Human
Rights seem to implicitly recognize that it goes without saying that
we can impose on someone to exist. Why would it be normal for the
intelligence that we claim to be, and according to the moral that we
have invented throughout the world?
These
Rights therefore admit that fabrication of an intelligent human,
sensitive, conscious, invariably suffering, and mortal undoubtedly,
can be triggered by a couple of humans without social control,
whereas it is the first and most important social act.
Once
triggered by a voluntary act (copulation), this being will be built
blind in the female uterus (a laboratory of Frankenstein type), which
produces about anything (see teratology, stillbirth, etc. ) with huge
risks for the fabricated person (endangering the lives of others
leading to suffering and death, which is thus a crime according to
the definition).
This,
only for the service (slavery) of the existing one, and certainly not
for it as it does not exist. And, incidentally, endangering the life
of the woman who conceives that person (after a possible patriarchal
rape), what love!
After
the birth went well or bad, the child will have to live in an
unhealthy world, morbid, warlike, and then the adult, if it reaches
the age, will have to buy its body daily in fighting its way with
elbows, or sometimes with weapons, in the multitude.
Which
difference is there between the attempt at manufacturing an existence
in a laboratory by an unspecified scientist (Doctor Frankenstein, for
example) and the manufacturing of an existence launched in blind in
the uterine laboratory of an unremarkable woman without any control
of the process nor no precise follow-up of the manufacturing process?
The
billions of known results of this manufacturing show well that it is
always a question of a random manufacturing, really like an
experimental work, a true laboratory of Life, a Life conceived like
Frankenstein which worries little about the feelings and sufferings
of manufactured beings.
Most
people are not even aware that they had been forced to exist, and
therefore had rights, the right to claim a healthy body, a healthy
mind, a healthy world, healthy society, an interesting life, to say
the least.
The
right to reproductive freedom, the right to be free to impose the
existence, the right to be free of making a life in blind in the
female uterus, therefore the freedom to impose suffering and death,
as well as all intermediaries we collect in hospitals,
and
other multiple bellicose results of repulsion of living that we see
daily in these filthy TV news. But why to impose us to exist in an
unhealthy world?
Are
our parents and their associates thus blind? Don't they support
themselves this vision of the world?
Procreation,
i.e. the blind manufacturing of an existence in the female uterus, is
an animal principle, a simple mechanism which produces the
perenniality of life. But the life evolved to equip the animals which
we are of an intellect which made it possible to invent morals, then
the Human rights.
In
all honesty, it should be recognized that we all are in the
obligation to exist and the obligation to die (without speaking of
the impossibility of not suffering, i.e. obligation to suffer), it is
thus necessary to register these essential components for the Life of
the Human rights.
All
the powers of an individual on another must be controlled. The first
social power, and moreover the most important, being the
manufacturing of existence, it must be controlled imperatively.
What
right an intelligent, aware, and sensitive being, has he to inflict
life to an intelligent, aware, and sensitive? What right an
intelligent, aware, and sensitive being, has he to inflict suffering,
disability and death to an intelligent, aware, and sensitive being?
How
to indemnify and compensate a handicap of birth? Life is a handicap
race, but for us humans, since we are born free and equal in rights,
how the society compensates for birth defects that are imposed on
life?
How
can one reconcile the Human rights and the procreation of existence,
knowing that it serves only those which already exist, as well as the
fact that nobody controls this blind manufacturing in the female
uterus, which on Earth inevitably causes, daily, very many handicaps,
suffering, ill-being, misery, death, etc.
How
can one impose on a significant percentage of people, who are born
that day, to be immediately disabled, and live in unhealthy
conditions or even dreadful?
Why
Rights defenders of the human being were not seized themselves of
this problem of birth conditions, whereas that life is absurd and
nevertheless imposed only to serve the existing ones?
One
cannot deny it, we are constrained to exist. Our parents manufacture
our existences without our agreement, it is an undeniable fact, and
it is impossible that humanity exists differently than by this
continuity, therefore, this parental dictate. But nobody, however, is
constrained to procreate according to the Human rights (rape is a
crime everywhere on Earth).
If
we exist, it is because a woman, our mother, manufactured our
existence, theoretically according to its will, and freely. This
constraint should necessarily be registered in the Human rights,
since it is an absolute power and that, like any power on an innocent
person, it must be controlled.
It
is too easy to launch the manufacturing of existence, and then wash
its hands.
The
society representatives are complicit in this state of the human
world, and the conditions of life in general on the planet, for us
humans, and for all life that suffers the consequences of our smelly
and dictatorial impact on the world.
I
suppose you claim for yourself the Human rights? And you think that
you have the right to force somebody to live where you wish it,
simply because you have an immense power on him, whereas you cannot
even ensure him a healthy body and a healthy life, in a healthy
environment?
If
you have the power to impose someone, someone who hasn't done
anything to you, to live where you want, with a feeble body, do I
have the right to make you live in an igloo, a desert , a slum, a
favela, a jungle, a trash can, a polluted planet?
How
much have you fabricated small slaves, infants first, then job flesh,
tax flesh, and cannon fodder, to accompany you until retirement (that
I wish you without Parkinson or Alzheimer) and lead you to your last
home?
And
of course, you will not see them nor will not endure them, when they
are elderly, and perhaps with their filthy diseases of this age. But
since they (dad and mom) have made you the blow, why wouldn't have
you the right to do likewise, haven't they?
Law
is a concept created by humans from the Power they have in the world,
on the others, and themselves. The Human Rights assert that "All
human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."
Since
we are born equal in rights according to this first article, which
means that we must be born equal in powers, since it cannot go
without the other. However that is impossible, as the body which is
given to us at birth is a lottery.
What
say the Human rights to prohibit or at least compensate these de
facto inequalities? Is it worthy to be born handicapped and mocked
all its life due to this handicap granted free and shamelessly by
mom?
And
how a being who possesses an intellect far below the average can he
hope (otherwise than playing the lottery) to become a billionaire and
climb the social ladder?
Since
our existences are made without our consent, since we are forced to
accept the social contract, without the signature of our part, with
open threats, we must be compensated to exist.
"The
creation of an existence serves only those that already exist, and
when it is not mastered this creation is the work of an animal or an
idiot or that of a slaver or a sadist . "
Given
that it is completely immoral and amoral to put somebody in the world
according to this truism, how and why do you think that children can
understand social morality, and Human rights? When "intelligence"
exists, it acts to facilitate its own existence, it does all that is
useful for him, that seems normal.
But
why a conscious and sentient existence should it impose the risks of
existence to another person "intelligent" and sensitive?
This is, necessarily, for its own utility that existing person wants
to generate another existence.
Is
it not contrary to the human rights to enslave another person for its
personal needs? Of the 350 000 people who will be born today, what
percentage is going to have a physical or mental defect? That is,
however, a prenatal ill-treatment not punished by society. Why ?
Because it is a natural event...!
What
difference does it make for the person who undergoes it, whereas
there was no valid reason to put it at the world?
Anyway,
even if you do not want to give up the procreation of an entity which
will live an absurd life, and very risky for itself, but for your
only pleasure, whereas at its majority you will tell him that it will
have to make its life by itself,
anyway,
therefore, you must admit all the same that this entity did not wish
to exist, and that the Rights that you agree for you must be valid
for this entity forced to exist for your service which is a strange
service of accompaniment and maintenance of the society,
society
that the person created can also leave at will to live in another, or
even commit suicide.
Is
it not the height of the absurd, the strange, the paradoxical, for a
being who claims itself intelligent and able to understand the
universe?
That
is to me, a few things to add to leading articles of Human Rights:
1)
The beginning of life, which is an obligation to exist (so
servitude).
2)
The end of life, which is the impossibility not to die, so an
obligation to die.
3)
The impossibility of not suffering, so the obligatory of suffering to
exist.
4)
Indemnify and compensate disabled people (?)
5)
Free explanation, with arguments, scientific, accurate of what is the
thought, the matter, the universe (and humans), with constant
updating of that understanding accessible to all.
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 (July 2016)
