The Education Necessary To Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack: Pensées on Human Life and Freedom (Draft 2.3)
Democracy Is Currently Under Serious Threat Directly Because Our Democracies Have Forgotten the Historical and Logical “Pro-Life” Foundations of All Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. This treatise was originally written as a scholar’s reflection in a response letter to a 2014/2015 major attack on democracy in Canada (typical of other attacks in the U.S. and Europe and other countries) born of ignorance of modern democracy’s historical (and logical) foundations. The attack was a drafted “Pro-Choice” policy (recently enacted) which “to ensure access to medical services” will force Canadian doctors from the most populous Canadian province of Ontario instead of being uniquely dedicated healers of human lives to actually facilitate the killing of human lives against their will (by at least “effectively referring” patients for abortion or recently de-criminalized “doctor-assisted suicide” euthanasia), giving up their freedom of conscience and free speech to object to killing humans, or else lose their jobs and livelihood, something unheard of in any democratic state until recently European states enacted such policies (though similar things are common in totalitarian states where the government is oppressive to humans and practices belief-control). This treatise shows how and why this particular Pro-Choice attack on democracy is no accident or exception but simply an expected part of a world-wide Pro-Choice anti-democratic trend driven by the internal logic of Pro-Choice philosophy itself, which necessarily must hammer away at the democratic rights and freedoms of all who believe human life is inherently valuable to silence them to make sure humans can be killed without anyone complaining. This attack (as so many others in other countries) was only made possible by great ignorance of the long history and gradual but logical development of the “Pro-Life” principles underlying all human rights and modern democratic freedoms. As the American, European and other democracies are undergoing similar severe erosion of the foundations of their democracies due to similar ignorance, this badly needed lesson in the history of ideas is offered to all who love human rights and democracy, so that they have the education they need to effectively work to rebuild the historical and logical foundations of democracy now so badly eroded, to help ensure our grandchildren will be raised in a democracy as we were.
“Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life” are just new terms for ancient philosophies and principles. The “Pro-Choice” philosophy giving parents the right to choose to raise or kill their own children was in ascendancy in the brutal ancient world until it was unseated in the 4th Century by the “Pro-Life” principles of the immense and equal value and dignity of every human life without exception which must be free from government coercion in matters of belief so as to freely seek and find this wonderful truth about human existence, and these foundational “Pro-Life” principles made the development of all later human rights and freedoms possible. Removing the historic “Pro-Life” principles (only the name is new) from public policy and law removes the underlying reason each human now has a vote in the first place, and the freedoms we now have because of a very long Western tradition of “Pro-Life” thought cannot last without the Pro-Life foundation they are built on.
Not a research paper, this treatise is a thoughtful reflection (used for lecture notes) based on a lifetime of learning about Western Civilization (in formal and informal studies and as a teacher and professor) while living in it and thus being aware of the changes and development in Western thought which gradually gave us our highest Western values of human rights and democratic freedoms (and even our highly prized Western science and technology – see Chapter 6) – and thus also being aware of the current changes whereby ignorance of this history of development is currently causing our Western democracies to be seriously threatened as their historical and logical foundations are being actively eroded and eaten away to the point that we will not be able to sustain democracy much longer, and the signs of its eventual collapse are all around us for those with a broad enough view of our Western Civilization such as this treatise provides (and not just the narrow view of the few decades each of us has lived). I have subtitled the current draft “Pensées on Human Life and Freedom” to reference the fact its current form is that of hundreds of insightful pensées or thoughts (like Blaise Pascal’s famous Pensées which deal with some similar themes) which have been put together in a more or less logical sequence and progression that is therefore repetitive of certain key points which the different pensées reason from, but keep in mind repetition is good pedagogy (teaching theory) and this treatise aims to be a solid education of logically connected and applied facts that can preserve democracy from current attacks, so I hope those who want to get this education in defense of threatened democracy will not find this repetition a defect (even if a future professionally-edited draft for publication not for lecture notes will surely greatly reduce and focus this educational content).
My charge of widespread ignorance compromising our democracies is not meant to insult; I myself only know what I share here as a long-time student with a good sense of the breadth of history and having been professor of a course on the First Millennium during which time (starting in the 4th Century) the “Pro-Life” foundations for all later human rights and democratic freedoms in Western Civilization were laid. Our modern Western countries are extremely uninformed about how they got where they are as the world’s most free and prosperous nations and that is WHY they are ignorantly undermining the very foundations of our free and democratic societies. This treatise hopes to be the antidote to this ignorance. The historical facts I use are for the most part well-known (at least to scholars), easily verifiable and undisputed historical facts. I believe the logic of my interpretation of the facts is for the most part compelling and unassailable. For example, who could REASONABLY deny the logic of my assertion that the very best long-term guarantee of the maintenance of human rights and democracy are the historic “Pro-Life” principles which declare the supreme and equal value of every human life without exception; valuable and precious human lives which therefore must be FREE from all government coercion so as to freely seek and find this wonderful truth about human existence? (“Pro-Life” principles which I demonstrate from undisputed historical facts are since the 4th Century the historic root of all human rights and eventually of modern democracy – ancient democracy experiments had no principle of human equality and very few could vote. And the principle of human equality always specifically included preborn human lives which for this reason first became legally protected from ancient abortion practices in 318 AD). Who could REASONABLY deny the logic of my assertion that “Pro-Choice” philosophy cannot near so well guarantee the long-term maintenance of human rights and democracy, simply because “Pro-Choice” philosophy, no matter how it is superficially dressed in the language of compassion and freedom (as a concession to centuries of “Pro-Life” habits of thinking), underneath still clearly shares with all oppressive and totalitarian states the conviction that human life is NOT inherently valuable just for being human and alive, but that some human lives can be legally killed when they are deemed inconvenient? (the “Pro-Choice” right of parents to choose to raise or kill their children by abortion was in fact the ancient norm back when parents could also choose to sell their children as slaves and governments also had the right to choose to enslave or kill those citizens they found “inconvenient.” The word “Choice” in “Pro-Choice” only superficially makes it sound like Pro-Choice philosophy has anything to do with genuine freedom).
The Historic “Pro-Life” Principles, Personhood, and Human Rights have Always Gone Together as a “Package Deal,” and They Stand or Fall Together
Political developments of the last decades have either contradicted or ignored the foundations of human rights and democracy, but one can only build a long-term stable democratic society with guaranteed human rights by building on the foundations of human rights and democracy, not by compromising them. Not only dealing (in Chapter 2) with the “Pro-Life” history of ideas which gave us human rights and modern democracy, this treatise will also (in Chapter 3) discuss what biological and medical science has to say about human life, and how that properly affects law and policy, including the legal definition of “personhood” – which is a late 2nd Century term widely introduced into Western Civilization in the 4th Century at the same time as the “Pro-Life” principles with their logically following human rights in such a manner that the “Pro-Life” principles, personhood, and human rights have always gone together as a “package deal, ” and they stand or fall together. This treatise identifies and defines the foundations of personhood, modern human rights and modern democracy so that as individuals and as a society, and especially as democratic governments who wish to remain democratic governments for the long term, we can have the education necessary to preserve democracy now under attack, so that we can start knowledgeably choosing to uphold and support the foundations of those human rights and freedoms which are still our highest values, to ensure that we will not lose them. (Note: Despite any defects of this only second draft treatise which will be improved in later drafts, because most of the historical and scientific facts I use are well known at least to scholars, easily verifiable and not in dispute, and because I use these facts in a clearly logical manner, it will be difficult to fault either the facts or the logic presented, so if some (probably “Pro-Choice”) readers are automatically inclined to reject and dispute this presentation, or are only reading it to challenge it, I challenge them to self-reflectively examine why they want to reject this argument even before intellectually hearing it out, and to consider that their (likely self-interested) underlying motivations to ignore the warning of this treatise despite the undisputed facts and clear sound logic that support it are likely part of the problem that is currently undermining democracy. I wrote this treatise not from self-interest but in the interests of maintaining for the long-term the human rights and freedoms of every human. So I encourage any such hostile readers to consider this treatise with intellectual honesty and to be open-minded to a bigger picture than their own self-interest and become part of the solution not part of the problem – for the sake of human life and freedom for the long-term.)
This “education necessary to preserve democracy now under attack” ideally imparts a whole mindset that (if enough people have it) can guarantee human rights and freedoms forever because it teaches a whole proper way of thinking about human rights and freedoms from their foundational First Principles, aware of the history of logical development from those First Principles that gave them to us, so that we can know what is currently compromising human rights and freedoms because it violates those principles, and so we can know what is necessary to keep our human rights and democratic freedoms for the long-term. Human Rights began when formerly brutal Western Civilization officially gave up the “human life is cheap” mindset of the ancient world (which included “Pro-Choice” philosophy and the right of parents to choose to raise or kill their own children) by criminalizing abortion and infanticide in 318 AD and adopting in its place the “Pro-Life” principles and mindset (recognizing the supreme and equal value of every human life without exception) identified in this treatise. And Human Rights ended the second abortion was de-criminalized, removing any legally recognized inherent human right to live – the primary human right without which all others are meaningless – which had been protected by law or custom since 318 AD, which had obligated all Western governments since to resist the temptation to become oppressive and totalitarian in their treatment of the humans they governed or else be judged harshly against the new “Pro-Life” standard of how a government treats the governed, which made possible the development of modern human rights and eventually modern democracy, wherein humans are so inherently precious they properly even have a democratic say in their own government. Only centuries of Pro-Life force of habit has kept Western society as humane and free as it still is so far since the de-criminalization of abortion reversed the whole process that gave us our human rights and freedoms, but the very fabric of human rights and freedoms is decaying around us in more and more new Pro-Choice and anti-democratic policies such as those which turn doctors into killers of humans even against their will.
The urgent necessity of this “education necessary to preserve democracy” becoming well known and spoken loudly (while we still have democracy) could not be greater. Right now leaders in the U.S.A. and Canada are publicly speaking about or actually drafting policies (like the one which motivated this treatise) enforcing abortion access not only against citizens’ moral conscience or religious beliefs but even speaking about policies that would use GOVERNMENT COERCION to ENFORCE changes to Pro-Life or religious beliefs that oppose access to abortion (or to euthanasia which similarly kills human lives, as a natural progression of the Pro-Choice mindset that treats human life as a burden to be removed instead of as a gift to be treasured and protected). This is the beginning of totalitarianism, directly rooted in ensuring the “right to kill” a human life by abortion (or euthanasia). Only in a totalitarian environment could a “right to kill” human life trump the human right to live, the most basic human right on which all others depend. A supposed “right to abortion” cannot possibly be a “human right” as some ridiculously claim, for this is logically self-destructive: The human right to live is a meaningless sham if anyone, whether one’s government or one’s doctor or one’s mother, has the “right to kill” human lives. Convenience is not a human right. To live one’s human life is the primary human right on which all others depend. And one human’s rights cannot supersede another’s. If human rights are meaningful at all a mother’s convenience – which is not a human right – cannot supersede her child’s primary human right to live (and if it does it means the mother too has no inherent human right to live just for being human like her child is – as in any totalitarian state). Just because it might be convenient for an adult child to euthanize instead of lovingly look after the needs of an elderly or sick parent or grandparent, this convenience does not supersede the parent or grandparent’s primary human right to live. Note that in Europe where euthanasia is legal, elderly parents complain that their own children are telling their doctors “my mom and dad have had it and should be euthanized” – in order to get their inheritance earlier or to not be inconvenienced by having to actually care for family members when they are needy (completely forgetting the natural reciprocity and utterly human balance of justice which used to be traditional – that our parents took care of us when we were too young to take care of ourselves, and we take care of them when they are too old to take care of themselves). Where euthanasia is legal doctors similarly figure out it is much cheaper and easier, more convenient, to kill patients than to care for them long-term. These trends are to be logically expected since once the historic 4th Century “Pro-Life” principles are abandoned and human life is no longer considered supremely valuable and precious wherever it exists, money quickly becomes more valuable than human life – just like in the brutal ancient world before the “Pro-Life” principles paved the way for all later human rights and freedoms, back when totalitarian government (where the government is in charge of what citizens may or may not believe) was normal. Hence it is little surprise that Pro-Choice politicians are even speaking of policies to enforce changes to beliefs that oppose abortion.
This treatise shows from history and logic that this current Pro-Choice movement towards totalitarianism is not at all surprising to the properly educated. It is not much of an oversimplification of history to say Pro-Life is Pro-Democracy and Pro-Choice is Anti-Democracy. Pro-Life equals democracy in the end and Pro-Choice equals totalitarianism in the end. Pro-Life when it is mature logically yields democracy (because every human life matters immensely and therefore properly has a say in how it is governed) and Pro-Choice when it is mature logically yields totalitarianism (because human lives can be killed when deemed inconvenient). Pro-Choice philosophy establishes right away that NO human life is inherently precious such that the government is obligated to protect human life wherever it exists, since in the Pro-Choice mindset humans can be legally killed when deemed inconvenient (as they are in abortions and infanticide which used to be legal and which some current Pro-Choice philosophers advocate for calling it “after-birth abortion”); therefore historic Pro-Choice governments of course had no problem being oppressive and totalitarian, enforcing belief-control, since according to Pro-Choice philosophy human lives can be killed when deemed inconvenient (as they are when they disagree with the government). When I say that Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy (which makes a good slogan) I do not intend to say that Pro-Life yields democracy of absolute necessity; other forms of government informed by and acting on the “Pro-Life” principles can and have also yielded prosperous periods for their people, including even the “benevolent dictatorship” of “a good King” (when a King does his best within the limitations of his resources and wisdom to govern his people according to the “Pro-Life” principle that every human life he governs is precious, of course the people are likely to prosper). What is of absolute logical necessity is that Pro-Life = Human Rights, which can and have been capably protected by various forms of government. But democracy is an extremely appropriate and suitable form of government in a “Pro-Life” context, which is why modern democracy developed only within Pro-Life context, as shown in Chapter 2. If the Pro-Life principles do not absolutely have to yield democracy, still modern democracy only can come to exist in Pro-Life context, and the Pro-Life context is the only one that ever did in fact yield modern democracy. It is important to distinguish modern democracy steeped in “Pro-Life” assumptions from ancient democracy without the Pro-Life principle of the equality of every human life without exception, as in ancient Greece, where only higher-class males could vote and slavery was compatible with democracy because non-Greek “barbarians” were looked upon with great prejudice as inherently inferior. It is only the “Pro-Life” conviction which first took root in Western Civilization in the 4th Century, that every human life without exception is supremely and equally valuable and precious (specifically including preborn humans who became protected from abortion in 318 AD), which eventually convinced Western governments to treat no humans as inferior and enslave them, and to democratically share the power of governance with all humans regardless of social class, race or gender since (according to the historic “Pro-Life” principles) all humans without exception are equally precious. Note that even a modern democracy which forgets the underlying “Pro-Life” roots of modern democracy can become oppressive: in the 1930s the German people democratically elected Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party to power knowing full well that Hitler’s Nazis were not “Pro-Life” and did not view all the human lives they would govern as precious (notably excluding Jews and the handicapped who suffer various disorders). The German results of democracy unguided by the “Pro-Life” principles which modern democracy grew up assuming were predictable. To maintain itself long-term democracy cannot be simply an unqualified “whatever the majority chooses” – in Germany the majority chose Hitler. Democracy that lasts cannot betray its own foundational principles just because a brute majority of people are ignorant enough of the roots of democracy to accept or choose something fundamentally anti-democratic (like legal abortion). To maintain democracy for the long-term requires that democracy’s historical and logical “Pro-Life” foundation necessarily be maintained, ideally constitutionally enshrined.
Pro-Choice Philosophy Is Fundamentally Anti-Human and Anti-Democratic and As It Matures Inexorably Leads to the Dissolution of Democracy Because By Internal Necessity It Must Crush the Rights and Freedoms of Those Who Object to the Killing of Humans Because They Believe All Human Life is Equally Precious (Which Principle is the Historic and Logical Root of Democracy)
Thus it is simple logic that Pro-Life and democracy go naturally together and Pro-Choice and totalitarianism go naturally together. U.S. Presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton recently proved this yet again when on April 23, 2015 she said that to ensure Pro-Choice access to abortion (that kills human lives) the government will have to enforce changes in deeply held religious beliefs: “[Pro-Choice, Abortion] Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “[Pro-Life] Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.” So just like the “Pro-Choice” governments of the ancient world which allowed parents to choose to raise or kill their children also were totalitarian (telling citizens what they may or may not believe), Hilary Clinton has clearly stated for us that modern Pro-Choice governments that likewise insist that parents have the right to choose to raise or kill their children also will be totalitarian and will likewise tell citizens what they may or may not believe. The pure ignorance of Clinton – and far too many Pro-Choice advocates like her all over the world – would have supposedly democratic governments manipulate and enforce changes to the religiously-grounded Pro-Life “bias” that treats ALL human life without exception as PRECIOUS, even though it is precisely this “bias” in favour of human life wherever it exists which logically undergirds the entire historical development of modern human rights and modern democracy. Thus “Pro-Choice” abortion is fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-human-life and will naturally undermine democracies in a logical progression because by killing preborn humans it first of all violates the historic “Pro-Life” principle of the immense and equal value of every human life without exception (including the preborn, protected since 318 AD) which historically and logically undergirds all our democracies, and further, in order to ensure Pro-Choice abortion which kills human lives continues Pro-Choice forces must also violate the rights and freedoms of all who will stand up in defense of the humans being killed, which is exactly why doctors and medical professionals are being bullied and threatened into giving up their democratic freedoms and are being made scared to speak freely their conscience in our compromised democracies, all in order to keep fundamentally anti-democratic Pro-Choice abortion unimpeded. Anything that is as anti-human-life as Pro-Choice abortion must be essentially anti-democratic, since democracy depends on human lives being of equal value, and precious.
Pro-Choice Abortion Logically and Directly Leads to the End of Democracy (Slowly Returning Us to the Totalitarian-Style Government of Human Lives That Are Cheap Not Precious that was Normal Back When Pro-Choice Abortion was Normal Before the 4th Century)
Note here that “Pro-Choice” abortion both logically and directly leads to the end of democracy and the beginning of totalitarianism. Our democracies are being compromised now for reasons directly related to Pro-Choice abortion. It is specifically and directly in order to ensure access to “Pro-Choice” abortion that Hilary Clinton is speaking of “changing” the “deep-seated” “cultural codes” and “religious beliefs” of American citizens. So Pro-Choice abortion access trumps religious and cultural freedom. It is specifically and directly to ensure “Pro-Choice” abortion access is entirely unhampered that peaceful protesters anywhere near abortion clinics have been arrested and jailed, some long-term (or repeatedly), for trying (as concerned citizens) to peacefully speak their belief in the immense value of human life without exception which logically and historically grounds all democracy. So Pro-Choice abortion access trumps freedom of opinion, freedom of movement in your own country, freedom to gather peacefully, and freedom of speech (even freedom of speech to speak the historical and logical foundation of modern democracy). It is specifically and directly in order to ensure access to “Pro-Choice” abortion that the democratic freedom of conscience (to value human life), as well as freedom of speech, of doctors has just been taken away (motivating this treatise) in Ontario, Canada (and already violated in Europe), with doctors being forced to facilitate (at least by “effective referral”) the killing of human lives by abortion (or euthanasia) or else lose their medical licenses, or else lose their jobs and livelihood. So Pro-Choice abortion access trumps freedom of conscience and freedom of speech and freedom to choose one’s career even if you are (highly) qualified to be a doctor (to say nothing of trumping the first of all human rights, the human right to live, for the fetal-age human babies doctors traditionally treat as a second patient when pregnant women come into their offices). It is thus clear that where Pro-Choice philosophy holds sway, democratic freedoms can be trampled, and peaceful concerned citizens can be imprisoned, as long as “Pro-Choice” access to abortion is ensured. To the Pro-Choice mindset, human freedoms can be trampled, as long as the Pro-Choice abortion “right to kill humans” is assured. Pro-Choice philosophy is so utterly anti-human that the Pro-Choice right to kill humans trumps all other pesky human rights and freedoms if they get in the way of the Pro-Choice abortion “right to kill humans.”
As I said – the lesson of history is that “Pro-Choice” philosophy and totalitarianism naturally and logically go together. In a democracy which is supposed to have human rights, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, in a democracy where the government does not tell citizens what to believe and do (as long as they are not violating others’ human rights), why should only doctors who do not mind killing the human lives they are supposed to heal (against the ancient doctors’ Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”) be allowed the “freedom of conscience” to live their values at their job and be allowed by the State laws and other regulations to be doctors? Why should the democratic freedom of conscience to not kill humans be taken away from doctors who want to heal not kill, unless our democracy no longer functions because it has forgotten that human rights and democracy historically and logically depend on the 4th Century abandonment of ancient “Pro-Choice” philosophy in favour of the “Pro-Life” principles of the immense and equal value of all human lives without exception, specifically INCLUDING preborn human lives which began to be legally protected from “Pro-Choice” harm in 318 AD? Our human rights and democratic freedoms are being compromised directly because of the return to the pre-human-rights “Pro-Choice” philosophy of the ancient world, back when it normal for parents to have the right to raise or kill their children, and modern human rights and democratic freedoms were undreamed of.
We have forgotten that Western Civilization used to be brutal, entirely lacking human rights. As above, even the ancient experiments with democracy were severely limited because there was no principle of equality among humans. As discussed in more detail below in this treatise (especially Chapters 2 and 5), our modern human rights and democratic freedoms only became possible starting from the point in the 4th Century when abortion and infanticide (which some Pro-Choice intellectuals call “after-birth abortion”) were outlawed in 318 AD because Western Civilization then started to recognize ALL humans specifically including the preborn as supremely and equally valuable persons with human rights – in replacement of the previous “Pro-Choice” philosophy where it was normal for parents to choose to raise or kill their children before or after birth; and it was normal for governments to be totalitarian and have the power of life and death over their citizens, and to set parameters over what citizens may or may not believe. Thus Pro-Choice abortion is literally anti-democratic from its foundation; Pro-Choice abortion is part of the mindset of the ancient world before modern human rights and freedoms were ever dreamed of. Now that it has been long enough since we legalized abortion, literally reversing 1630 years of the gradual development of modern human rights and freedoms from the starting point of abortion being made illegal, Pro-Choice abortion’s fundamentally anti-democratic true colours are starting to show more and more. Of course, Pro-Choice abortion by its very nature first of all negates the most primal of all human rights, the human right to live, by terminating the unique human life of the unwanted preborn human. Not surprisingly then, in order to “ensure access” to Pro-Choice abortion it is necessary to trample on the human rights and democratic freedoms of other humans, especially of those protectors of human life who believe in the supreme and equal value and dignity of human life (which all our human rights and freedoms historically and logically depend upon).
It is directly and specifically to ensure Pro-Choice abortion access and the Pro-Choice “right to kill” unwanted human lives that our democratic freedoms are now being eroded in more and more ways which punish citizens to silence them from speaking or acting according to their conscience in defense of human life, including the limitation of peaceful gathering and free speech in defense of human life near abortion clinics by arresting and jailing peaceful protesters; including teachers being warned not to speak Pro-Life values in the classroom or they could face discipline up to the loss of their jobs; including doctors being forced to refer or otherwise facilitate abortions and euthanasia against their conscience, forced to shut up about their beliefs in the value of human life or else be disciplined or lose their jobs and livelihood; including hospitals which had previously refused to perform abortions being told they will not get government funding unless they perform abortions; and similarly including Catholic/Christian institutions including hospitals and schools of basic and higher education (which historically did the most to promote the historic Pro-Life principles modern democracy depends upon) being warned that despite whatever constitutional guarantee of religious freedom they are supposed to have, they will lose any public funding (which in large part comes from taxation of Catholics/Christians – and note that public hospitals and schools in Western Civilization were originated by Christian missionaries and religious orders and only later taken over by later Christian governments) if they are too ardent in speaking the Pro-Life values which historically and logically undergird our whole free and democratic way of life. In such things our once-democratic societies are getting more and more totalitarian, for now telling us we can privately believe that all human life is valuable and precious and even sacred but punishing us if we publicly act to defend human life (this should scare thinking humans). At the front lines of democracy’s defenders right now are our doctors and other health care providers who are actually frequently in the position to save human lives without prejudice, regardless of their race, gender, religion or creed, ethnicity, handicap/disorder, age (including fetal age) or location (“the wrong side of the tracks” or in the womb). Government or government-regulated bodies are right now telling those doctors and hospitals who actually take seriously the traditional doctors’ Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm” and who actually believe in the intrinsic value of all the human lives they treat (the belief on which all human rights and freedoms are based) that (for now) they can privately hold but they cannot act on this foundational belief of democracy in order to save human lives. Doctors in some jurisdictions are being turned into killers instead of healers who not only have a “right” to kill but an obligation to kill, against their conscience, or they cannot be licensed as doctors – because in a logical progression human life is no longer protected just for being human life, and as a result human freedom of conscience is becoming a memory. Freedom of conscience and free speech are already being taken away from doctors and hospitals who are already being told to shut up about the value of human life and start facilitating the killing of it by abortion or euthanasia/assisted suicide or else be persecuted for it – or else lose your licenses to be doctors or lose your hospital funding. Since already those Pro-Life citizens who happen to be in a regular position to actually save human lives because they work in health care have had their democratic freedoms truncated, being told they cannot act to save human lives or they will face discipline/persecution, if this anti-democratic Pro-Choice trend is not opposed it is only a matter of time before all Pro-Life citizens will have their democratic freedoms curtailed. Since those in a position to actually save human lives have (at least in Europe and Ontario) already been told they cannot freely act on their belief in the value of every human life, not even free to abstain from referring a patient to someone who will kill them by “assisted suicide” or kill their baby by abortion, the logical next step is to curtail the pesky belief that inclines health care providers to not want to kill human lives in the first place. It is no surprise then that Hilary Clinton has actually indicated that Pro-Choice forces are getting ready to go to that next logical step and not only prevent Pro-Lifers from acting on their beliefs to save human lives but, in her own words, “[Pro-Choice, Abortion] Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will” . . . [Pro-Life] Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.” Pro-Lifers’ religious and moral beliefs in the supreme and equal value and dignity of human life which at the same time historically and logically grounds the development of modern human rights and freedoms AND interferes with abortion access are unacceptable to the Pro-Choice abortion mindset, in such a way that human rights and freedoms can be curtailed as long as Pro-Choice abortion access is assured. Once again: Pro-Choice philosophy throughout history is naturally and logically associated with totalitarianism, so it is only natural and logical that to ensure Pro-Choice access to abortion, Pro-Choice forces are willing to trample or compromise the human rights and democratic freedoms of those who believe in the intrinsic high value of all human life. Human rights, after all, which did not exist in the ancient world when “Pro-Choice” philosophy first reigned, are naturally foreign to the Pro-Choice abortion mindset, since the most basic human right is the human right to live, and Pro-Choice advocates have no problem denying to preborn humans that first of all human rights without which all the others are meaningless (including democracy, described as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 21).
As shown in this treatise, the Pro-Life arguments are so soundly and logically reasonable, and backed up by so many undisputed historical and scientific facts, that they are not going away and they need to be debated publically for the safety of humanity. At the very least, in any functioning democracy the right to present the Pro-Life message would be protected by the classic principle “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” all the more so because the right to voice your opinion and not have your opinion dictated to you by a totalitarian government historically and logically comes from the Pro-Life principles which historically began the transformation of Western Civilization from brutally totalitarian to humane and free. But because Pro-Choice philosophy is fundamentally anti-democratic, Pro-Choice forces and individuals have shown a remarkable resistance to this democratic principle to defend the right of citizens to disagree with the Pro-Choice mindset and to freely express their disagreement. Instead, Pro-Choice forces (whatever they are in each country) bully and muzzle citizens into silence with anti-democratic Pro-Choice policies such as those that make doctors and other medical professionals and teachers and so on (even government workers I have talked to) afraid to speak freely their conscience for fear of negative consequences such as losing their jobs or funding, even though their Pro-Life consciences are in full accord with the root foundations of human rights and democracy itself. Democracy cannot last in this situation, and this anti-democratic pressuring and bullying of Pro-Lifers into silence cannot be tolerated any longer by anyone who seriously wants our Western democracies to STAY Western democracies. In my experience the grassroots individual dedicated Pro-Choicers are just as anti-democratic and just as against free speech and free expression, and just as willing to trample on the rights and freedoms of others in order to shut them up. For example recently, to help keep life issues on people’s minds for our Canadian general election, I and others put up a small lawn sign with the simple Pro-Life message, “Protect Pre-born Human Rights! – weneedaLAW.ca,” referring to the fact that since 1988 Canada has had absolutely no law whatsoever concerning abortion, which allows “abortion on demand” right up to full-term babies and for any reason (including sex-selective “female gendercide” killing baby girls because they are not boys). As this puts Canada in the company of oppressive totalitarian States (North Korea and China are the only other countries which have no restrictions whatsoever on abortion), surely this simple sign on our private property, exercising our democratic freedom of opinion and expressing a reasonable opinion on a democratic issue of human rights, would at least fall under the category of “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But not to Pro-Choicers. Pro-Choicers trespassed on private property and removed all the signs on my street, throwing them into the busy road, and the next week trespassed again and stole all the signs and slashed the tires on my car (on Election Day 2015 – showing how much Pro-Choicers are inclined to respect democracy). Another lady with this sign elsewhere in our city actually witnessed someone ripping apart the same sign which she had put up. Several people would not take and put up these signs from us (we had extras we offered them) because they were afraid their house would be “egged,” or a rock would be thrown through their window, because such things had happened before. Even more disturbing because it happened on a university campus that ideally above all places should allow the free exchange of ideas on so controversial an issue as abortion which has such important implications for human life and human rights, a Pro-Life display manned by students attempting to have reasoned intellectual discussions on the issue, the display including the photographic evidence of post-abortion fetal-age human corpses (for if one thinks it is perfectly moral and legal to do this, surely one must be willing to at least look at it) was violently destroyed, all while campus security was suspiciously absent. Such criminal actions to bully into silence free expression in defense of human life and human rights cannot be written off as merely the actions of a few who are criminally-inclined, when laws and policies of government and government-regulated bodies similarly bully and muzzle free expression in defense of human life and human rights, forcing doctors to be killers against their conscience and even arresting Pro-Lifers who dare to peacefully express the value of human life near an abortion clinic. One lady who refused to take a very reasonable and inoffensive “Protect Preborn Human Rights! – weneedaLAW.ca” lawn sign to encourage free discussion on the Canadian policy that puts our democracy in the company of Communist North Korea and China did so not because she was afraid of a Pro-Choice vandal’s rock through her window, but because she was afraid of governmental Pro-Choice forces meaning she could lose her job working for the government if she even dared to freely express her Pro-Life opinion at home on her private property in our supposedly democratic country! Yet none of this is of any surprise to those educated enough to keep the whole history of Western Civilization in view, and thus know that the Pro-Choice mindset has always been fundamentally anti-human and anti-democratic and so of course Pro-Choice forces and individuals are not naturally inclined to free speech for their Pro-Life opponents nor are they inclined to say “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The very first thing Pro-Choice philosophy does is cancel human rights which do not truly exist at all without the primary human right to live that it denies to young humans still in the womb, and so it is inevitable that Pro-Choice philosophy brings with it the compromise of democracy we are already seeing and the eventual loss of democracy which depends on every human life being precious enough to be given a democratic voice.
Not to be alarmist, but merely sober (given the degradation of democracy we have already seen), we must also remember the lesson of Germany: If you democratically vote in a government that does not believe in the (Pro-Life) principles undergirding democracy, democracy CAN be lost. In the 1930s the German people democratically elected a government that manifestly did not value all human life without exception, and that government (through a gradual process ending with a vote granting “emergency powers” to Hitler) eventually ended democracy in Germany. In the case of the German Nazi party, ending democracy was deliberate, so it happened quicker. Today what they eroded deliberately our leaders our eroding by ignorance of history, so it is taking longer, but it IS happening, and in similar stages (as shown in this treatise, particularly Chapter 4). I taught the Nazi Holocaust in schools from memoirs of Jewish survivors, and I was struck by how gradual was the undermining of human rights and the loss of democracy – and I was also struck by how so many people, though very uncomfortable, put up with each little stage thinking “it couldn’t get any worse.” But it did keep getting worse, because no one demanded the progression stop, and human rights and democracy itself were eventually lost (and in Chapter 4 I will show how there is even one area in which our society has progressed further than the Nazis had time to in the gradual degradation of human life). Legal abortion (in concert with the Death Camps as part of the same Nazi Eugenics program), even if the child’s mother asked for it, was actually one of the “crimes against humanity” that the Nazis were prosecuted and condemned for in the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials following World War II, for being an “inhumane act” and an “act of extermination.” How much we have forgotten so soon! The same then-condemned method (legal abortion) the prejudiced Nazis used to get rid of their inconvenient and unwanted handicapped and Jewish children is being used here now to get rid of our own children considered inconvenient and unwanted for any reason, including self-centered convenience (abortions have been done because people have plane tickets around their due date); cultural prejudice against women in the now-common sex-selective abortion of females (fender gendercide); and (like the Nazis) including prejudice against the handicapped (who are aggressively targeted for abortion by Pro-Choice doctors who pester mothers to abort, sending the clear message to the handicapped community that our society no longer considers that handicapped lives are worth living but are a burden rather than a gift, and would rather kill the handicapped who suffer various injuries or disorders as a burden than lovingly accommodate and support the handicapped in overcoming their limitations and living the great gift of their human lives).
Please note here that I recognize that some people indeed overuse associating things they do not agree with, with Nazism, and many roll their eyes and dismiss it as an exaggeration whenever they hear such an association. But legal abortion is the one case where the parallel association with Nazism is precisely appropriate! Legal abortion is literally one of the many “crimes against humanity” the Nazis were specifically condemned for at the Nuremberg Trials. And legally defining away the preborn human right to live which had previously been protected by law and custom and then killing them in the millions is precisely parallel to the Nazis legally defining away the Jewish human right to live which had previously been protected in law and then killing them in the millions. Once again: while many try to bolster their position by associating their opponent=s position in some way with the Nazi Regime which is almost universally despised and recognized as evil, often in a tenuous and inappropriate way, in this case the association is very strong and completely legitimate to draw attention to. Human babies before they are born are every bit as alive and human, scientifically speaking, as born Jews – Jews have no greater claim to be recognized as human lives than do preborn babies. So the Nazi Regime devaluing the human personhood of their unwanted Jews and killing them is a perfectly valid comparison with our society devaluing the human personhood of its unwanted babies and killing them. The Nazis literally took away the Jews= names and replaced them with tattooed numbers. We replace words like Ahuman@ and Ababy@ commonly B and entirely accurately B used of wanted preborn children with medical terms like Aembryo@ and Afetus,@ technically valid medical terms which are just de-humanizing enough to make it easier to take the human lives of unwanted human children (pro-abortionists used to commonly – and some still do – de-humanize them all the more by calling such babies Anon-viable tissue blobs@ even though they are endowed with biological human life and unique human DNA completely distinct from their mothers). It is very strange but it is like the Nazis won the war. Somehow the West first condemned the Nazis, but then later adopted the Nazi values that human life is not inherently precious but can be legally killed, and actually followed the Nazi precedent of legalizing abortion even though the Nazis were specifically condemned for legalizing abortion in 1948, the same year the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was produced to help ensure Nazi atrocities that treated human life as cheap never happened again.
Legal Abortion Has Always Been a Tool of Prejudice and Bigotry Since it Was First Legalized in Soviet Russia (1920) and Nazi Germany (1934) (Shortly Before The De-Valuing of Pre-Born Human Lives Was Followed Up with Genocides of Born Human Lives in Both Countries)
The Nazis used legal abortion as a tool of prejudice and bigotry. The Nazis continued the Western tradition since the 4th Century of protecting human life in the womb for healthy Germans (of the “Master Race” they valued and wanted more of), but legalized and encouraged abortion for unhealthy, handicapped Germans suffering disorders, and Jews (later the Nazis would round up born Jews and handicapped Germans who they could not kill by abortion to kill them in the Concentration Camps instead). In the Nazi-occupied territories abortion was also legalized and encouraged for races the Nazis considered inferior such as the Slavic peoples. Legal abortion is STILL a tool of prejudice and bigotry. Not only do I understand it is well-documented that Planned Parenthood initially offered abortion services only in Black neighborhoods specifically to reduce the number of Black Americans, but today any child who it is suspected could be handicapped is targeted for abortion by Pro-Choice doctors who repeatedly pester and strongly encourage the mothers to abort just like in Nazi Germany. Certain cultural prejudices against women as inferior to men in a number of cultures are today given deadly force by legal abortion, as baby girls are aborted just for being female in a worrying trend which is upsetting nature’s perfect balance of nearly equal numbers of female to male human births (“female gendercide” not only in the home countries but here in North America within these cultural groups – paralleling the ancient prejudice against women in which baby girls were commonly killed by infanticide immediately after they were born and their gender was first known). And perhaps the worst bigotry of all is age bigotry, the bigotry of legal abortion on demand, where it is not only if you happen to be of a specific race or gender that you are denied your human personhood and all human rights and are aborted, but if you are young, if you are a young human not yet born, you are denied your human personhood and all human rights including the basic human right to live. Because (as Chapter 3 demonstrates) biological science affirms the complete and unique human life of preborn humans and science gives no more reason to deny human personhood and human rights to preborn humans than science gives any reason to deny human personhood and human rights to Jewish humans, the age bigotry represented by abortion on demand is every bit as vile as the Nazi bigotry against the handicapped and Jews, or possibly more so, because even the Nazis legally protected some human lives that were valued from the womb. But all of us humans were once the age to be legally aborted by age bigotry, making age bigotry the Bigotry against the Human Race itself, the bigotry which says none of us humans have any inherent human right to live and which, when abortion is legalized, logically robs every human of any legally recognized inherent human right to live. Since age bigotry took over and abortion was legalized we humans are only allowed to live, at the whim of our mothers – and ultimately at the whim of the government, which no longer feels obligated to protect human lives wherever they are but has effectively given our mothers a “licence to kill” which they did not have throughout the many centuries our human lives in the womb were protected by law or custom since 318 AD – the centuries during which our modern human rights and freedoms were gradually but logically developing from the Pro-Life principles adopted in the 4th Century that every human life without exception is precious and has an inherent human right to live.
Legal abortion has always been associated with prejudice and bigotry because legal abortion already means human life is cheap not inherently precious (as human life was cheap when abortion and infanticide were common in the brutal ancient world), and whenever human life is already not understood as inherently precious it is then not hard to find a further excuse to use abortion to kill any particular sub-group of humans considered “inferior” or “undesirable” for whatever prejudiced and bigoted reason. Thus Planned Parenthood originally offered abortions only in Black neighborhoods because of the bigotry that Black humans were considered undesirable. Thus still today legal abortion gives prejudiced attitudes against women the vehicle to legally kill women (by sex-selective abortion) because girls are valued less than boys (so much for abortion being absurdly touted as a matter of “women’s rights”). Legal abortion right now allows a vile bigoted hatred for the inferiority of the handicapped to be violently expressed in our Western nations as handicapped children are specifically targeted for abortions which rip them limb-from-limb by Pro-Choice doctors who pester or pressure the mothers to abort because apparently to the Pro-Choice abortion mindset (and as the Nazis agreed) handicapped human lives are not worth living, and certainly not worth the extra love and effort and money it takes to take care of handicapped humans’ extra medical needs. Abortion which kills humans and prejudice which devalues humans naturally complement each other and so it is no coincidence that the two biggest racial genocides in history happened shortly after abortion was legalized in those countries. Soviet Russia legalized abortion in 1920, promoting abortion in the rest of the Soviet Union first in Ukraine in 1921 (not long before the Russian prejudice against Ukrainians was further unleashed in the 1932/3 forced starvation of 7-10 million of my fellow Ukrainians). Soviet dictator Josef Stalin eventually figured out that legal abortion was not good for Mother Russia – it negatively impacted population growth, so he was aborting his workforce and army! So he criminalized abortion again in 1936, but only after the prejudice against Ukrainians had been spent by 15 years of legal abortion to reduce the Ukrainian population followed by the genocide of 7-10 million already-born Ukrainians (men, women and children) since abortion on its own did not reduce the Ukrainian population fast enough (prejudiced policies to eradicate distinct Ukrainian language and culture – despite their similarities to the Russian – continued after the genocide was over and legal abortion ceased). Similarly, Nazi Germany legalized abortion in 1934, promoting abortion specifically among the human groups Nazi prejudice considered undesirable, soon to be followed by the bigoted Nazi Holocaust of the Jews, also targeting the handicapped and other “undesirable” humans.
So we need to recognize that Pro-Lifers are the New Abolitionists standing up against the prejudice and bigotry that devalues some human lives (the too-young-to-be-born) in preference for others (the old-enough-to-be-born and the “wanted”) and kills devalued humans by abortion – in the same way the original Abolitionists stood up against the prejudice and bigotry that devalued Black human lives in preference for White and enslaved the devalued Black humans. Pro-Lifers are simply taking up the very same Abolitionist cause of demanding their society recognize and practice the supreme and equal dignity of every human life without exception which means that no humans should be either enslaved or killed. Abortion needs to be abolished by the Pro-Life New Abolitionists for exactly the same reason slavery needed to be abolished by the original Abolitionists. In contrast, Pro-Choicers are so morally confused (by hollow and deceptive philosophy which is not new but ancient and anti-human) that they do not even know killing humans is wrong. This is why Pro-Choice politicians simply cannot be trusted long-term with our human safety, nor can they be trusted to maintain democracy for the long-term. Countries which have abandoned the basic human right to live by de-criminalizing abortion, have abandoned the ultimate reason to protect any rights for humans, and have abandoned the underlying reason to give every human a vote. So it is no coincidence that Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany legalized abortion first and then proceeded to progressively attack human rights (and dismantle Germany’s former democracy); and this is why human rights and freedoms are also being (more slowly but by similar stages – see Chapter 4) eroded away in other Western countries that followed the Soviet and Nazi precedent of de-criminalizing abortion.
“Pro-Choice” legal abortion makes our being allowed to live as humans not an inherent human right but subject to the whims and wants of another, our mothers and ultimately our governments which give our mothers this “license to kill” any human child they do not want. Through history wherever such “Pro-Choice” killing of preborn humans is legal it is always accompanied or followed by the legal killing of “unwanted” or “undesirable” or “burdensome” born humans too – as in the Soviet and Nazi genocides shortly following the de-criminalization of abortion and in the current Western trend to de-criminalize euthanasia after de-criminalizing abortion. Once human life is no longer inherently precious nor always to be protected there can be no guarantee the government will always protect YOUR human life because it is no longer a given that killing humans is wrong.
Legal abortion makes our being allowed to live as humans not an inherent human right but subject to the whims and wants of another, our mothers and ultimately our governments which give our mothers this “license to kill” any human child they do not want. But it is either wrong to kill humans or it is not. Once a society through one kind of prejudice or another has decided it is not wrong to kill some “unwanted” humans, all humans become potential targets for killing because human life is no longer inherently precious and therefore unwanted humans can be legally killed. Once a society has started to kill unwanted preborn humans, it is easy to take the next step and kill unwanted born humans. Both born and unborn humans unwanted for any reason were easily killed in the brutal ancient world when Pro-Choice philosophy first pervaded Western Civilization before abortion was criminalized in 318 AD. In modern times first Soviet Russia (in 1920) then Nazi Germany (in 1934) de-criminalized abortion in order to kill unwanted preborn humans and quickly progressed to genocides killing vast numbers of unwanted born humans too (my fellow Ukrainians, Jews, the handicapped and other “undesirables” including Christian pastors and others who stood up against the killing). The progression from legally killing preborn to born humans has taken longer this time only because our current governments (unlike the Soviets and Nazis) are more ignorant than evil, but the progression is still happening according to the inexorable logic of Pro-Choice philosophy – for if human life is no longer inherently precious nor always to be protected because abortion is legal, why not get rid of “unwanted” or “undesirable” or “burdensome” born humans as well? Thus legal euthanasia to legally kill those burdensome handicapped and elderly humans who are already born (starting with those who ask for it but it never stops there, see below) has naturally and logically followed legal abortion, and as our society is further transformed by Pro-Choice philosophy and gets more and more used to legally killing humans (preborn or born) because it no longer knows that killing humans is wrong, the progression of the legal killing of humans will not stop there.
Whenever and Wherever Human Personhood and Human Rights Become a Question of “Politics” and “Opinion” Rather Than a Given Foundation of Democracy (as in Pre-World War II Europe concerning Jewish Humans and Today concerning Preborn Humans), that Nation Has Already Lost its Democratic Soul
I found it bizarre how before World War II in Europe a Jewish person might ask someone they were talking to on the street or in a store about their “politics” before revealing they were Jewish. You had to ask about someone’s “politics” to determine whether they respected Jews as human persons with full human rights or not. I submit that if they had to ask the question if they recognized the (Jewish) human life before them had equal human rights, if the value of human life was not a given but was a matter of “opinion” and “politics,” then their society had already lost the foundations of all human rights and democracy. Not surprisingly it was only a matter of years before these European democracies were formally lost to Nazi totalitarianism. And I submit that as soon as the Pro-Life value of preborn human life also became no longer a given but an issue of “opinion” and “politics,” we likewise had already lost the essential foundation of our Western democracies, and it is only a matter of time before we likewise formally lose all pretense of democracy. Abortion was ignorantly legalized about 40 years ago because we forgot WHY abortion was criminalized (back in 318 AD) in the first place – abortion (and infanticide or “after-birth abortion”) was originally criminalized because human life was no longer understood as cheap and easily enslaved or killed even by the government (which was totalitarian, controlling belief), but now human life was understood as valuable and precious and the government now properly protected and served precious human lives right from the womb (which laid the foundation for all later human rights and democratic freedoms which developed only in this Pro-Life context). But in the U.S.A. and Canada right now leaders of national parties demonstrate complete ignorance of the history of the development of ideas (demonstrated in this treatise) which gave us modern human rights and democratic freedoms logically built over the centuries upon the sure foundation of Pro-Life Principles since the 4th Century. One Canadian major national party leader actually recently said that Pro-Life citizens “need not apply” to his party, and Pro-Lifers already in his party are no longer allowed to vote their conscience on life issues, and another major national party is also “officially” Pro-Choice with similar policies. So only those who do NOT believe in the historical and logical foundations of democracy can belong to some major national parties! Sadly, this means the current anti-democratic bullying of Pro-Life citizens (especially in the medical and educational fields) to not freely speak their conscience and their belief in the historic Pro-Life foundations of democracy or else they can lose their jobs (the threat to democracy which motivated this treatise) already even extends to government jobs. This major Canadian political party leader publicly stating that Pro-Lifers are not welcome to apply for his party which hopes to govern all Canadians already undemocratically shuts up those democratically elected Pro-Life Members of Parliament who already belong to his party who thus already now cannot freely speak their conscience in their jobs OR even represent their Pro-Life constituents. This is what Pro-Choice philosophy has naturally brought us to, already compromising our free democracies by bullying tactics making so many Pro-Life citizens (and even duly elected Members of Parliament) who believe in the Pro-Life foundations of democracy afraid to freely speak their conscience. But (as Germany’s example taught those who are paying attention) for HUMANS to vote for politicians who do NOT believe in the immense inherent and equal value of EVERY human life (including the preborn and the handicapped who are already aggressively targeted for abortion) is ultimately, actually, DANGEROUS for everyone. Again, we must learn the lessons of history and see that the German results of democracy unguided by the “Pro-Life” principles which modern democracy grew up assuming were predictable. To maintain itself long-term democracy cannot be simply an unqualified “whatever the majority chooses” – in Germany the majority chose Hitler and Nazism. To maintain democracy for the long-term requires that democracy’s historical and logical “Pro-Life” foundation necessarily be maintained (best by explicitly enshrining it in our democratic constitutions which originally implicitly assumed them – “all men are created equal” and the like never intended to exclude preborn humans who were in fact protected from harm in the womb by law or custom since the 4th Century). As long as the preciousness of all human life remains an issue of “opinion” and “politics” and is not recognized as the very foundation of modern democracy, our democracies are doomed to fail. 
The “Pro-Life” Historical and Logical Foundations of Our Modern Democracies are Not Partisan and All Political Parties Which Want to Maintain Democracy for the Long-term Must Get Back to Their Implicitly Pro-Life Roots If They Have Strayed, So That Educated Voters Who Want to Ensure Democracy Continues for the Long-term Can Trust Them Not To Undermine Democracy from its Foundations
I wish to make it clear that I have no interest in partisan politics. Despite the bizarre right/left polarization on life issues of recent decades in Canada and the U.S.A., there is nothing inherently more Pro-Life (and therefore more ultimately democratic) about right-wing politics than left-wing politics, and right-wing fascists are just as oppressive to human life and freedom as left-wing communists. Both right-wing and left-wing parties following their distinctive emphases in governing have presided over periods of prosperity for the governed (and have both presided over not-so-prosperous periods). Thus I advocate for no specific style of government but rather, I urge all political parties left and right to get back to their roots and uphold the Pro-Life principles underlying democracy which were assumed as a given when our countries, and both their left and right-wing parties, were founded. For voters, I recognize that politics is complicated and there are a great many factors that properly inform and guide a vote, such as, “Do I vote for the party or for the local representative?” “What are the economic platforms of the different parties and how does that affect me (and others)?” But let me tell you a true story. In the first half of the twentieth century, when cars were newly invented and very expensive, such that only rich people had cars, one popular political leader decided that every family in his country should have a car. He decided to work to make it possible for every family to have a car, which he would call “the car of the people.” In the language of his country “car of the people” was “volkswagen” (and it was a truly good idea!). The country was Germany. The leader was Adolf Hitler. I suggest to voters that ultimately it does not matter how “enlightened” and “beneficial” a political party’s other policies are: if they get the value of human life wrong, humans will lose out under their government, and once humans – any humans (whether Jewish humans, handicapped humans, very young humans, or old and sick humans) – are devalued, freedoms for those humans who are left will ultimately also be curtailed. We must vote accordingly (while we can) – and we must insist our politicians take human life issues deadly seriously and clarify for us their understanding of the value of the human lives we ask them to govern, because ultimately our very lives and freedoms depend on this.
Thus I suggest that after humanity’s ultimate safety from oppressive or totalitarian regimes has been assured by the abandonment of Pro-Choice philosophy for the second time (remember the 4th Century abandonment of Pro-Choice philosophy in favour of the Pro-Life principles is what ended the norm of totalitarian government and started all our human rights and freedoms in the first place – see Chapter 2); I suggest that after the Pro-Human, Pro-Life foundations of all human rights and freedoms have been constitutionally enshrined such that all political parties are equally obligated to uphold them to guarantee human rights and democracy for the long-term, then we can go back to voting as we usually do over which party we think might have the better economic plan or best overall plan to deal with all the niggling details of organizing human society for the most benefits for the most people. But until that time, for the safety of humanity and for the continuance of democracy itself I suggest it is vital to vote for politicians who believe in the inherent preciousness of all human life that historically and logically undergirds all human rights and freedoms and which is absolutely necessary to ensure they continue for the long-term. This is like telling Hitler, “you can keep the ‘car of the people’ for every family and give me back my Jewish neighbours.” We have to ask ourselves, “is the Volkswagen worth our Jewish neighbours?;” that is, is what we get by voting for Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion politicians worth what we lose?; is the convenience of simply killing the unwanted human results of the great gift of human sexuality which produces new humans worth losing human rights? Today’s leaders need to be reminded that as the German example shows, it does not matter how good a party’s other policies are if they get the value of human life wrong. All of us have had our inherent human right to live taken away by Pro-Choice legal abortion and no other policy, however good, can compensate us for this, when this takes away any guarantee we can have that our government in the future will always feel obligated to protect our human lives. We need our leaders to know that voters are now educated enough to know that it does not matter how much some (even many) humans prosper under their government if other humans are killed under their government which no longer recognizes the inherent human right to live which all governments are thus obligated to protect and upon which all other human rights and freedoms historically and logically depend. The bottom line is: Pro-Life is Pro-Democracy and Pro-Choice is fundamentally Anti-Democracy and thus a vote for a politician who is not Pro-Life is ultimately a vote against the long-term continuance of democracy. Like Germans voting for Hitler it is a ultimately a democracy-destroying vote that lets governments which forgot the Pro-Life foundations of human rights and freedoms think it is sometimes OK to kill humans (and governments then decide themselves which humans can be killed and when – like in Communist States and Nazi Germany). If human voters do not use their vote to hold governments accountable to protect and serve human life wherever it exists, then our governments in the future are potentially capable of any conceivable violation of human rights and freedoms, as was normal before the Pro-Life principles were embraced by Western Civilization and as in any modern government (as in Russia and Germany) which abandoned the Western Pro-Life tradition held since the 4th Century (Russia and Germany perpetrating the two biggest genocides in history, the Soviet forced starvation of 7-10 Million of my fellow Ukrainians in 1932/33 just before the Nazi Holocaust of 6 Million Jews got started. Both genocides followed the legalization of abortion which had already negated any traditional Western concept of an inherent human right to live which the government must protect: Soviet Russia legalized abortion in 1920 and Nazi Germany in 1934).
Can Any Country that Jails People Who Believe in the Pro-Life Foundations of All Human Rights and Democratic Freedoms and thus Publicly and Peacefully Protest the Killing of Human Lives Remain a Democracy for the Long-term?
It is around 40 years ago now (depending on your country) that abortion was legalized. I was born in Canada shortly after then, one of the first children born having no inherent human right to live from my time in the womb which my ancestors in Western Civilization had enjoyed since Pro-Choice abortion (and infanticide – especially of females) were first criminalized in 318 AD. Thus my warning is coming 40 years too late, and we have to make up for lost time and repair considerable damage to the foundations of our democracies which assumed those Pro-Life principles that replaced ancient Pro-Choice philosophy in the 4th Century with the Pro-Life convictions that every human life was precious and must be free from government coercion especially in matters of belief (notice how Hilary Clinton’s recent statements attack both these principles at the same time!). At this moment there are some people in jail in Canada and the U.S. for peacefully protesting the killing of human lives by abortion near abortion clinics and standing up for these Pro-Life principles which historically and logically ground our whole free and democratic society. Thinking humans who are paying attention should be scared that already we can be arrested and jailed for believing in the foundations of all human rights and democracy and peacefully protesting the violation of the very first human right – the human right to live – in abortion clinics which undisputedly end fetal-age, preborn human lives (human lives just like each one of us when we were that young – legal abortion necessarily means none of us has any inherent right to live, but each of us could have been legally killed by abortion when we were younger). THINK about this. We can already be arrested and jailed in the U.S. and Canada for believing in the historic Pro-Life foundations of human rights and democracy that teach that each human life (of any age) is precious and therefore must be protected from harm and (once grown to adulthood) each human life properly has a democratic say in how it is governed! Can any country that jails people who believe in this and publicly protest the killing of humans remain a democracy in the long-term? As described in more detail in Chapter 4, we are already seeing the early stages of the gradual unravelling of democracy as in Germany – those who protested the similar devaluing of Jewish human lives were also arrested and jailed for speaking up for those human lives who had been legally devalued by the government. This trend that has already started will only get worse if not opposed. It is imperative that voters tell their politicians that they are gravely concerned about these natural signs of the fact our governments effectively no longer believe in any INHERENT human right to live (the foundation of all other human rights), since the legalization of abortion. Legal abortion cheapens EVERY human life: it means neither YOU nor I have an automatic right to live just because of our humanity (even though scientifically, biologically speaking both YOU and I were undisputedly every bit as human and alive BEFORE our birth as after, as discussed in more detail below in Chapter 3). Human rights are meaningless if just being human is not enough to have them (and the government decides which humans have them and which humans do not – like in Nazi Germany). If we believe in human rights at all, it should be illegal to kill humans, but it is no longer.
Pro-Choice Legal Abortion Means NO Human Life is Any Longer INHERENTLY Precious and The Government Is NO LONGER Obligated to Protect Human Life Wherever It Exists – As in Any Oppressive/Totalitarian State
You see, the very second that a government – any government – devalues one category of human lives, or otherwise makes it legal to kill a category of human lives (whether Jewish human lives, handicapped human lives with some disorder, very young and preborn human lives, or old and/or sick human lives – including human lives temporarily so emotionally distressed by their circumstances that they ask to be killed) – it logically means that government no longer recognizes any INHERENT value to human life just for being human and alive. It logically means that government no longer recognizes any INHERENT human right to live, one that is higher than the government that obligates the government to protect human life wherever it is found. Not even to protect it from itself – and everybody has moments where they feel they want to die and need to be protected from harming themselves in temporary weakness, especially when facing a new life-altering challenge they have not yet figured out how to overcome. This is the danger of “assisted suicide” euthanasia which makes it legal for doctors to kill people who ask for it – people are killed before they overcome temporary weakness due to suffering instead of being “assisted” to re-find their temporarily shaken meaning and purpose in life because ALL of our human lives are immensely valuable. “Assisted suicide” euthanasia also enhances the massive Pro-Choice prejudice already shown to the handicapped. The handicapped are already aggressively targeted by Pro-Choice doctors for abortion due to whatever disorder they suffer from. Pro-Choice doctors repeatedly pester pregnant mothers to abort their child who tests indicated had Down’s Syndrome or other handicaps, even though many Pro-Life mothers who refused happily discovered these tests are not necessarily accurate and their child was perfectly healthy after all, or else they happily accepted the extra challenge of loving a handicapped child and taking care of his or her “extra” needs (and Down’s Syndrome kids have even grown up to be successful rock musicians – so why do Pro-Choicers treat handicapped lives as not worth living?). I personally know such loving mothers who in true democratic fashion value all human life without exception, who are far from being the exception in being willing to love their own children whatever their handicaps, whatever disorder of body or mind their children suffer. When American States were first considering de-criminalizing abortion, R. Craig pointed out to the Ohio Legislature in 1971 that “There has not been a single organization of parents of mentally retarded children that has ever endorsed abortion.” After more than 1600 years of Western Civilization valuing human life instead of treating it as cheap as it was before the historic “Pro-Life” principles were embraced in the 4th Century, parents were used to accepting human children as a gift whatever their personal properties or abilities (and not only valuing their children who had a certain IQ), and upholding the great value and dignity of all human life which is foundational to any modern democracy. Nevertheless today Pro-Choice doctors pester pregnant mothers to abort any children they suspect may be handicapped, since apparently to the Pro-Choice mindset handicapped human lives suffering various disorders are not worth living and not worth looking after their extra needs – and “assisted suicide” euthanasia furthers this prejudice against the handicapped, because it means that if you become handicapped later in life through accident or illness your Pro-Choice doctor is now willing to kill/euthanize you as well (“assist your suicide”) since your life is no longer worth living (and your human life is a burden rather than a gift). Note that “assisted suicide” is essentially just euthanasia, a doctor killing someone (or a doctor referring someone to a killer even against their own conscience because doctors no longer have freedom of speech to object in countries that have policies like that which originally motivated this treatise), the only difference being that the victim of this doctor-killing is frequently manipulated into thinking it was their own idea to die – often because they have been shamed by Pro-Choice doctors or perhaps by Pro-Choice members of their own family into adopting the (anti-democratic) Pro-Choice mindset discussed further below that their human life is a burden rather than a gift. Trends in Europe (where what started out as “assisted suicide” euthanasia only if asked for typically degenerates into euthanasia with or without the permission of the patient or the patient’s family) indicate that with such typical Pro-Choice attitudes about the handicapped being obvious targets of abortion it is only a matter of time before the “choice” to have a doctor euthanize those suffering handicaps/disorders (by “assisted suicide”) becomes an obligation to have a doctor euthanize the handicapped, since in the Pro-Choice mindset handicapped human lives are not worth living and it is not worth the effort and money to lovingly treat the handicapped and help them manage with their various disorders long-term. Money is again worth more than human life – just like when Pro-Choice philosophy was the ancient norm before the Pro-Life principles taught Western Civilization that every human life without exception is precious and should be protected from harm. All this is very dangerous to democracy because devaluing, denying personhood to, or otherwise making it legal to kill any category of human lives (including the preborn or those who ask for it) logically means that the government, no longer accountable to anything higher than itself that says all human lives are supremely and equally valuable, now decides which categories of human life it will or will not call persons and which human lives it will or will not protect with laws and with the enforcement of those laws. And all this logically means that the very second one category of human lives is devalued, denied personhood, or otherwise no longer protected from being killed, ALL categories of human lives are AT RISK of at some future time being similarly “devalued” by the government, since there is no longer any INHERENT value to human life, there is no longer any necessary guarantee of personhood being accorded to human lives, and the government is now the highest and the final decider of just which human lives merit government protection and just which human lives can be legally killed – just like in the brutal ancient world before the “Pro-Life” principles starting in the 4th Century grounded all later human rights and democracy – and just like in any modern oppressive and totalitarian State.
[In Draft 2.1 I added here a First Draft substantial reflection on euthanasia/assisted suicide which may be read at the following link before returning to this page and scrolling down to the Conclusion:]
So in summary, I charge that in de-criminalizing abortion after 1630 years of logically consistent development of the 318 AD criminalization of abortion gave us the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our democracies have made the biggest mistake in the history of Western Civilization, which is unravelling all the gains for human life made since abortion was first criminalized. Governments are no longer obligated by a higher principle to protect human life wherever it exists and so more and more categories of humans can be legally killed. Convenience and money are once again worth more than human life and since it is much cheaper to kill the old, sick or handicapped than care for their extra needs long-term (or to provide quality palliative care to the dying), policies that start by killing by euthanasia only those in extreme pain who ask for it (as in Europe) have inevitably degraded into euthanizing patients whether or not they are in physical pain and with or without the consent of the patients or their families. Current Pro-Choice policies to aggressively abort the handicapped (and offer to “assist the suicide” of those who become handicapped), driven by a Pro-Choice abortion mindset in which handicapped lives are apparently not worth living and are not worth the extra effort of lovingly taking care of the handicappeds’ special needs long-term, can only eventually become an obligation to kill the handicapped (by abortion or euthanasia) as long as this Pro-Choice mindset where a needy human life is a burden not a gift persists. Pro-Choice doctors can and do now offer to legally kill or “assist the suicide” of depressed patients instead of assisting them in overcoming their problems longer-term because their human lives are valuable and worthwhile despite any handicap or circumstance. This is allowed because our governments have no longer recognized human life as inherently precious since the de-criminalization of abortion, and thus government no longer even protects us from ourselves in the moments of weakness we all have when we temporarily lose sight of the value of our own human lives. The de-criminalization of abortion necessarily cheapens every human life, in the biggest mistake in the governance of humans made in the last two millennia: it means NO human life is any longer inherently precious just for being human, just like in any oppressive totalitarian State, and it logically requires that to continue legally killing humans unimpeded by moral objections the government must in oppressive totalitarian fashion restrict the human rights and democratic freedoms of all who object to killing humans, which is exactly what is happening to doctors and medical professionals who object to killing humans by abortion or euthanasia (including “assisted suicide”) whose jobs are now being threatened to keep them silent, and exactly what is happening to peaceful protesters of the killing of human lives near abortion clinics who are even being arrested and jailed for likewise believing in the historic and logical Pro-Life foundations of all human rights and freedoms (and one can reasonably expect that any government which already imprisons people or allows their jobs to be threatened for believing and acting on the Pro-Life foundations of democracy to defend threatened human lives will not even be able to keep up the pretense of democracy for much longer).
I do not charge current political parties and governments in the U.S.A., Canada, and Europe with malicious intent to end democracy like the Nazi party whose precedent they are unwittingly following in some important respects demonstrated in this treatise, but nevertheless in their ignorance they are actively undermining the very foundations of democracy itself and they need to be informed and warned of where they are heading. It is imperative that voters learn this following history of the ideas which birthed democracy (Chapter 2) and then use their vote and democratic voice (while they still have one) to insist the foundational “Pro-Life” principles on which all human rights and democracy historically and logically depend are properly recognized and protected by their governments. The purpose of this treatise is to provide this “Education Necessary to Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack.” Chapters 2 and 5 show the history and sound logic behind the “Pro-Life” position as the origin and the only reasonable long-term guarantee of modern human rights and democratic freedoms. Chapter 3 shows how biological and medical science furnishes no support for “Pro-Choice” philosophy but supports the “Pro-Life” position, as well as does the whole weight of the medical tradition represented by the ancient doctors’ Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm” to human lives. Chapter 4 traces just how “Pro-Choice” philosophy has already logically led us far along the very same path towards the ultimate loss of democracy they suffered in 1930s Germany after abandoning the long Western “Pro-Life” tradition – but not yet so far along that we cannot reverse this negative momentum if we act now!
© 2014, 2015 William Baptiste SFO
[Draft 2.1 Note: Draft 2 Chapter 1 ended here; a first-draft new ending to Chapter 1 can be read at:]
 Because the current draft of this treatise is a collection of a scholar’s thoughtful reflections (Pensées) based on decades of learning up to the Ph.D. Level, rather than a scholarly research paper, l do not have precise citations for facts I know (from a lifetime of learning) at my fingertips, though most of the historical and scientific facts I use are well known at least to scholars, easily verifiable and not in dispute; and I use these facts in a clearly logical manner. I have found it convenient for such a reflection to “check” facts I remember, or confirm details about something I know, or find a well-known quotation, by consulting quickly-accessible Internet sources such as Wikipedia, which would not be considered acceptable sources for a formal scholarly research paper (not without verification from more controlled and academic sources than the Internet), but which suffice for the purpose of quickly verifying facts I came across during decades of academia (that is to say, the Internet is not the source of most of my knowledge, even if most of the few citations in this draft collection of a scholar’s thoughtful reflections are from the Internet. I know what I know not from the Internet but from a lifelong voracious appetite for knowledge and a Ph.D.-level education. A future draft may take the extra step of adding scholarly citations which are not necessary for a reflective work of this type).
 Similarly “assisted suicide” euthanasia cannot be considered a “right” for the same reasons. And suicide in any form is always a human tragedy of a valuable and precious human person adopting the “human life is a burden rather than a gift” mindset (typical of Pro-Choice philosophy) or otherwise losing sight of their own worth or of any meaning or purpose in life that supersedes the challenges and sufferings of their particular circumstances (and no human life is without these). Governments used to protect us even from ourselves in moments of weakness because we are precious, but where “assisted suicide” euthanasia is legal people in the moments of weakness we all have when faced with new challenges we have not yet figured out how to overcome are offered death as a quick solution, and so people have been euthanized by doctors (who are now killers instead of dedicated healers) even because their boyfriend broke up with them and they feel “I can’t live without him”). Suicide is always inherently tragic and legalizing suicide in any form is an affront to human value and dignity and (as this treatise shows) is part of the reversal of the historic Pro-Life principle of the supreme and equal value of every human life without exception which therefore must be protected by the government wherever it exists, a principle on which all human rights and democracy itself historically and logically and ultimately depend.
 Abortion and infanticide logically went together in the Pro-Choice philosophy of the ancient world, and several of today’s Pro-Choice intellectuals such as philosophy professors with their highly trained minds argue for infanticide or “after-birth abortion” to be legal once again, simply as a matter of consistent logic. If preborn human lives do not have human rights including the right to live and can be killed while still in the womb because they are undeveloped human lives who are not independent of others to survive, then a born baby is very little more developed and very little less dependent on others to survive than a preborn baby, so why make such a big distinction on something as arbitrary as birth? (after all, a 9 month old preborn human is actually MORE developed than a 3 months prematurely born human). Some Pro-Choice intellectuals even argue for a right to kill your children up until age 7 as the “age of reason” – all entirely consistent with the Pro-Choice belief that an undeveloped human is not yet a “person” and does not have a human right to live. But as discussed below, for as long as ANY humans have been called “persons,” “persons” have included preborn humans. When the language of personhood came into Western Civilization it specifically included the preborn whose lives then began to be protected from harm.
 I here use this figure because it is precisely 1630 years between the 318 AD criminalization of abortion and infanticide because human life started to be recognized as valuable and precious, and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which encapsulates the later development of human rights and freedoms from that historical starting point.
 I here distinguish very dedicated Pro-Choicers from the many very “nice” people who identify themselves as Pro-Choice largely because they have been deceived by the Pro-Choice rhetoric that makes them think “Pro-Choice” has something to do with freedom when it only has something to do with freedom to kill humans, which is the opposite of any real political freedom which depends upon humans being necessarily protected from harm by the government as a matter of obligation (the freedom to kill humans, which is the only freedom “Pro-Choice” is really about, having the choice to kill your human child in the womb, is the same kind of “freedom” every oppressive and totalitarian State has). Such “nice” Pro-Choicers often would never think of having an abortion themselves, but think that others should “have the choice” in a “free country,” not realizing that historically countries only ever became truly free some time after ALL human lives became necessarily protected from harm by the government as a matter of obligation.
 Records of the United States Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, United States of America v. Ulrich Greifelt Et Al (Case VIII), October 10, 1947 March 10, 1948; The National Archives, Washington, D.C.: Microfilm Publication 894, Roll 6 (Trial Vols. 10 & 11), pp. 3952-53, 4024, also M894 R 31, pp. 27-28, 4866. This is the complete record of the trial. , Cited in the paper The Abortion and Eugenics Policies of Nazi Germany by Professor John Hunt, Ph.D. This will be discussed more below.
 It is unfortunate Canada did not learn the lesson Stalin did. A few years ago the Canadian Prime Minister announced that Canada needed 2 million new immigrants for its workforce to keep the country stable. But 4 million Canadians have been aborted since abortion was legalized, half of whom would have been in the workforce by then meaning that Canada would not have had the labour shortage if Canada had not, like Stalin’s Soviet Empire, been aborting its own workforce.
 Ironically, in a major step towards modern human rights Biblical Judaism was the first religion to explicitly reject the very common ancient practice of female infanticide, the practice in which after birth revealed the sex of the baby, baby girls were exposed to the elements or otherwise killed because they were not culturally regarded as being as valuable as boys. In the Jewish Bible children, regardless of gender, are only and always a blessing. Christianity, which regarded the Jewish Bible as the Christian Old Testament, continued, enhanced and developed this tradition, the New Testament being explicit in testifying that neither nationality/ethnicity, social class nor status, nor gender make any difference to a human person’s exceptional and equal value before God (e.g. Galatians 3:28). The Jewish prohibition against Infanticide was also continued in Islam, making the refusal to kill babies a common feature of all the Abrahamic faiths.
 I am tempted to tell the aforementioned leader that if he says Pro-Life citizens “need not apply” to his party (against the illustrious history of this party which in the past has governed Canadians well), then he “need not apply” for the job as Prime Minister of our democracy, since he does not believe in the foundations of democracy, and since he will not even let his own party members (who represent us the people) vote their conscience on whether or not all human life is valuable, which principle is integral to democracy. The last thing any democracy needs is such a leader. His party needs to get back to the Pro-Life values undergirding all human rights and democracy which were assumed as a given back when our nation, and his party, were first founded. Even if he gets the Canadian people to make him Prime Minister, this would not be “democracy in action” but only “democracy in advanced decay” because the German people were similarly ignorant of the Pro-Life foundations of human rights and democracy laid so long ago, and they also foolishly democratically elected a party and leader who manifestly did not believe in the Pro-Life foundation of democracy but were opposed to it, and their democracy paid the price for it with further decay until democracy ceased and human rights were violated on an unprecedented scale. Of course I do not mean to say this leader is like Hitler: that would be a needlessly harsh and unrealistic exaggeration. But I am calling attention to the fact that our modern leaders like this one are doing through ignorance what the Nazis did by intention in undermining the foundations of our modern democracies. As stated in Chapter 4 which traces the many small steps towards ending democracy which Nazi Germany passed through which our modern democracies including Canada have already followed, although the loss of human rights and democracy is of course taking longer because our leaders are only ignorantly and not intentionally ending democracy, the gradual loss of democracy is progressing according to similar stages and we will eventually lose our freedom if we keep on the “Pro-Choice” path which, as this treatise shows from undisputed facts of science and history, is fundamentally anti-democratic and throughout history has always been associated with totalitarianism.
© 2014, 2015 William Baptiste SFO