Belief and the obligation to exist

Life is a mechanism, an automatism generated by the universe. How a mechanism, an automatism, can it induce the belief, as well the mental function itself than the multiple religious contents imagined in the world?

One can imagine that it has something to do with the obligation to exist for the sustainability of life.

We can dare to create an existence only because we know that we will be able to fool it without any problem, since the person created is born virgin from cultural meanings. But by fooling the child, it is the whole humanity which is fooled, that is called the beliefs.

The mental function “belief” is a function which is opposed to the reason. “To reason”, it is to seek and to bring arguments to a theory without seeking to validate it a priori, its validation or its invalidation will be done by the arguments.

“To believe”, it is to validate this theory with absolute certainty, and to deny, more or less imperturbably, the existence of the arguments which demonstrate its falseness.

A believer has the intellect frozen on the choice he made, forgetting that a single small contradictory argument is sufficient to invalidate any theory.

“This believer thus declares himself infallible.” The believer believes in his own infallibility. In religion, it is rather strange, since most of them (all!) preach honesty, humility, and modesty.

The belief must be conscious, otherwise it is only a basic automatism. The child does not believe, it simply underwent the parental and social indoctrination. Being born virgin of cultural meanings, the child impregnates itself of parental actions, since it cannot make differently than to record the model present in front of its eyes and its ears.

Religious behavior in its immediate environment becomes, just as the mother tongue, the foundation of its culture. Its intellect is completely impregnated. The main of this culture holds in a few words, respecting parents, culture itself, and its fatherland.

To become truly a believer, that child will make a conscious act of acceptance and in front of others preferentially. It is not indoctrination, it is a rite of passage with public enthronement making it extremely difficult the disavowal.

The word belief is used indiscriminately by everyone. It is employed as the verb “do”, or the word “trick”, when talking vaguely, which is the case most of the time. “I believe it will be sunny tomorrow,” should be replaced by “I guess it will be sunny tomorrow” or “I feel that it will be sunny tomorrow.”

To believe that the weather will be nice is not a belief which one can compare with religious belief. Rainy or sunny, we understand perfectly well that we will know the next day. While the “tomorrow” of the believer is part of his belief, that is the material death of the living, which he claims to have the certainty of its existence.

It is on the following day, after life, that is the certainty of a believer. The believer needs this next day to clear himself of the mistake he has made (or he'll make) by putting her child into this world of misery. “The life that I gave you is not beautiful, but paradise awaits you if you behave well with me!”

Most of our pseudo-beliefs are simply the weighted confidence. For example, I have never seen platypus and never seen a unicorn, but I'm completely confident in the existence of the platypus that is nevertheless much more incredible that a unicorn.

Similarly, I trust the technical specialists, of daily life, which have more knowledge than mine in their fields. The same with the knowledge of scientists, who are also specialists.

The existence of anything is not subject to a belief. The existence of something is a fact or not, it's not by personal decision that the thing exists.

Anyone can believe in the existence of anything, but should in no case be able to impose the belief in this existence and all those results to anyone. It is not a question of secularism, it is a matter of rationality and sanity.

There is merit to behave well without expecting anything, and no to behave well in the hope of a great reward, paradise. A signature obtained with a gun to his head has no value. Signing for paradise, with hell to his head has no value.

The religious contents, bases of religions are innumerable, but much less than the world's literature in other fields. We have all a propensity to tell stories, with a lot of romantic fictions and fairytales of all kinds.

For any religion, whatever is told in other religions is only literature unfounded, so that generally all religious texts, without exception, are considered, from a democratic point of view, by all humans, as simple novels.

If humanity voted to accept the religious texts, one would obtain for each, a broad democratic majority relating them to simple and bad literature.

The mental function “belief” is a kind of computer virus, which blocks the thought on a religious content rather than another.

This content is cultural, it is an impregnation. I believe in what my parents and my direct entourage tell me, my brain is impregnated with their explanations of the world, which is easy to realize on the mental mechanics of the baby who is born virgin from cultural significance.

Whatever the reasons for giving birth to a being, it can only concern the person who conceives it. Even if the child you create was born immortal in a paradise without any risk, the question of the dictatorship and the reasons for this creation remain.

The brain's abilities allow it to analyze the reasons of existence. This analysis allows it to understand the futility of existence and therefore the uselessness of procreation. Obviously, those who do not procreate disappear with their ideas, and only remain those who invented a reason for the perenniality of life.

This is why everywhere in the world, we find the ideas of immortality and paradise, and incidentally the notion of free will that makes each person responsible, and even responsible for its own existence...

Everything must be forgiven, because free will does not exist (see demo). This human pseudo-ability is a very old invention of believers. It is a common belief on Earth still used today, by so-called secular nations (mystery and misery of human intellect. Stupid human which imposes the existence, therefore the free will that accompanies it!!!)

All that is described is in the field of science, and, since thought may be described, it is a science field, thought and all its contents obviously. Religion, all that it produces, which is a chimera of thought, cannot escape the science and its analysis.

God capable of producing the universe, capable, meanly, to drown the human world he has made before, therefore able to appear by obvious signs, which God made known through speech, speech unveiled in a pseudo-telepathy (prayer),

this god who does not want to become known by the vision, touch, and other senses, is an invention of numbskull, who seek to deceive. But why do they want to fool?

What is the use of the religions with their contents, what is the use of the gods, and especially the mental function “belief”?

All this serves to explain to children why one imposed them to exist when it was not necessary, and to the women why they should continue to give birth when they may die or get a pathology more or less handicapping.

Life is short, unhealthy, bellicose, your body and your mind are worthless, but that does not matter because life is short and then there is paradise, and you will soon be immortal.

Madam, to have a child with two chances in a thousand dying at best, this is called quasi-suicide, which is, I believe, forbidden by the religion. Monsieur, to impose his wife this risk of two chances in a thousand to die, at best, is a crime.

In the world, there exist all the religious alternatives on this topic. The invention of the writing allowed to fix the variations. But if the signs do not change any more, on the other hand, the interpretation of these books, abounding of foolery, depends obviously on the reader.

Because as everyone knows, the interpretation depends on the experience of one who reads or hears. So there are as many different religions as there are religious people.

The funniest are the contradictions of this system: to impose the children to respect the slavers that are the parents, who do not hesitate to play Russian roulette on the head, the body of their own offspring, they add multiple threats, gods who watch, devils that appeal to do evil, and hell to live forever in suffering.

(But why the heck would this Devil punish you for what you do then it is not against you, but against God that he wants to replace (vizier in place of the vizier)?)

The mental function “belief” is a kind of computer virus, it blocks reflection, and that is not complicated to carry out since it is established in a virgin brain of cultural significance. A child swallows all, since it is “impregnated” like the fledglings of Conrad Lorenz. The proof very simple to give is the mother tongue, impossible to escape from it.

It is easy to deduce from all this that the cultural system of religions and beliefs is used for reproduction, therefore to Life. Because no really clever being can only impose someone to exist, and even less to exist in conditions and with a body that are not controlled during manufacture.

The evolution manufactured us with our large brains able to describe and analyze finely the world. The problem is that if we know of it too much, we stop reproducing, thus the evolution made the belief which curbs our correct analysis of the world.

Now that we over-occupy the planet, we must unleash our large brains. We have to remove the beliefs that make us reproduce like rabbits for bullshit reasons. There are no souls, no gods, no heaven or eternity, or free will... but we need this knowledge to change.

It is recommended knowing as intimately as possible, using method, logic, reason, the functioning of thought since we lug it with us. The object of study is at hand, since constantly with us.

Whichever way you give a child a physical or mental defect, even if you do it gently with drugs, this is ill-treatment, it is a crime punishable by law. But if a child is born with physical or mental defects, you claim that this child has not been harmed, this is a simple mistake of nature!!!

You claim that this child does not have to complain about his parents who created him, who gave birth while they knew quite well, consciously, that this possibility existed for him to be born dumbhead...!!!

You claim that this child is a human being without right, he did not even have that to be born normal!!! The existence serves no purpose, only for the one that already exists and is aware of that existence. Why make exist a person with the slightest possibility of suffering?

This is a huge mystery to me. Nature invented conscience, then belief to prevent consciousness of being too conscious?

Life does not think, it exists only by reproduction. Belief blocks over-empathy, which leads to non-reproduction, and distorts realistic explanations of the world in favor of fairytales.

The creation of an existence that has the least bad luck to be born with a physical or mental defect or any bad luck to have a miserable life, whereas this creation is used only for those which already exist, is the work of a fool or a sadist. Animals are idiots. Human aware of potential prenatal ill-treatment are sadists.

There is neither god nor devil, neither one nor several. But compared to a god (supposedly good and right) that would have made us inferior to him in all areas, we would be physically and mentally disabled.

In creating us disabled from birth that god would be a child abuser. It would therefore be a very big and despicable sadistic, and a vile slaver, since a being created is created to serve.

Evolution has produced the mental function “belief” to bridle our reason which tells us that life is useless, never. Forced to play the game of life and the social game that we did not choose, we have the right and even the duty to rebel, to stop it.

The law as it is, allows us to prosecute our parents if we are mistreated, we are constantly. The society is complicit. On the pack of the 350,000 births of the day, 30% of babies are born disabled (abnormal) (100% of these babies-objects are handicapped compared to adults).

Humans must also provide at another wholesaler or better they stop procreating. Heads of Governments and parents are so repugnant to think that these 30% are just collateral damage.

Life exists by the unchanged reproduction or not, that does not matter, as long as life exists and produces life in a vicious circle, and even very vicious when seeking to understand the usefulness of this existence. This is where the problem of selfishness and empathy arise.

When we have a big brain we must ask selfishly if life is useful for itself (“to be or not to be” and “would it really be worth living”), and, of course, the empathy raises the question of why dare to breed another person with all the risks of lack of mastery of the creation of this existence, after all:

“Making a life, procreation, serves only those that already exist, and nobody masters this manufacturing made in blind.”

It is there that the mental function “belief” had to appear, to block this kind of reasoning. How to benefit at the same time from a large brain and to continue to generate children with all the risks that implies for the person created? There are no morals in the creation of an existence…

Why a woman does she want to become mom, and why a man does he want to become dad, while making take immense perils with the one which will be their very dear baby?

Even if you create an existence by giving him perfect health, intelligence and power, paradise and immortality, there would be only for your personal use that it would be created. This is not the case, you are not able to know what will come out of your “surprise belly” Madame, you control nothing of this creation, just tripping.

Existence never requires to exist, and certainly not under the deplorable conditions which are offered to it on Earth, where it must, in an astounding way, earn its existence, pay the debts of its parents and the social debts contracted before its birth, and to guarantee the retirement of its parents and associated.

And all that incredible reproductive rampant stupidity to make the world a hell! This is to die of shame to know that I have anything to do with this...

There is necessarily a difference between a human being resulting from creation, and a human being resulting from the only mechanisms of the universe. In the first case, we are created with features decided by our manufacturer, and in the second we are the elements of the universe adapted to it, because born from it, but without any intention.

These two entities cannot be identical. For thousands of years, we live by believing us superior beings. We get educated by our parents and our societies as divine children, me personally, I have no particular power, I'm not telepath, and I have no free will.

I wish I was educated as such. Humanity needs to clear the air from birth to death. We must call everything into question, education, justice, governance, etc. Everything is done according to the first scheme, everything must be done according to the second scheme.

Today, millions of people are stored in jail because our justice decided that according to the first scheme they were responsible. It is infinitely stupid to create a human, badly educate it, and to lock it up by punishing it for faults of creation and education which it is not responsible...

Why by inventing the belief, Life needed to deny its own working which is the material and cultural evolution?

Probable answer: “We are just cooked to understand that it is time to stop destroying, and we are able to manufacture a life without suffering, that does not need to eat other lives for living.”

The idiot did what his own body asks to him, orders to him, without worrying about the other. The idiot creates an existence and to exonerate himself with this person, he rationalizes his actions by inventing twaddle.

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

“Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering?”

Dead end

E. Berlherm (June 2016)

Society and the obligation to exist

According to the society and its social laws the only way to sign an association agreement is freely and voluntarily. Nobody can force you to sign anything. A contract is null and void if signed under duress.

This means that the only way to sign the "social contract" is either to accept freely and willingly, or to make a child just as freely and voluntarily.

Because having a child it is to impose the existence of a person that is manufactured "in haphazardly" by imposing the lottery of life to him, and that's to accept the association in fact (therefore of being an animal or a fool or a slave or a sadist).

As long as you have not signed the social contract, you have the right to claim what you want, there is no limit to your claims since one imposed on you to exist in this society and with a body that you have not selected.

Once the contract was signed, you can always claim, but only on points of detail, because you have accepted the general terms of the social contract.

But you can always claim that the original agreement was not respected, that you have been cheated, cheated in terms, or that the society has changed without your agreement in a way that does not suit you, you do not have countersigned the change. You can choose, hypocrisy and falsehood are social habits that you can use to your account.

Because the society strongly encouraged your parents to procreate. Your parents have confidence in the system. They made your life by trusting the principles of equality, fraternity, liberty, the great principles of human rights, which ensure you, health, safety, quality of life.

How else to understand that your nice parents have forced you, to exist in an unhealthy world, bellicose, unstable?

Formerly, a society was a group of individuals associated simply by family custom to make life easier. The human animal  manufactured a similar existence to him for his personal use, and the society needed to adapt to this new individual imposed on the group, until it becomes profitable.

But today the society has become a body, a quasi-entity, which exists in itself as a nation. We are in a mixed system in which the individual, monitored, procreate anyway virtually like he wants while being strongly encouraged by the society to produce lives for social service.

And this social involvement changes everything. The society becomes responsible, because represented by an almost dictatorial power over individuals. It is therefore responsible for our lives, our obligation to exist, our manufacturing in blind, our disabilities, our suffering, our death.

The society is criminal, because a share, still much the same, suffered the fate of life with violence. The percentage of handicaps of birth is always appreciably the same one. The percentage of handicaps gained during the Life is always appreciably the same one.

The society manufactures disabled existences, thus suffering, with full knowledge of cause and effect on individuals, a significant part of itself. The society manufactures voluntarily this suffering since it is constant in percentages.

How does the society consider it possible to compensate for a human being made for his service, but who can never have a normal life whereas he was manufactured to serve society, to social demands?

The society is not a sentient being,  and  that's probably why it is little concerned with  the suffering problems of sentient beings that we are, except for the profitability of its mechanisms.

Ask yourself what the society has not given you, whereas it's accomplice and instigator of those who forced you to exist, and who claim to have given you the Life. Ask yourself what that means giving life to an animal and what it should mean for an intelligent being, a human being. Is the social slavery all right with you?

The birth of a child is not a private matter, since it is an associate added to society, and so that everyone participates in this association by monitoring the child's health status, by education, and the rest ...

People sign contracts between adults, PACs, marriage contracts with signatures of witnesses before the mayor, and often redoubled by a church wedding, but the child did not have a say, he is brought in the world carelessly, without social control, without insurance.

Any woman before embarking on this perilous enterprise, for the child (to bring him into the world), should establish with the society in demand for children, a birth contract for at least attempt to ensure a minimum subsistence level for children, and adults that they will be.

And if the society refuses this contract of birth, that means that this society does not have a great consideration for this possible future associate. Therefore, do not make child under these conditions appear most wise.  Is not it ?

Thus try a contract of birth, you will see well what the administrators (President of the Nation and its ilk) will answer you, and which importance they give to the life of your possible child…

Marriage is synonymous with contract. How can one repeal a contract between consenting individuals? Moreover, what business it is of society, regarding the contracts, apart from the fact that Justice is there to enforce a contract? It would, however, be necessary to remove the concept of marriage and let people take care of their own contracts together with notaries and lawyers.

The question of the child, that is something else, it is there that the State must intervene. A family contract must be made for the child, and each child born, it is the child that matters. A new member is not introduced into society without asking the consent and support of the society...

A change of civilization is essential in this field. The child is a person, this is him that must be addressed first. The creation of an existence only serves those that already exists and when the creation is not mastered the creator is either an animal or a fool or a slaver or a sadist.

When a couple with the tacit agreement of the society, and even a strong incitement, have forced a child to be born, to exist with physical defects or (and) mental, how much they have to pay to repair their immense wrongs, whereas no birth is obligatory and that it benefits only the existing ones?

The existence of Family Planning means that it is asked to persons, mainly women, to control the number of children they bear. This means it is requested that, instead of ten children or more, they create less by controlling what they do.

It does mean that supernumerary children will not be created. It also means that children do not count, it is not their existence for itself that matters, but their family and social utility. These lives that could have been useful to society in other contexts and circumstances become useless or even dangerous for the planet.

So these non-existences are at our disposal, it is a potential livestock in which social draw at will.

Babies are pawns on the social chessboard, we create or not, according to our good pleasure, we are gods, with all the powers of life, death, prenatal and postnatal abuse, suffering and misery, whose gods play and laugh.

What strange morality! No life, no risk, no poverty, no suffering ... Since you admit fewer humans per woman, while they house hundreds of thousands of eggs, why 20, 10, 3 and 1 child? Why not stop the misery completely, since life, although it has no meaning, is only useful to existing ones?

Why not admit that zero children per woman is the moral solution? What bothers you there personally, apart from the fact that you do not dare to ask it? Do you feel a social responsibility? The society is not an entity. The society is a concept in our heads, it does not suffer.

In contrast, a conscious being can suffer. Why impose him this opportunity to suffer, by manufacturing his existence? Life is a lottery, how can you play the lottery on the back of your dear little? Endangering the lives of others when it leads to suffering, misery and death is a crime. No madam, if you make a child, then you are a criminal according to our laws.

Why prenatal ill-treatments, are they accepted without stumbling by the society and all parents, as if they were obvious?

When our parents create our existences, for their personal service (we do not ask to exist), we are born with a completely blank nervous system of cultural significance.

The nervous system is a blank memory, a white paper culturally. We do not have in memory any words or any function associated with the family and social culture. All cultural functions will be taught and learned during our existence.

We did not ask to exist. We were violently introduced into the Social Jungle, into the Earth trash, without our consent. Our life will be a lottery. The body we have is itself a lottery, gender, IQ, health, events, lifetime, all is lottery.

Our parents played the lottery on our back shamelessly, they will never excuse for our defects, they will be just happy with what they call quality. To introduce these social mental functions that we do not have at birth, they do not know how to do, nobody knows, it works nearly in general, but they have to do this by themselves, parents and society.

They want to insert ourselves into society, so they want us to have mental functions approved by the society, they have to do this by themselves, not to the children. Children are not to blame. They are in no way responsible to exist, or of their mental functions that will enable them or not to fit properly in society.

All these children have a very variable IQ, it goes from zero, the total vegetable, to the gifted and a few geniuses. Do you think all these intellectual differences give the same opportunities to everyone to fit into society? We are born unequal, intellectually and physically, but equal according to human rights and before the law.

Whatever the quality of mental functions that your parents have managed to insert into your nervous system, this is you who will take on your head if you commit an antisocial act.

They are your parents and the society which create and ask for your existences, it is them which introduce the social mental functions in you, but it is you who will take whereas it is them which were flunked in your creation and your insertion. 

You have been taken for a ride. "The creation of an existence only serves existing ones, when not mastered this creation, nor the path that will follow this existence, the creator is an animal, an idiot, a slaver or a sadist."

One of the core principles of human rights is that at birth you don't serve to anything or anyone, otherwise someone has planned for you the place you're going to occupy, as if you were a family or social wheel, that is to say a slave.

If you're useless, why do your parents procreate you? Well, it is for their personal pleasure. So, you serve them something, and it's out of human rights. Your parents are well indeed dictators. And like any dictatorship, it must be controlled.

All those who were involved in life (all living, all sensitive and aware, we humans) have the right to hold accountable those who have involved them, that is to say to their parents and the society.

The society is not innocent of this involvement. Why don't we request any account to our parents and society? Because we are formatted by them not to do so.

Do you realize that nobody, or almost, on Earth among humans, grumbles to exist? It's extraordinary !

We are propelled in the social jungle like mere objects, thrown like garbage into the Earth trash, drawn in the lottery of life, and no one backfire nice parents and nice societies, that made us this filthy gift, to exist, miserable, sensitive, fragile, and sickly, with no other reason than their stupid desires.

Stupid desires to be accompanied and to be served, and we have the great privilege of having to buy that gorgeous body all day long, this future bedridden when it is not at birth or on the road...

Not to mention that we are punished if we do not serve as the desire of the small number of our stupid ancestors who invented and propagated the belief in anything for the sole purpose of preserving this absurd life, this vicious circle.

There is necessarily a difference between a human being resulting from creation, and a being resulting from the only mechanisms of the universe. In the first case, we are created with features decided by our manufacturer, and in the second we are elements of the universe adapted to it because born of it, but without any intention.

These two entities cannot be identical. Since thousands of years, we live by believing us superior beings. We get educated by our parents and our societies as divine children, me personally, I have no particular power, I'm not telepathic, and have no free will.

I would have liked to be educated as such, a true rationalist sapiens. Humanity needs to clear everything out, from birth to death. We must question everything, education, justice, governance, etc. Everything is done according to the first scheme, everything must be done according to the second scheme.

Today, millions of people are stored in jail because our justices decided that according to the first scheme they were responsible. It is infinitely stupid to create a human, to wrong educate him, and to lock him by punishing him for errors of creation and education for which he is not responsible ...

The gods are used to get rid of the idea of ​​responsibility that parents have, women essentially, to bring their child into the world. Creation is divine, human reproduction is desired, desired by the deity, so the child cannot complain to his parents to be in the terrestrial slush.

And to get rid of the idea of responsibility vis-à-vis the society, it is the concept of free will that  takes the blame off them. If parents educate their child askew, with his free will the child becomes responsible before his deity and people. Good riddance !

Parents are not accountable to poor education they give their children, and society, that still has a greater deal in the education of children, is quite happy with this invention of free will.

The only culprit is the one who did not ask to be born and has not accepted social rules that one ordered him to accept, without even a signature, which is contrary to the law itself which said that what is obtained by coercion is unlawful.

It is funny that the point of view of equality is only examined from the angle of the social success. The women have the creative omnipotence of the species. They are the decision-makers with regard to the creation of a human being. And the planet is overpopulated!

All criminals have a mom. All idiots have a mom. All disabled have a mom. All dictators have a mom, and even Hitler had a mother. To be born healthy and sane is normal, but all these others, who put them in the world without taking their defense?

Who has not involved? Who let make? No life, no risk. Why conceive the male who will hit you? Why give birth to a female who is going to be beaten? Why bring forth one who will dominate you, one that will be dominated?

Women want all powers. That of creation, they have not even been able to manage healthy. The overcrowding is the cause of all human problems. Let the women first manage the child's slavery problem before thinking about themselves.

Bring a child into the world, whereas they are not well in this world, it's stupid or despicable. The Earth is the cradle of humanity. What are they waiting to clean the cradle before pampering?

A child is not a car that may have manufacturing defects and that we may send back to the constructor. You're the manufacturer Madame. A child is a person who has the right to be born without fault, and you have the duty to create flawless.

Even if you create a life by giving him the perfect health, intelligence and power, paradise and immortality, there would be only for your personal use that it would be created. This is not the case, you are not able to know what will come out of your Jack-in-the-belly Madame, you control nothing of this creation, only the onset.

Existence never asks to exist, and certainly not under the deplorable conditions which are offered to him on Earth, where it must in a staggering way gain its existence, pay the debts of its parents and the social debts contracted before its birth, and to guarantee the retirement of its parents and associated.

And all that incredible stupidity of galloping proliferation to make the world a hell! This is to die of shame to know that I have something to do with that...

Analyze the universe, the world, humanity, human society, mechanically, technically, logically, rationally and try to understand how the human being and society can integrate sensitively, emotionally, to that description leads to an aporia.

Reason and life do not go together, and yet the Life invented the Reason. Human rights come from human sensibilities, and a reason that did not go to the end of its reasoning.

To claim that we have duties towards the society is a belief, it is to claim that we have duties to our pure mental inventions, towards our chimeras, we create our problems and have duties to these imaginary problems created by our predecessors ...

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end 

E. Berlherm (June 2016) 

Freedom to procreate and the obligation to exist

You have been, yourself, obliged to exist. Does this obligatory life gives you the right to compel someone else to exist?

To procreate, it is to make in blind an existence. This existence gains his body and intellect in the lottery, and there are other raffles for parents, culture, society, the era, the environment, education, suffering, misery, and so on. But not for death, it is mandatory, no lottery.

To procreate, it is to manufacture an existence for its service, its personal service, that of the manufacturer.

You dare make a life because you know from experience, thus for thousands, even millions of years, that the manufactured person will not even have the presence of mind to curse at you, to exist, even if it lives in horrible conditions of body and environment.

In fact more the conditions of existence are terrible, least she will have the opportunity and especially the elements of reflection for claiming.

Your hold over that person, your child, is such that you can be assured to almost one hundred percent that it will do you no remarks throughout your life. It's very easy for you since you nourish the child, and make him believe insidiously that it is indebted to you that you are so thoughtful with him.

Rather easy to achieve this indoctrination, since we are born virgin of cultural meaning. You indoctrinate, as you have been indoctrinated, unknowingly, foolishly.

The society, through culture, has almost all bridled, clogged all the breaches to call into question the production of absurd existences, without mastery, and no other reason than the sustainability of its existence absurd, even more absurd that it is constantly evolving, this misty society, and is thus never the same one.

The manufactured people, newcomers in social life, are led to the death in an almost perfectly oiled routine. The society has gradually placed, during millennia, safeguards, prohibiting its questioning, and it continues to finick them. Most of us were deceived until their last breath.

All the religious tales or ideological fairy tales are there to help you to fool this poor innocent which did not require to exist, but will have to exist for the parental and social service. If one leaves him time to think, because, to enter in society, it is necessary to be specialized, which requires a keen work. You had better to live passionately, they sing.

You want to be free to use your body as you wish. And you want to be free to procreate because it is part of the opportunities that Mother Nature has offered to you.

She even gave you, Mother Nature, the ability to make hundreds of thousands of people, because you have the necessary ovules. And all those people who are not you, you would call them my children. To say "my child", it's convenient, it gives you the impression to have owner rights.

Thus you want to be completely free to impose, “free to impose” Life to a person! Don't you notice an unquestionable contradiction?

This contradiction does not stop there.

You have absolutely no control on uterine work, the work your belly, when it manufactures in blind (in an even more sadistic manner than Dr. Frankenstein, which he, however, was remorseful after the first try) so when your uterus manufactures in blind your child or children, since it can generate twins or septuplets without you ask him.

It may also engage in the manufacture of handicapped, this is very usual for him, it must be a kind of joke on its part, human teratology offers an imposing catalogue.

Your freedom stops where that of the uterus starts, who is not at your orders. “Your” uterus is a maverick, a great funny one.

So your dear little handicapped, this dear child, will now be a man or a free woman, with the same freedom as you, but not before adulthood and if given the emancipation, out of your tutoring, depending on the disability.

These are the Rights of the human being who praise it, and our laws, coming from those same rights. He is free to run without legs, free to strum without hands, free to chat speechless, free to be a Nobel Prize without intellect or simply a teacher with an IQ of 60, free to compete at Miss Universe microcephalic ... So wills the law.

Who are we kidding? Who are you mocking? What are we free if we do not have adequate assets? Does your freedom to procreate give you the right not to give the same advantages to another person (your child)?

Does your freedom to procreate give you the right to deprive one or more people of these freedoms which you have, and to which you hold more than all? Moreover, is this you or this other person who decides the quality of assets and types of freedoms necessary to a life imposed without agreement, without contract, without precautions?

Each one would he not want, should he not, at least, exist by having same freedoms as the others, since we all have been constrained to exist to serve mom, dad, and the society?

If this is true for oneself, then how can one take the risk not to grant this freedom to the being which one wishes to manufacture, but that one will manufacture in blind, with immense risks on the back of that which does not have any means of refusing to exist?

How a being manufactured with physical or mental defects, it has obviously not desired, could he have the same freedoms as other humans, called normal?

How could he register for a marathon if he has no leg, or if his heart is weak? How could he join the army if he is not declared fit? How could he register, simply, to university if he is mentally defective?

To procreate, or rather manufactures in blind an existence, it's easy, all the bisexual animals do it without asking any question.

It appears normal to use our body to our suitability, but those who exist are alone to decide for those who do not exist, and it is well-known that our freedom is limited by that of the others, which may be called freedom with social limitations and constraints.

Does the freedom to create a life is a freedom, since the being created has no right to give his opinion, and that precisely the freedom of some ends where starts the freedom of others?

Mesdames, you have certainly the freedom of your body, but the child who is born from your body is not your body. It is a product of your body, but he is not you. It is an entity as you whom you produce. Your freedom stops where that of the others starts (with equality), and your child is another.

You cannot produce a child if it restricts the freedom of others, and yours besides, since it takes up space, air, food that are common property.

Bringing a child into the world is not a natural “right”, it is a natural “power”, as to use its muscles to move, and, since it is a power, it must be controlled. To make a child, it is to make a person, it is to add an associate to the nation, associate of which the others will have to take account (life, education, health, dead).

The power to make a child should be managed democratically by the entire nation. Make a child is first a risk to the child himself (and secondarily for the woman who will give birth), what right do you push someone to take risks?

The Human rights do not acknowledge the right to make a child, since it is not a freedom for the child.

If you think your freedom is important, and that another may not have more power over you than you have over him, then you must admit than to procreate is not freedom, but a power that you have on another individual, whom you will call your child, but that is another person, he is not you nor a reproduction of you.

You must know that the creation of an existence serves only those that already exist, and if you put that child in the world, you do that for you, in not any case he has asked to be born.

You want to create this existence whereas that you do not control the procreative process, you have no idea what will come out of your belly, you risk the life of a person for your personal needs, the desire to procreate, that of belonging to the society, provide an heir, pamper, etc.

Your body belongs to you madam, and you think it allows you to create as many lives as you want without any restrictions, only your personal desire. Well, Madam, your freedom stops where begins that of the other, and your child is another.

You probably prefer to create a Hitler rather than an Elephantman, but you do not have any choice, you play the lottery on the head of a person, it is normal that it falls back on your head with violence.

And yet when your child goes to prison, society does not punish you, why? Because if it was punishing the parents she would have to go further and ought to punish itself.

There is a solution to all this chaos, this profusion of idiocy and sadism, it is to admit what we are, and correct the whole according to what we are. Yet should we seek to know the real and most truthfully!

Did you only think, Madam, at least, i.e. to draw up a natal contract with the Society before creating your child, or simply to ensure it, as an actress ensures her legs? So that he lives well, under good conditions, and that he does not go to jail if you flunk yourselves. And especially, ultimate misery, if your child, this person, is born with a physical or mental tare…!

This is not to parents or society to judge the quality of the body and the intellect of the person they wish to create. This is not to them to judge that the risks incurred are harmless, or simple collateral damage, and that it is an eligible risk for parental and social service.

This person who is about to exist has the right to have the best in all the fields. Are you certain, Madame, to be able to grant him what it merit, what it wishes, which is not what you think?

If there was only one question that all those, who wish to manufacture a new life, were to ask themselves, it should be this one:

"Now that I have made a suffering being, how to undo suffering? "

Dead end

E. Berlherm (May 2016)