NO TIENE

Este artículo analiza, lo que autor denomina, los objetores de conciencia y reflexiona acerca del modo como van, en el tiempo, forjando un modelo de Cláusula de Conciencia. Esta cláusula impide a los que ejercen en el campo de las ciencias de la salud, realizar cualquier acto que considere contrario a sus convicciones personales, morales o religiosas.

The title of this essay refers primarily to the positive rule governing the institution of divorce in Peru: the art. 348 of the Civil Code. This rule is widely developed in the Code and subsequent laws have being expanded the scope to include causal divorce that contradicts logic and common sense. Besides, it refers to what Gilbert K. Chesterton called “superstition divorce”: the perverse argument that states divorce is the panacea for all problems in family relationships. The author argues that for reasons of legal, ethical, social, political and anthropological  nature, the state and society are obliged to promote and defend marriage and the family; and the indissoluble character of marriage.

El Comité de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, en 1993, describió religión o pensamiento religioso como un conjunto de “creencias teístas, no teístas y ateas, así como el derecho a no profesar ninguna religión o creencia”. La palabra “religión” significa “atar con eficiencia”. Procede de la palabra latina religare. Dicho término se asocia, comúnmente, aunque no siempre, con creencias religiosas tradicionales (mayoritarias, minoritarias o nuevas) en alguna deidad o deidades. En sede de Derechos Humanos, sin embargo, el uso de este término, normalmente, incluye también, el derecho a creencias no religiosas. La libertad de religión es uno de los derechos fundamentales más evocados por casi todas las regulaciones y declaraciones que se haya realizado en el mundo. En el fondo, la libertad de religión es vector para el control de calidad ...

Este artículo analiza, lo que autor denomina, los objetores de conciencia y reflexiona acerca del modo como van, en el tiempo, forjando un modelo de Cláusula de Conciencia. Esta cláusula impide a los que ejercen en el campo de las ciencias de la salud, realizar cualquier acto que considere contrario a sus convicciones personales, morales o religiosas.

The title of this essay refers primarily to the positive rule governing the institution of divorce in Peru: the art. 348 of the Civil Code. This rule is widely developed in the Code and subsequent laws have being expanded the scope to include causal divorce that contradicts logic and common sense. Besides, it refers to what Gilbert K. Chesterton called “superstition divorce”: the perverse argument that states divorce is the panacea for all problems in family relationships. The author argues that for reasons of legal, ethical, social, political and anthropological  nature, the state and society are obliged to promote and defend marriage and the family; and the indissoluble character of marriage.

El Comité de Derechos Humanos de la ONU, en 1993, describió religión o pensamiento religioso como un conjunto de “creencias teístas, no teístas y ateas, así como el derecho a no profesar ninguna religión o creencia”. La palabra “religión” significa “atar con eficiencia”. Procede de la palabra latina religare. Dicho término se asocia, comúnmente, aunque no siempre, con creencias religiosas tradicionales (mayoritarias, minoritarias o nuevas) en alguna deidad o deidades. En sede de Derechos Humanos, sin embargo, el uso de este término, normalmente, incluye también, el derecho a creencias no religiosas. La libertad de religión es uno de los derechos fundamentales más evocados por casi todas las regulaciones y declaraciones que se haya realizado en el mundo. En el fondo, la libertad de religión es vector para el control de calidad ...

Marriage and family are natural and fundamental institutions that are constantly being eroded and threatened to be dissolved due to the enactment of positive norms that facilitate at-fault divorce which are, in essence, anticonstitutional. In the light of Natural Law, International Law and the Catholic Scholar doctrine, this essay interprets the legal and social problems derived from the constant attacks on family and marriage by the political community. Furthermore, it beckons the search for instruments protective of man’s dignity and freedom, in the face of the arrogance of the social forces and the potential arbitrarities of power. It also establishes the need to confer an institutional character to marriage, basing it on a public, social and legally recognized act; and proposes that society as a whole, is responsible for the care and promotion of the family.

A critical analysis is made of the interpretation that develops the Interamerican Court of Human Rights of the article 41 of the American Convention on Human Rights in the caseArtavia Murillo against Costa Rica about the legitimacy of in vitro fertilization, which according the Court‘s criteria would linked to rights to and to establish a family, in confrontation with the right to human life whose protection and recognition must be in accordance with the pro homine principle, by which the fundamental feature of human rights is to be always in favor of man, and that, as a consequence, the right to life must be respected from the moment of conception.

A critical analysis is made of the interpretation that develops the Interamerican Court of Human Rights of the article 41 of the American Convention on Human Rights in the caseArtavia Murillo against Costa Rica about the legitimacy of in vitro fertilization, which according the Court‘s criteria would linked to rights to and to establish a family, in confrontation with the right to human life whose protection and recognition must be in accordance with the pro homine principle, by which the fundamental feature of human rights is to be always in favor of man, and that, as a consequence, the right to life must be respected from the moment of conception.

Marriage and family are natural and fundamental institutions that are constantly being eroded and threatened to be dissolved due to the enactment of positive norms that facilitate at-fault divorce which are, in essence, anticonstitutional. In the light of Natural Law, International Law and the Catholic Scholar doctrine, this essay interprets the legal and social problems derived from the constant attacks on family and marriage by the political community. Furthermore, it beckons the search for instruments protective of man’s dignity and freedom, in the face of the arrogance of the social forces and the potential arbitrarities of power. It also establishes the need to confer an institutional character to marriage, basing it on a public, social and legally recognized act; and proposes that society as a whole, is responsible for the care and promotion of the family.