what alexander semelnikov,

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 will be populated by people from other countries who have preserved their family values ​​more strongly, and the remnants of the indigenous population will be assimilated by migrants, the non-indigenous population will assimilate migrants, what do we have? hope, on the contrary, can this suit us? i want to be understood correctly, it is naive to assume that, for example, a ban on abortions can solve the demographic problem, absolutely not, but i am trying to approach this issue from a slightly different angle, because the danger is not in the abortion itself,

the danger is in the flow in the conveyor belt. in getting used to attitude to this as a natural thing, to the lack of respect for that very life that has not yet appeared in 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 this opportunity, we have the right to lose this opportunity in a completely everyday way, that is, to stop someone else's life,

let's see who is really promoting this magical right to preserve absolute freedom of abortion in russia, for example, listen to what tamara says. delman, we already know well, how she tries to convince us of what needs to be done. in 1936 , abortions that were done on the initiative of a woman were generally banned, but i had a relative who died as a result of a criminal abortion after this law was passed. but we see how today completely barbaric propaganda is being carried out, and propaganda against abortions, which actually makes perfect sense, but it is carried out in wild ways and is not accompanied by 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 these are diapers, that these are sleepless nights, that these are problems everywhere from the moment of birth from... glad at home, where they bully you, yell at you , god knows what antediluvian methods, help to give birth and then, then, then kindergarten, school, problems, problems, problems, but there is no talk about this, because if we talk about this, suddenly someone will not want to give birth, well, we know this lady, tamaralman, remember, we talked about her, glory to ukraine, glory to the heroes,

that means that we must forget forever, and if they don’t say, it’s a disaster, we can’t touch, we must accept it in three readings at once, just right away, automatically, and you will pay

attention to what posters ms. idelman uses in her speech, and these posters really exist, by the way, about advertising in general, here is the kind of advertising that deputy yana lantratova saw on the streets of moscow, this is how she assessed it. in her telegram channel. i don't know who approved this advertising, but doing it 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 save the child, do not have an abortion, and tomorrow ... he will go to war, so what is it? a mistake by the performer or an order? and who benefits from it? do we feel some

specific psychological impact on such a subconscious level, as if by chance, as if by accident, as if nothing special, this is what we talk about all the time, this is what is about those who are ready to open the gates. i know that what i just said is being bleeped out, but i have no other words, that is , think about it, a happy family of three children,

the wife of each. this child, the father serves in navy, an orthodox family, judging by the icon on the wall, all of this together, this bastard named ian gardner, calls it fascist iconography, that is, a mockery of the last supper, at the opening of the olympic games, transgender people who grimace in front of the government officials of all the guests invited to the opening...

hysteria about us comes to those who do not want us to exist in this world at all, and i will prove it to you once again now, pay attention that it is only us, russia, that is interesting, not krasilia, not poland, where the laws against abortions are much more serious, so to speak, to russia, why? that's exactly why we're returning to...

isn't that the answer? that's why after stalin issued a decree banning abortions in 1936, they were temporarily allowed, you know, when during the great patriotic war, in the occupied territories of the german administration. and it was the nazis who put this issue on the... conveyor belt, to decide who should live, who shouldn't live, who is needed, who is not needed, who is important, who is not important, listen interview with inna yambulatova, she is the secretary of the hippocratic medical forum, unfortunately, due to our timing, our time, we cannot show it in its entirety, so we will show only fragments, but i highly 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, yes, said, well, actually, do you like this kind of morality, it was his struggle, it was the third reich, yes, it was adolf hitler, it there was a t-4 program, by the way, a very serious program of annerb, t-4, which was ideologically justified, and actually implemented, moreover, the first concept of surrogate motherhood. we meet precisely in t4, when - 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 in this program at all, according to this program, the majority 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. on lifting the ban on abortions. why did he do it? it's 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 ambassador of the united states to the soviet union, gariman. on july 18, 23, 1955 , a meeting took place in geneva between khrushchev and western leaders. the united states was then represented by dwight eisenhower, england by prime minister anthony eden, france by prime minister edgar faure. on at that meeting, western partners made a number of demands to the soviet union in order to improve relations with western countries. the three most important ones are: