Baby Charlie Gard died yesterday, a few days before his first birthday. He died because he was denied the opportunity to try a treatment that could have cured him.
A lawsuit that has been deadly for Charlie
The best reflection I have read on this case was made by Daniel Rodríguez Herrera last Wednesday in an excellent article published by Libertad Digital. As the author pointed out, Charlie was diagnosed in October, “and the following month his parents learned of the existence of an experimental treatment; In January the doctor responsible for it was willing to treat Charlie. But he had to wait until the end of July so he could see the baby for the first time.“ By then it was too late to save his life. All this because of a cold and insensitive judicial process that lasted for months, turning the hospital into a prison for Charlie, from which they did not even let him leave to go home to die.
What happens when officials rule more than you about your children
Why this delay? Who could have any interest in denying this child the possibility of even trying a treatment that could have saved him? Daniel explains it very well: “his parents realized how far the Power is willing to go to maintain its control. Not economic power, that fable that the far-left and far-right use as scarecrow to justify the uncontrolled growth of real power, which has the ability to coerce us and prevent us even try to save the most defenseless.“ That power is none other than that of the State: “all instances of the welfare state, from public health to Justice, have agreed to declare that the opinion of officials to whom Charlie’s death will not take a minute Dream must prevail over that of parents who will never forget it.“
They rob us of the right to live from the womb
The death of Charlie Gard demonstrates the extent to which our society has erred in giving excessive power to States, even to redefine social institutions such as marriage and family and rights as basic as the right to live. A power that already covers from conception – politicians allow us to be killed before birth – to old age, opening the door to a euthanasia that, where it has been legalized, as in the case of Holland, has led to the elimination Of hundreds of patients without their consent. And that is through infanticide, something that is becoming dangerously frequent in countries that call themselves civilized (by way of example, it is estimated that 40,000 annual infanticides are perpetrated annually in the United States against newborns who survive an abortion).
The coincidence of two noxious counter-cultural discourses
That way of thinking in which everything seems to be solved by killing – “culture of death”, as defined by John Paul II – would not be so widespread today if it were not for its coincidence with another one of the fronts promoted from harmful counter-cultural discourses: dissolution of the family. The family is the very basis of society and is the area in which new lives see the light. A solid and stable family, based on marriage, is one of the founding virtues of a free and prosperous society, as Francisco José Contreras has pointed out, but it is also the best social protection barrier against the policies that seek to promote this “culture of death”. It is no coincidence that the policies of welfare states in the West are directed at offering all kinds of facilities to break the unity of families (easy and quick divorce, the legal environment suitable for spreading false accusations between spouses, promotion of the gender ideology of backs to the parents to undermine its authority, etc.) and at the same time to provide more and more facilities to get rid of unborn children… and now also of those already born, in case of suffering an illness Rare, as it did to Charlie.
The origin of this dangerous ideological antifamily drift
Some may think that this reflection is exaggerated and even paranoid. I refer to the facts. Two years ago, I explained here that one of the formulators of the gender ideology, the Marxist Shulamith Firestone, advocated a revolution that would “root out the basic social organization – the biological family,” which she called “the parasitic germ of exploitation”. I must also remember that the first country in the world that legalized the murder of unborn children was the Soviet Union, on November 19, 1920, at the initiative of the radical feminist Alexandra Kollontai. This same communist regime had set out to destroy the family by means of a substitution method in which the parents would initially take on the role of mere creators for the state: “The workers’ state will come to replace the family, society will gradually assume all the tasks Which before the revolution fell on individual parents,” Kollontai wrote in “Communism and Family” (1920). To achieve this goal, Kollontai recommended destroying motherhood: “The mother-worker must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; Must remember that there are only our children, the Russian children of communist workers.” Of course, the Soviet anti-family experiment was a failure. To destroy the family as the basic cell of society is impossible, but the mere fact of trying always causes serious damage to the whole society.
They put political power above the rights of families
But what interest could communist ideologists have in destroying the family? The same as the ideologues of National Socialism and those of current progressivism: the conservation of power at any price. The family is the main educator and a school of values. And as such, it is a solid dike against social engineering projects. If a political regime intends to impose its ideology through compulsory indoctrination of children in schools, it will first find itself with the stumbling block of families. That is why all political systems that have wanted to indoctrinate children have sought, at the same time, to undermine the authority of parents, either directly or indirectly. In the case of communism and nazism it was a blatant indoctrination in which children were even encouraged to betray their parents. In democratic countries, this family confrontation is fostered with a more disguised but not less constant school indoctrination, based on the idea that parents do not know what is best for their children, transferring parental authority to politicians. In Spain we already have a long experience in this: indoctrination in the hatred against Spain in schools in several autonomous communities, school discrimination of Spanish in bilingual regions – even calling opponents “abusers” -, the misnamed “education for citizenship”, etc. The last step is the imposition of gender ideology in schools, with a mandatory character.
In the end, families from democratic countries find situations very similar to those of the USSR. The State increasingly reduces the authority and rights of parents, and attributes those powers to politicians. The case of Charlie Gard clearly shows us the extent to which the model of society promoted by these anti-family policies is available.
Don't miss the news and content that interest you. Receive the free daily newsletter in your email:
The mail subscription service to Counting Stars will allow you to receive in your mailbox a daily email with the new posts published in this blog. It is a free service. Once you have entered your email in this box and press the "Click to subscribe" black button, you will receive a confirmation email in your mailbox to activate your subscription. If at any time you want to unsubscribe, you only just have to click the link that you will find at the bottom of each newsletter.