Laws and broadcasts that unbalance the balance of social needs

The Spanish Parliament has lately approved -or will approve- a series of debatable and controversial laws, proposed by the government. I am referring to topics on animal abuse, abortion, sex education, LGBT, euthanasia, etc. And that’s not to mention the increase in the budget for military expenses and the Army and the escalation of arms in favor of NATO and its warmongering.

Without the intention of setting a chair, I would like to make some reflections and express an opinion on it. I know that I get into a mess where it is difficult to deal with, but I think there are many people who question this type of politically correct laws, although they remain silent so as not to be stigmatized.

I sincerely believe that the theoretically left-wing government, faced with the impossibility of fully confronting the issue of social justice in particular and, let alone teaching against the exploitative capitalist system in a more general way, has focused on a series of of secondary objectives that please the world elites, supposedly progressive, that monopolize economic power and that need a change of mentality and a cultural change so that society adapts to defending its interests in a new alienated society, no longer by religion, as before, but by the dictatorship of the consumer society.

Indeed, in the West we live in a society in which freedom without limits, consumerism, selfishness and hedonism have been imposed in all fields, under the pretext of defending individual freedom, as a paradigm of liberation.

Thus, in the sexual field, attempts are being made to recognize the right to gender self-determination without limits and, therefore, to transgender madness even in adolescents without parental consent, which has alarmed the most radical feminists. . That is not to mention sexual apprenticeships that, with the permission of certain authorities, are being carried out in some schools for young children, by activists from the LGTBIQ + lobbies, unrelated to teachers.

There is a contradiction between legislating, on the one hand, on the right of animals as living and sentient beings, and on the other on the right to abortion. It is true that animals feel and suffer and, consequently, deserve to be taken into account, especially when it comes to domestic animals that are given a special affection that, sometimes, even exceeds that of the animal. human rest of the family. (It should not be forgotten that other unprotected nuisance animals are also living beings, that they also have neurological circuits and structures that generate consciousness and, therefore, pain, but that, since we do not have an emotional bond with these animals, we do not mind killing them, nor does it matter to do it with animals intended for human consumption).

Something similar can happen with human fetuses subjected to abortion that, if there is no affective bond -or perhaps for that very reason-, are likely to be eliminated without having a guilty conscience. And this despite the fact that fetuses also produce organogenesis in the sixth week of fertilization, and in the seventh the first brain activity, let alone what progresses in the following weeks.

Regarding euthanasia, we know that there are evicted people, some of them healthy, who for different reasons would like to die. Why do we want to save the apparently healthy who attempt suicide and alleviate their desperation with psychological therapies and why do we want to apply the so-called dignified death to the seriously incurable patients who perhaps also want to die for this reason? where is the difference between the mentally ill (psychological) and the physically ill? Why does the State, instead of spending in the military field with weapons, not spend more in the therapeutic field that deals with the palliative care of the incurably sick?

But something more can be said about euthanasia. It is not the same to remove devices that maintain life artificially, or to alleviate pain -although they accelerate death-, than to kill those who no longer have a cure. Without going into the range of different cases that may arise, I ask myself: who would have to kill these people? A doctor who has taken a Hippocratic Oath? (Let’s remember what that oath says: “I will never give anyone deadly medicine, no matter how much they ask me, nor will I take any initiative of this kind; nor will I administer an abortion to any woman. On the contrary, I will live and practice my art in a holy and holy way.” Although in 1948 the Geneva Convention made a more abstract adaptation -and according to the new cult of the Welfare State- in which it is said: “I will have absolute respect for human life”). Although in today’s “welfare” society there are doctors who do not mind applying euthanasia without having a bad conscience, there are others with other ethics who do not want it. I don’t want to be frivolous, but perhaps the euthanasia and abortion laws should include the figure of an “executor of euthanasia and abortions”. Come on, something like the historical figure of the executioner.

Ironies apart, it is worth asking: What could be the reason why these types of laws are so widely accepted in the liquid postmodernity in which we live? I think that is the crux of the matter.

In my opinion, we have created a society – I am referring to the developed western one – where the most important thing is to live the present life as best as possible without worrying too much about others and without too much effort. Everyone wants to be happy, which is very laudable, but hedonism and living for pleasure are another thing, in which case it can turn into selfishness, lack of solidarity and lack of love. And I think some of that is happening today with covert advertising on TV shows and other media (websites, Instagrams, tweeters, books, etc.) that spread -trying to disproportionately normalize (some are pure vision- rubbish)-, from songs with sexist, macho and misogynist lyrics, to gender change, through euthanasia, free abortion, free advertising of toys and erotic shops in some program about sex, etc., ignoring, or even bordering , other themes, perhaps more valuable, such as pacifism, love, compassion, tenderness, friendship, fidelity, sincerity, justice, solidarity, mutual aid, good neighborliness, protection of the underprivileged and a long etcetera.

But of course, the seeds of hedonism fall into a field fertilized by the consumption of pleasures and useless objects, promoted by the ruling classes and the plutocracy, where selfishness and all kinds of individual rights and very few social obligations have been instilled in us – which usually imply a certain amount of dedication and effort-, without a future, with little spirituality and few ethical and supportive values; a world devoid of dialogue and plagued by insults, provocations, confrontations, competitions, wars… of every man for himself, while, alienated by all this, our governments, at the service of the powerful, slip us military budgets that increase without stop for the sake of “national security”.

I believe that all these kinds of laws and announcements – which I have no doubt may be very necessary in some respects – apart from being an attempt to cover up the true needs of citizens, unbalance the balance of social needs in favor of minor issues importance that they want to shoehorn or Vaseline against common and humanitarian sense, yes, always disguised as liberation and rebellion. In this sense, a dedication that I read in a book by a well-known writer specializing in LGTBIQ+ sexuality comes to mind that said: “…for being a free and rebellious soul. Remember that you know the path of liberation. Follow it” Well, let’s follow the path laid out by the powerful and the LGTBIQ+ pressure groups, so that we think little about everyone’s things to eat and even less about the most transcendental things in life.

Laws and broadcasts that unbalance the balance of social needs