The Education Necessary To Preserve Democracy Now Under Attack (Draft 2.3)
Chapter 4 : What Logically Results From Treating All Human Life as Inherently Precious? What Logically Results from NOT?
The Bottom Line: Human Life is Either Inherently Valuable and Precious Wherever it Exists or it Isn’t. What Logically Follows from Each Position?
Democracy Logically Flows from the First Position and Totalitarianism Logically Flows from the Second (And Note the Parallel Gradual Loss of Democracy in 1930s Germany and Today)
The bottom line is: Either human life is inherently valuable and precious wherever it exists, or it isn’t. When you say it IS, then human rights and democracy naturally and logically flow from the Pro-Life principles: every human life has a right to live and to seek human fulfilment and every human life MATTERS, which is why all humans should have a say in how they are governed, and government’s purpose is to provide safety and security for supremely valuable humans so they can best reach their human potential and fulfillment. But as soon as you say that human life wherever it exists is NOT necessarily valuable, as soon as you say that having human life itself is NOT enough to compel any government to protect that human life but there are exceptions to which human lives merit government protection – any exceptions – then there is no potential end to how the Aexceptions” to protected human life may be defined by future governments, and because you have denied the Pro-Life logical First Principles underlying all human rights and democracy, you already have the foundation for totalitarian states where human lives serve the greater State instead of government serving precious human lives. Most worryingly of all, denying the INHERENT value of all human life without exception means the STATE makes the laws that define which human lives are worth protecting and which are not (just like in any oppressive and totalitarian State) since States are no longer held accountable to a higher principle of the supreme and equal value of every human life without exception which governments are OBLIGATED to protect and serve – the principle which historically and logically grounded the development of our current democracies.
The practical result of this is that just YOUR being human and alive is no longer enough to guarantee government protection of YOUR life. Being human and alive but Jewish or Ukrainian meant your government could kill you with impunity in the two biggest genocides of history (both following the legalization of abortion n their country), in 1930s Germany and the Soviet Union, because in the absence of a recognized principle of the inherent value of ALL human life, the government defines the exceptions. Being human and alive but still young and still located in your mother’s womb are the new exceptions defined today here in Canada, the U.S.A. and other countries. But even one exception always brings others. In Germany being handicapped/suffering some disorder meant you did not have a right to live and the Nazis targeted you for the death camps along with the Jews (as more Agenetic deadwood”); today in Canada being possibly handicapped (according to prenatal tests which are not always accurate) and still located in the womb means Pro-Choice doctors actively target you for abortion and repeatedly pester mothers to abort. In both cases the same underlying value is that handicapped human lives are not worth living. Both are cases of pure and simple bigotry. In keeping with this (Nazi) value, assisted suicide and euthanasia, killing the old and/or the sick, are now legal in some countries (and Canada has foolishly just legalized it as I was writing this, PROVING MY POINT THAT ONE EXCEPTION TO PROTECTED HUMAN LIFE LEADS TO OTHERS) so that now, if you become injured or diseased and handicapped, before you have a chance to adjust to your new reality and eventually overcome the challenges of your handicap or illness or suffering and live a meaningful life despite it, in your initial depression you can now choose to have a doctor kill you, or, as also frequently happens where assisted suicide/euthanasia is already legal, a doctor may choose to euthanize you without your consent, since, after all, according to the above principle shared by Nazis and doctors who pester women to abort handicapped children, Ahandicapped human lives are not worth living.” Where this value logically goes in the long run is that taking care of the sick and handicapped becomes seen more as a burden on society instead of seen as an expression of the supreme value and dignity of every human being regardless of nationality, class, gender, illness, or handicap/injury/disorder. In this philosophical environment what started as an Aoption” for doctor-assisted suicide eventually will logically become an obligation to euthanize so as not to put burdens on the healthy (“burdens” like actually spending time and money caring for the sick or suffering because of the great dignity of their humanity regardless of their limitations). The current trend leads to “If we are not healthy our human lives are no longer worth living and we should be killed by our doctors.” And already the doctors who take seriously the long medical tradition of the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm,” and actually highly value the human lives they treat as healers, whether preborn, old and sick, or handicapped, and refuse to kill them or facilitate killing them by referring people to doctors willing to kill, are being forced out of the medical profession (already in Europe and in the new policy in Ontario, Canada which first motivated me to write this treatise). Already in Europe, if you go into a hospital, you cannot be sure that the doctors will not decide to kill you without your consent. Starting with the one exception of preborn human lives no longer being protected from harm has naturally led to others and now hospitals are slowly becoming the new “death camps” that “weed out” the sick and the old with or without their consent.
Of course starting with the same principle the Nazis had, that handicapped human lives are not worth living, eventually (in the long run) leads to the Nazi solution of killing the handicapped – and saving all that money it takes to accommodate them. We are already aggressively targeting the handicapped in the womb for abortion just like the Nazis did. Now euthanasia is being offered to the handicapped who missed their chance to be aborted. Money is once again worth more than human life, as before the 4th Century. And why only kill the handicapped who have a particular disorder, when the old are similarly physically limited and it costs money to accommodate them? In the Netherlands where euthanasia is legal elderly people who do not want to die are even complaining that their adult children are telling their doctors “my parents have had it and they should be euthanized” – apparently their inheritance money is worth more to them than their parents’ lives, but we should expect such gross attitudes that value money more than human life in a society that no longer values and protects all human lives without exception but particularly targets the weak for death (just like the Nazis did). Starting with weak, young, less developed fetal-age babies, we have progressed to killing the weak sick and old. This is just one example of how making one exception to which human lives are protected logically leads to more. Our governments are not even protecting us from ourselves in temporary moments of depression as before: for example, one doctor in Europe only found out later that his mother had her doctor kill her by lethal injection (“assisted suicide”) after her boyfriend broke up with her. All of us have moments, especially when facing some new challenge or disappointment, in which we feel we want to die, before learning how to overcome the challenge or simply moving on and getting on with our lives. Where “assisted suicide” is legal, our human lives are no longer protected from ourselves in moments of weakness but doctors are ready and willing to kill us. Since legalizing abortion in reversal of the 318 AD criminalization of abortion which heralded the beginning of modern human rights and democracy, it is becoming easier and easier for more and more humans to be legally killed, as before the 4th Century banning of abortion and infanticide because human life is always precious. If we value our human rights and democracy at all, if we want to make sure our grandchildren are raised in a democracy, we cannot afford to continue making ANY exceptions to the INHERENT value and worth and dignity of ALL human lives whom governments are obligated to protect from harm.
The Law and Policy Changes since the Legalization of Abortion (Which Effectively Declared Preborn Human Lives No Longer “Persons” but “Less than Human” and Removed the Legal Protection Preborn Human Lives Previously Had, Logically Ending Western Civilization’s Belief in the Inherent Value of All Human Life since the 4th Century) Follow the Same Pattern as the Early Stages of the Gradual Loss of Democracy in Germany after it Similarly Abandoned the 4th Century “Pro-Life” Principles by Declaring Jews Were No Longer “Persons” but “Less than Human” and Removed the Legal Protection Jewish Human Lives Had Previously
Where this logical progression of one exception leading to others comes perilously pertinent to the current discussion about doctors’ freedom to refuse to participate (even by referral) in human life-ending abortions is as follows: When a government, abandoning the Pro-Life principles which grounded Western Civilization since the 4th Century, now defines that some human lives are no longer protected by law, as in Nazi Germany, some people, who still believe in democracy and the value of every human life without exception which undergirds it, will be brave enough to stand up and oppose the government and its anti-human laws, protesting in defense of those humans whose right to live has been Alegally defined away.” If the government is serious about denying protection to ALL human lives for whatever reason, it is a very simple matter for such a government to legally define those protesters who defend all human lives as somehow seditious against the government and arrest or imprison them or otherwise curb the free speech of their protest with sanctions (such as losing their jobs and livelihood) intended to silence their protests. If, despite these measures, they should persist in protesting the legal de-humanization of Jews or whichever humans, declaring their belief in the extreme value of ALL human life and its right to live, which is the first of all human rights, any government which already denies the right to human life to some can always take away the right to live of protestors against anti-human laws. It is a mark of a totalitarian state to arrest, imprison, or otherwise sanction those who stand up for those human lives the state has devalued, and, at the extreme, devalue the protestors’ human lives as well (after all, they already deny any INHERENT human right to live. It is most convenient for totalitarian states to deny the right to live also to those who protest such policies). Nazi Germany used all kinds of sanctions and arrests and imprisonments early on to convince those who opposed their first gradually restricting Jewish freedoms and later entirely de-valuing Jewish human lives, to be silent. Most good people in Germany were bullied by these tactics into not expressing the esteem they had for all human life. Those brave enough to still stand up anyway eventually had their human right to live taken away by the government also, and thousands of Catholic priests and others who defended human life were sent to the death camps as well.
While of course our current situation in Canada and the U.S.A. and other countries is not yet near so extreme, there are already many disturbing parallels. People can be and have been jailed in Canada and the U.S. for PEACEFULLY protesting the taking of human lives by abortion (some are in jail as I write) and now doctors who refuse to be party to the taking of human lives are about to be forced to or they will lose their jobs and livelihood. Just like Nazi Germany in its early stages: Ashut up about the value of all human lives or lose your position.” Indeed, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. People who disagree with the recent legal Adefining-away” of the human rights prenatal babies had since Canada and the U.S. were founded (and since the 4th Century), who peacefully protest this devaluing of human rights near an abortion clinic, can be jailed. I will say that again in case you missed the significance of this. YOU CAN ALREADY BE ARRESTED AND JAILED IN CANADA AND THE U.S.A. FOR PEACEFULLY EXPRESSING YOUR BELIEF IN THE VALUE OF ALL HUMAN LIFE WITHOUT EXCEPTION WHICH IS THE FOUNDATIONAL VALUE OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC FREEDOMS WHICH DEVELOPED IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION SINCE THE 4TH CENTURY. Just think about that! It’s already a crime in Canada and the U.S. to (in places where it matters) express belief that all human life is valuable and should not be killed. That fact alone ideally should make any thinking human frightened. What happened to free speech? This is not the legitimate censoring of hate speech for any group of humans, but quite the opposite. You can be arrested and imprisoned in Canada and the U.S. for hating no-one and expressing belief in the exceptional value of ALL human life! Shouldn’t this only happen in a totalitarian state? But oh, I forgot –by recently legalizing abortion after over 1600 years of it being banned in Western Christian Civilization, Canada and the U.S. already adopted the view shared by every totalitarian state, that NOT every human life is equally valuable and precious. It always takes time for new ideas to show their full logical effects in society. I guess it has been enough decades now that we should expect signs of the erosion of democracy in Canada and the U.S. like this: that you can be arrested for your belief in the Pro-Life principles which historically and logically grounds our democracy. And we should expect such signs to continue, and they have. One brand new sign is that now the CPSO  has enacted a policy which will force Canadian doctors in Ontario who refuse to be party to the taking of human lives to lose their jobs and livelihood if they do not facilitate killing at least by ensuring that the young human lives whose long former protection has been taken away get delivered to other doctors who are willing and ready to kill them.
“Ensuring” their patients’ “access to abortion” by “effective referral” against their own conscience almost means driving them to the door of an open abortion clinic: the doctor, against his will, will be forced to “make sure” their patient gets to kill their baby (who is traditionally regarded as a doctor’s “second patient” when a pregnant woman comes into their office). To use the terms of the CPSO’s new policy itself: CPSO insists morally-objecting doctors MUST at least ENSURE patient access to abortion etc. through an EFFECTIVE REFERRAL Ato a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician or other health-care provider.” This is closely parallel to the Nazi government telling a German career soldier who thought his job was to protect his country that if he isn’t willing to kill Jews himself he MUST at least ENSURE the Jews get delivered to the Death Camps where a “non-objecting, available, and accessible” soldier will do the killing he is unwilling to do, OR ELSE HE WILL LOSE HIS JOB. This is tantamount to a doctor’s Aforced accessory to murder” AGAINST HIS OR HER WILL which has no place in any democracy and is only to be expected from a totalitarian state.
As I said at the start: It is well said that those who do not learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat its mistakes. As an educator I have taught the Nazi Holocaust through memoirs of surviving Jews. What is striking about the loss of democracy and human rights in Germany is how gradual it was, and how most good people who opposed the gradual changes kept silent for fear of repercussions, always thinking that “it couldn’t go much farther, things couldn’t get much worse” (though they kept getting worse). Also striking is that there was no military coup that finally ended democracy in Germany: though not without political maneuvering (and no democracy is free of this), it was through a democratic process that Hitler was first appointed Chancellor by the elected President, later became the legitimately elected President, and was finally VOTED emergency powers to deal with the Communist threat which finally ended democracy in Germany.  In a sense the German people got what they asked for, since they democratically elected a government which manifestly did not value all human lives as equally valuable and precious, therefore they democratically voted in a government that did not respect the foundational, “Pro-life” principles historically and logically underlying all human rights and democracy. No wonder they lost democracy in the long run! (Politicians take note: voters would be foolish to similarly vote in a government that manifestly does not respect the principles human rights and democracy are founded on, so construct your platform accordingly if you want informed voters who love democracy and human rights to vote for you).
The fortunate thing is that in our case I doubt there is a APhantom Menace” lurking in the shadows actively manipulating things towards the end of democracy in Canada and the U.S. (though who knows? Similar things have happened not only in Star Wars but in real history, such as the Roman Republic to the dictatorship of Caesar, democratic to totalitarian Germany, even through the established government without any military fight. We cannot reasonably assume this cannot happen here. We most likely cannot lose democracy tomorrow – but we CAN lose it). But in the probable absence of conspiracy, in that case it is pure ignorance of the history of the principles underlying democracy which have led to the disturbing parallels with totalitarian states we are already seeing in Canada and the U.S. (and other nations which legalized abortion after over 1600 years banned). This ignorance that is seriously eroding the foundations of our democracy and human rights must be replaced with knowledge (reading this treatise/my letter to the CPSO is a good start; my facts are easily enough verified), for the long-term safety of our democracies. Even in the probable lack of a single manipulative conspirator, history warns us that if we let our foundations be eroded long enough, there are always political opportunists around to take advantage of the situation and at the right moment take control (it is even easy enough for a politician with such ambitions to help create an unstable situation to justify invoking the “emergency powers” most democratic constitutions allow for in unstable situations). We must not let our foundations erode any further than they already have. Educating the ignorance which got us where we are is key. I have been either a student or an instructor/professor my whole adult life: education is my life, and I hereby dedicate that life to education that helps ensure the long-term maintenance of democracy here in Canada, the U.S., and around the world.
For further education here I note that is well said that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” We have failed to be vigilant and our democracies have already gone much further than most people realize in following the example of the Nazi government in its de-valuing, de-personalizing, and desecration of human life. The Nazi Death Camps did not simply kill all the Jewish human lives they murdered – at the Nuremburg Trials it came out that they experimented with using the bodies of the Jews they killed to make products to be sold or given to the people (without telling them the source, of course!). The Nazis made products like “leather” bags, lampshades and “canvas” for painting all made out of Jewish human skin, as well as other products like ashtrays and “Auschwitz soap” from other Jewish human body parts. Having already followed the Nazis’ example in abandoning the Pro-Life principles undergirding all human rights and democracy by “excepting” some human lives from legal protection, by legally defining away the previous right to live of preborn human lives; having already followed the Nazis’ example in killing such de-valued human lives which are considered “unwanted;” having already followed the Nazis’ example in sanctioning those who stand up for the devalued human lives by arresting peaceful Pro-Life protestors and now threatening Pro-Life doctors’ jobs; and having already followed the Nazis’ example by making our doctors into killers instead of healers who swear an oath to “do no harm;” our society has now also followed the Nazis’ example in experimenting with the bodies of the devalued humans killed to make products to be sold or given to the Canadian (and American, etc.) people. These products are mostly health and beauty products, and the American company Senomyx makes flavour enhancers for foods using aborted human kidneys and cell lines in their product development procedures. Starbucks uses products so developed in their cafes. Aborted human cell lines are also now in many of the common vaccines the American and Canadian governments buy for their citizens – without anyone having ever democratically asked the PEOPLE if they wanted the government to approve such “consumer cannibalism” of making vaccines and other products from human fetal-age babies killed by abortion.
“Consumer Cannibalism” – Like the Nazis made “Leather” Bags and Other Products from Killed Jewish Human Bodies, Aborted Fetal-Age Human Products Include Beauty and Health Products and Food Testing. Human “Fetal Cell Lines” Are Living Human Cells Grown from the Killed Baby’s Still-living Cells (With the Killed Baby’s Unique DNA) and Used to Host a “Live Vaccine” Instead of Growing into a Bigger Baby (Already Morally Reprehensible, Furthermore The Baby’s Human DNA Clings to the Live Viral Vaccine Despite All Attempts to Remove it after Growing the Vaccine, and a GROWING Number of Studies Link Aborted Human Cell-Line Vaccines with Increased Cases of Autism – an Unnecessary Health Risk since Effective Vaccines Can and Used to Be Made Morally from Animal Cells Which Do Not Pose this Health Risk)
The term “cell line” means the living baby cells, growing by multiplication to make the baby bigger and bigger, while they are still living are taken out of the just-aborted baby (rushed from the abortion clinic to the science lab that paid for it) and kept alive and kept growing by multiplication in a lab, and the ever-greater number of cells, instead of being part of a bigger baby, are infected with a virus which feeds and multiplies on the multiplying human baby cells until there are enough to make thousands of doses of a “live vaccine.” Science cannot create life, it can only manipulate life which already exists. So whose human life is used to make the vaccine? The aborted baby’s, given an unnatural extension as a living, growing cell line used to make live vaccines instead of being tissue of a bigger living, growing baby. This is akin to the people (especially in China and other places) who are murdered so their still-living organs can be sold on the black market to those who need organ transplants. Thus it remains very morally objectionable that a baby as an independent human organism is not allowed to live and its living cells are harvested and made to service other people, just like black market organs. Moreover, occasionally the vaccines need to be replenished. So I understand the manufacturer keeps the original aborted baby cells frozen, and occasionally has to go back to them to grow more. This is akin to Dr. Frankenstein going back to the human meat-locker in his lab to again violate the dead. The original dead baby’s cells will be reused again and again. And, since some in ignorance will downplay the significance of human cell lines, sometimes calling them merely “aborted fetal byproducts,” remember, any of the cells in the aborted fetal cell line are truly the dead baby’s cells by any principle of biology – living human cells with the dead baby’s absolutely unique human DNA, multiplied/grown from the original living cells of the no longer living baby by the same process which made the living baby grow bigger. But instead of growing into a two then four then six-year-old child, the child’s living, multiplying cells over the years are used and grown (and frozen, and grown again) to make more doses of a live viral vaccine – a repeated violation of a murdered human body. And new aborted human cell-line vaccines are being developed continually, each using more killed human fetal-age babies for their raw material.
Remember, these vaccines are made not with other kinds of animal cells but made using living human cells harvested from the human fetal-age baby killed by abortion – cells grown with the killed baby’s unique human DNA. Some of the killed baby’s unique human DNA are actually IN these “live vaccines,” despite all attempts to remove it before shooting the vaccine into someone’s arm. Some people try to discount how chilling and morally objectionable this is by claiming that the aborted human fetal cell-lines whose DNA is in the vaccines are not the same thing as cells taken directly from the killed baby being in the vaccine (which is the case with some other health and beauty products). I remind these people that using the same principles of biology I might describe my daughters as “non-aborted human fetal cell-lines.” By the same process of biological human life the same living fetal-age human in the womb is made of cells which are multiplied in a “cell line.” If the human fetal cell-line is NOT aborted, it becomes more and more tissue in a bigger baby, toddler, child, teenager, adult. If the same human fetal cell-line IS aborted, it becomes more and more host cells to a live viral vaccine, and some of its unique human DNA remains in the vaccine you get shot into your arm. By this token YOU are a “non-aborted human fetal cell-line,” and you take into your arm an “aborted human fetal cell-line” just like YOU (but with unique human DNA not yours) when you get your vaccine. This is chilling. By this same token my daughter IS a “non-aborted human female fetal cell-line,” and if she takes the vaccine into her arm she could be taking an “aborted human female fetal cell-line” just like her, into her body – perhaps the DNA of a human fetal-age female who was aborted just for being female, in a (sadly now common) sex-selective abortion of females (the modern form of the ancient practice of exposing girls to the elements to die by infanticide just for being female).
All of this is done for the supposed health benefits of a vaccine – but it is completely unnecessary to use HUMAN cell lines to make an effective vaccine, and the human cell lines actually have a distinct disadvantage. An increasing number of studies, including new studies as recent as September 2014 (5 months ago at time of writing) have linked the introduction of new human fetal cell line vaccines into the general population with increases in cases of autism, because, in the words of one expert: “unlike animal cell lines’ DNA, human DNA has the potential to insert itself into the developing brain cells of babies and toddlers through a process known as homologous recombination. DNA does not cross species so this is not an issue with animal based vaccines.” Although an old 1998 study linking the MMR vaccine with autism was later discredited, more recent independent studies have made similar links of increased cases of autism with a greater number of aborted human fetal cell-line vaccines, including, most recently at time of writing, the research paper Impact of Environmental Factors on the Prevalence of Autistic Disorder after 1979 published September 2014 in the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology, (available on the Academic Journals website at: http://www.ms.academicjournals.org/article/article1409245960_Deisher%20et%20al.pdf). Even though the new Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI) is prepared to make ethical (animal instead of killed human host) versions of vaccines which are no longer available, and even though there is much demand for such “moral vaccines” among those not ignorant of the reality of “immoral” aborted fetal-age human cell- line vaccines, SCPI have apparently been blocked from doing so by American agreements with Merck and other companies which make most of the vaccines used in North America and which have chosen to no longer offer moral alternatives (Merck’s Physician Order Number is 800-422-9675, and they will readily admit they use aborted human fetal cell-lines in many of the vaccines they produce). The recent (at time of writing) outbreak of measles in Disneyland is related to moral people knowledgeable about aborted human cell-line vaccines refusing to take them on moral grounds, and asking governments and manufacturers like Merck to provide moral alternative vaccines but the governments and manufacturers are so far not listening to these requests of these people who value all human life (and who thus are among the best long-term protectors of democracy, which depends on the value of all human life).
These highly morally objectionable vaccines are made then bought and advertised by government health agencies, given for free to our children in schools in Canada and the U.S.A., but without informing the public that human DNA grown from babies killed by abortion is in them. This is not necessarily a conspiratorial secret, but confirmation that Health Canada/Immunization Canada uses aborted human cell line vaccines is only available in obscure places on their websites (or was – recently there has been posted the misleading claim that there are not aborted fetal cells in the vaccines – without explaining that there are in fact human cells grown from actual aborted fetal cells, with the aborted baby’s unique human DNA, and without explaining the potential health risk that a growing number of studies since the discredited 1998 study have linked the human DNA in such vaccines to autism). Not only does our government not inform us of something so stomach-turning, and so related to the erosion of modern democracy which came about only in the Pro-Life context of Christian Europe (especially Christian Britain whose Commonwealth of Nations we Canadians belong to), but there appears to be a deliberate policy of deflection of accountability for this. For example, my dear Bride went to Immunization Ottawa in May 2014 and the personnel there pretended not to know anything about aborted human fetal cell lines in vaccines to brush her off, but since my Bride pressed it in lengthy conversation, showing the proof from pamphlets with vaccine manufacturers’ contact information, the employee eventually revealed she knew far more about it than she claimed at first, but attempted to justify the use of human cell-line vaccines saying “we have to make our decisions for the best for the public.” This appears to mean that people in governmental authority over us and paid ultimately by our taxes are deliberately deceitful with us, perhaps even trained to be deceitful with us, to deflect and dissuade any thoughtful concerns we citizens have about how we are being governed, and to assuage and dissuade any actual government accountability to inform and disclose their anti-human (and thus ultimately anti-democratic) policies to the public or to individual citizens – even on controversial matters like human cell-line vaccines related to the extremely controversial abortion procedure which procures the human cells by killing babies who HAD been protected in the womb since 318 AD. DOES THIS MEAN these people in authority over us treat us like we’re already in a Communist country, where the citizens are just sheep expected to go along with whatever the government decides to do “for the best of the public”, and the government has no obligation to inform us of what decisions they are making “on our behalf”, and they want no challenge to their accountability even on issues relating to highly controversial ethical decisions of human life and death? Even when they are making decisions that cheapen the human lives of all of us? Given how highly controversial abortion is in the first place, for the good reasons I have identified in this letter/treatise, I suggest IT IS DEMOCRATICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE TO NOT INFORM THE PUBLIC that killed human DNA is in the vaccines, and to not at least give the public a CHOICE of moral, ethical vaccines as those which used to be made but are in many cases no longer available except from other countries like Japan (but the government refuses to buy ethical vaccines from Japan if asked). But, I must rhetorically ask, why should we expect democratic responsibility from governments which already turned their back on the Pro-Life principles which historically and logically grounds human rights and democracy? Our government since legalizing abortion already no longer logically admits any INHERENT human right to live, so why should we expect dead, killed human remains to be treated any more respectfully than they were in Nazi Germany which also made products out of those humans it killed? “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” We have not been vigilant and WE have allowed things to go this far down the path to totalitarianism. Now we must become educated and stand up for the Pro-Life principles our democracies were nursed in, if we want to be sure our nations will remain democracies long-term.
I am very sad to have to “burst the bubble” of those many innocent minds who (like the average German in World War II) will prefer not to believe some of what is already happening in Canada, the U.S.A. and some other countries, that demonstrates just how much human life has already been desecrated since abortion was legalized after 1600 years banned, from which it logically follows that NONE OF US, who all started our human lives before we were born, have any INHERENT human right to live. Abortion clinics tell girls to come back at certain times for a scheduled abortion, because they know they can sell the dead babies of certain gestational age to certain companies for use in making or developing certain products. Human life is literally no longer sacred and precious, but human death is now a big money business – money apparently now being (once again) of more worth than human life. This “consumer cannibalism” is one area where we have outstripped the Nazis in our society’s devaluing of human life, since they only had time to begin the process of desecrating the dead and experimenting with the remains of those human lives they took after legally defining away their human right to live.
The Rate of Decay of Our Democracies is Slower than Nazi Germany, But the Stages of Decay are the Same
The decay of democracy in Germany happened at an accelerated rate to that we are now more slowly experiencing only because the democratically elected Nazi government actively intended to supplant democracy. Thus, while the process went by many small stages, still within only a decade the German government was able to relatively quickly move from restricting certain freedoms for some humans to redefining these human lives as “less than human” and taking away their human rights (starting with but not limited to the Jews; also the handicapped). From there relatively quickly the government moved on to killing the devalued human lives initially on a more limited scale, then on a massive scale; and eventually moved on to experimenting with the bodies of the murdered Jews in the Death Camps to see what products they could make from all these devalued and discarded human bodies they now had on hand thanks to the large scale killing.
In our case today it seems to be mainly ignorance of the utterly Pro-Life history of human rights and democracy that is leading to the decay of democracy, apparently not with anyone actively and deliberately destroying it (unless they are just patient, which is conceivable); and thus the gradual decay of democracy is taking longer for us. But the loss of OUR democracies is still progressing through the same stages as in Germany. Already, as in Germany, it is no longer true that our government believes in the INHERENT value of human life such that human life is protected by law wherever it exists. As in Germany already here there are exceptions to which human lives our government will protect which means any former notion that all human lives without exception are supremely and equally valuable just for being human life (which is the historical and logical foundation of all human rights and democracy) is already long gone. Already it is true that our government holds that neither YOU nor I have any “inherent” right to live just for being human and being alive; YOUR and MY human lives were only protected by government laws after we had already been alive, healthy, and growing for 9 months (unless we happened to have been in our mother’s uterus BEFORE abortion was legalized. Back then our government still believed in the INHERENT AND EQUAL value of every human life that is the ground of democracy. I was born in the first generation to NOT have a government-recognized inherent human right to live). Already, as in Germany, SOME human lives (in our case starting with the unborn and unwanted, especially if they are handicapped) have been redefined so as to be somehow “less than human” (against all biological science) and have, as in Germany, had the human rights they were once acknowledged to have, taken away. Already here, as in Germany, those human lives who had their human rights legally defined away were initially killed on a more limited scale (for example, women having to pass a tribunal before abortion was approved; abortion only in the first trimester) and then, as in Nazi Germany, the killing of the devalued unwanted human lives moved on to a massive scale (currently abortion for any reason anytime before birth in many countries, in numbers already well exceeding the Nazi Holocaust genocide of their unwanted Jews and the Soviet Holodomor genocide of their unwanted Ukrainians – 7 million of my fellows). Already, as the question “what to do with all the dead bodies” of so many Jewish human lives that were devalued led in the German Death Camps to experimentation with the murdered bodies to see what products could be made and possibly sold for profit from human death, so in our case today the bodies of dead babies whose human rights were likewise taken away were experimented upon, and today, exceeding what Nazi Germany had the time to develop, human death feeds “big business” as devalued fetal age human corpses are bought and sold to make products like vaccines, health and beauty products, and even used to develop “flavour enhancers” by companies like Senomyx in the US. Already, as in Nazi Germany, those who stood up for those Jews and handicapped etc. whose human personhood and human rights had been legally defined away, or refused to facilitate killing them, were themselves punished by the government with arrests, imprisonment, and loss of their position and livelihood, so here already it has begun that Pro-Lifers who stand up – peacefully – for the human personhood and human rights of preborn humans which has been taken away, can and have been arrested and jailed, some long-term, for it. Already as German career soldiers who did not agree with the anti-human Nazi policies were forced to kill or facilitate killing Jewish humans against their conscience or else lose their jobs (or worse), so here doctors who believe in the extreme value of the human lives they treat and do not desire to kill them are already being forced by new or proposed policies to kill or facilitate killing preborn (or old and sick, or suicidal) human lives against their conscience or else lose their jobs and livelihood as doctors.
As the Nazis moved on from Jews and also devalued handicapped human lives and rounded up the handicapped for the death camps, already so today the handicapped are aggressively targeted for abortion as having human lives that are not worth living (and mothers who might be carrying handicapped children with some disorder are pestered to abort). In Germany, after one exception to which human lives had government protection was made (ending the previously acknowledged “human right to live” higher than any government), the killing of human lives once protected without exception naturally eventually extended on to other exceptions for other groups of humans as well, just because one exception meant it was no longer true that human life was inherently precious and must be protected by the government wherever it exists. So already here the one exception of preborn human lives being no longer protected from harm has led to other exceptions being enacted or proposed, like the old and sick and handicapped and depressed, whether or not they ask for it. Logically consistent Pro-Choice intellectuals have proposed legal infanticide calling it “after-birth abortion.” All this means that as in Germany after one exception here too it is getting easier and easier for more and more humans to be legally killed. As in Germany likewise in our democracies today, first taking away the protection unborn human lives once had, because this first exception logically destroyed the entire principle that all human life (without exception) is valuable and precious and must be protected, has naturally led to further groups of human lives no longer being protected from death. The exceptions start slowly and then pick up speed. First only those who want to die and ask to be killed are euthanized. But wherever this has been legalized, the exceptions get longer and doctors get used to killing patients just because the value of human life is no longer the foundation of our whole civilization and all our democracies – which is precisely why we are in such danger of losing them. After one group of humans is no longer protected from death, others follow. That is the inexorable progression. And the restriction of democratic freedoms follows too, starting with those who try to stand up for the human rights of humans who have already been devalued and had their rights and freedoms taken away. The restrictions start small and gradually get bigger if they are not opposed. At first only some Pro-Life protesters will be arrested and jailed – but this has already happened. At first mainly Pro-Life doctors’ freedoms are restricted when they refuse to kill (for now) and at first only the old and sick who first ASK for death are killed (for now) – but if not opposed these restrictions of human rights and freedoms will just get worse and worse, as in Nazi Germany.
In Germany some of the changes marking the gradual loss of democracy were easily visible, and some were hidden. Jews were first denied the right to lesser things, like the right to own bicycles and gramophones (early record players). Later they were denied the human right to live, but this was hidden. Most citizens were uncomfortable with the changes they knew about but were afraid to say anything. Faced with many hidden uncomfortable realities of the killing of human lives going on, whenever evidence called their attention to it many preferred to deny the evidence – “it can’t really be that bad.” But it was. The sick smell coming from the nearby concentration camp can’t really be Jews being burned, can it? But it was. Today many likewise resist believing and coming to terms with the fact our society has already outstripped the Nazis in the area of desecration of the human dead murdered and used to make or develop products we use, including aborted fetal-age human cell-line vaccines bought by our governments which give us the DNA of killed babies right in our arms, without the government asking us if we want the whole big money abortion industry or even informing us it is there, but allowing it to flourish.
If enough of those uncomfortable with the many small changes eroding democracy had earlier stood up to Hitler and his Nazis (who they had elected to lead them, by the way), then the loss of democracy in Germany could have been stopped. “All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.” We can perhaps understand why so many good people who did not like what the Nazi government was doing did not stand up, since the government they had initially elected voted themselves emergency powers and had thugs and bullies with guns enforcing the government’s will. What is our excuse? Yes, some people get arrested for peacefully protesting near abortion clinics, and doctors and other health care providers are being increasingly bullied to shut up about their high esteem for every human life and in some jurisdictions are facing the possibility of losing their jobs if they don’t kill or facilitate killing, which are certainly very disturbing trends, but SO FAR for the most part it seems that the degradation of our democracies is mostly based on governmental ignorance of the historical and logical foundations of democracy in the historic “Pro-Life” principles necessary for the long-term maintenance of democracy, and not a deliberate conspiracy to end democracy. It will certainly end if we do not shore up the eroded foundations, but not so quickly as in Nazi Germany. We are now at a delicate “tipping point” where things could go either way and we need to stand up together for devalued humans NOW while the definite degradation of our democracies is still not so far advanced, and if we do we are much less likely to eventually face guns later for standing up for human rights and freedoms now. If enough of us educate ourselves in “the education necessary to preserve democracy now under attack” as provided in this treatise, and demand from our politicians that they educate themselves in the Pro-Life foundations of democracy and take appropriate steps to ensure the long-term continuance of our democracies, we DEFINITELY CAN reverse the trend away from democracy and back towards totalitarianism since the re-legalization of “Pro-Choice” abortion reversed the development of human rights and freedoms since the 4th Century abandonment of Pro-Choice philosophy.
The Precious-Human-Value-Affirming Pro-Life Principles Traditional Since the 4th Century are Still Very Active in Western Civilization Alongside the Return (with a Vengeance) of the Previous Pro-Choice Philosophy and its Attendant “Human Life is Cheap and Can be Legally Killed” Mindset of the Ancient World; but These Underlying Principles Are So Diametrically Opposed that Political Stability Cannot Last Long-term with Both and (Just like Legal Slavery and Democracy Could Not Co-Exist for the Long-Term) The Tension Will Eventually Need to Be Settled With Consistent Principles of Human Life Guiding Our Western Nations’ Law and Policy, Whether Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. What can We Logically Expect from Each Case?
[Incomplete First Draft New Ending section to Chapter 4]
This chapter started with the question “what logically follows from each position” – Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. So now let us explore and compare the logical consequences if our Western governments were to formally adopt and enforce either the Pro-Life or the Pro-Choice positions as underlying principles guiding government policy and law (on human life issues and as to how to govern humans generally). I note here that as already shown, the Pro-Life position was already less formally the given assumption underlying the long development of our modern democracies since the 4th Century, and the Pro-Choice position becoming dominant as a less formal guiding principle for Western governments at least since the re-legalization of abortion banned in the 4th Century is precisely the cause of the current threats to human rights and democratic freedoms which this treatise seeks to address. For certain both positions for now still operate and influence our Western societies, leading precisely to the confused “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” style of government which I have noted in this treatise because these two positions are fundamentally opposed to each other, leading to human life currently being treated inconsistently, with contradictory laws and policies (e.g. accommodating the handicapped for Pro-Life reasons and aggressively aborting the handicapped for Pro-Choice reasons; e.g. warning pregnant mothers of the dangers of smoking and alcohol to their baby but not warning pregnant mothers of the dangers of abortion to their baby). The Pro-Life and Pro-Choice principles are so diametrically opposed that they cannot co-exist in a single government long-term: logically one must eventually supplant the other because no government can stand long-term on such an unstable foundation — of not even being sure if the humans that are governed are highly valuable and must be protected from harm at all costs, or if in fact human life is not inherently valuable wherever it exists and can be harmed or killed without any necessary government obligation to protect them.
So let us now consider the logical consequences of governments legally clarifying and formally adopting (and enforcing) one position or the other for the sake of consistency and thus for the sake of long-term governmental stability (since the mixed status quo cannot possibly be long maintained because Pro-Choice and Pro-Life forces are too fundamentally incompatible). I have already described in this treatise how much just having the Pro-Choice philosophy and mindset back from ancient brutal times alongside the centuries-hold Pro-Life habits which remain has already, by the internal logic of Pro-Choice philosophy, driven the world-wide Pro-Choice anti-democratic trends this treatise seeks to correct, with already-democracy-destroying results including medical professionals and teachers being bullied into silence about their Pro-Life values or they can be disciplined or lose their jobs and doctors being forced to be killers not dedicated healers against their conscience and peaceful protesters of abortion-killing being arrested and jailed for standing up for human life (and the Pro-Life principles which ground democracy) near abortion clinics. Any legal formalization of Pro-Choice principles against or at the expense of Pro-Life principles can only accelerate the current loss of democracy as a brutal and undemocratic stability is regained. I note the brutal Roman Empire was certainly stable for the long term – lasting a great many centuries – by consistently and brutally applying Pro-Choice logic, that if parents have the right to raise or kill their own children because human life is not INHERENTLY precious, then the government is similarly not at all obligated to protect the human lives or freedoms of their own citizens. But if our Western governments were to now clarify in law and formalize or enshrine the “Pro-Life” principles which were for the most part just assumed as a given in Western Civilization since the 4th century and were underlying (if unconscious) principles undergirding the entire development of our modern democracies, and enforce the practice of these principles, we can reasonably expect it to lead to the following effects:
Some people who now can kill themselves and others legally will be forced to find life- affirming alternatives. The life-affirming laws (at the same time as they guarantee the long-term maintenance of human rights and democracy) will help them overcome the temporary weakness which made them motivated to kill themselves by “assisted suicide” or to kill their baby by abortion (and society as a whole including government will be motivated to find more creative life-affirming ways to support people who are tempted to end human lives, their own or their baby’s, to help them overcome the temptation to kill). Many will be so glad they had a child they learned to love enough to either raise him or her themselves or give up for adoption by those more ready to raise a child. Many will later be so glad they lived to love again, or lived to find out what they still could do to have a fulfilling life even with their new injury/suffering/handicap which tempted them to end their lives before they figured out a way to overcome it in a genuinely human victory over adversity. Many of those who truly are actually dying soon (remember legal euthanasia always gets applied to far more than these as part of the logically progressing devaluing of human lives brought by the Pro-Choice mindset which makes people worth less than money) will appreciate the quality palliative care for the actually dying which they received which helped them to bear the burden of whatever level of suffering they had to undergo while dying.
And even if a few suffered so greatly at the end that we might have sympathy for them if they had a wish to die sooner, at least the precious value of all human life which must be protected, which historically and logically undergirds our whole free and democratic way of life, was affirmed, guaranteeing the long-term maintenance of democracy for all, by society not succumbing to the temptation to kill the old, sick and weak and thereby losing everything by no longer affirming the Pro-Life principles which ground our human rights and freedoms. We must remember (from Chapter 1) that “compassion for suffering” is actually only an excuse to justify euthanasia killing of humans and once legal, euthanasia always reveals its true anti-human and anti-democratic colours, being applied to far, far more than those actually dying and suffering intensely, with leading world euthanasia advocates even speaking of the “duty to die” “even when not in pain” because to the anti-democratic Pro-Choice mindset underlying euthanasia money is worth more than people. Suffering is a natural part of human life (and part of human death) and to avoid any amount of it at all costs (even the cost of losing human rights and democracy for all by taking away the government obligation to always protect human life which turned Western Civilization from brutal to humane) is ultimately anti-human. Our facing, enduring and overcoming suffering of many kinds is a large part of what makes us mature and grow strong as humans. But where euthanasia is legal, killing humans by “assisted suicide” tends towards becoming a “medical treatment” or remedy for all kinds of big or small physical or mental suffering (suicide even a “treatment” for depression, instead of real medical psychiatric treatment to help one overcome the temptation of suicide!). Euthanasia is an “escape” from the gift of our humanity with all its elements, including the natural human experience of suffering which cannot be avoided in any human life, but which makes us grow stronger as we learn to overcome it in a truly human victory. Pro-Life laws and policies will help humans mature individually by not allowing a quick and deadly escape from their humanity at the same time as preserving a safe and free society by upholding the traditional Pro-Life values that undergird human rights and freedoms. The Pro-Choice mindset is ultimately anti-human and always finds ways to devalue human life: “if you are not wanted your human life is not worth living” and you can be killed by abortion; “if you are handicapped from the womb your human life is not worth living” and you are aggressively targeted for abortion; “if you are old, sick or dying” your human life is not worth living and you are encouraged or shamed by your “duty to die” to ask for euthanasia “assisted suicide” to save money and save other’s time and effort so they do not have to care for you (because your human life is not valuable enough to be worth the time, effort and money to care for it). All of these Pro-Choice attitudes are ultimately democracy-destroying, and adding to this list the notion that “if you are suffering your life is not worth living” is similarly dangerous because this too gives government leeway to decide just whose suffering negates the old (Pro-Life) government obligation to protect citizens (and once human life or death is once again decided by the government, we again have the foundation of totalitarianism). Surely there must be better ways to eliminate suffering than by killing sufferers (and taking away the government obligation to protect all human life in the process). In consistently affirming and enforcing the Pro-Life principles, protecting all humans from harm and death, governments will make all stages of human life properly human, including by providing quality palliative care for the dying to ease their suffering in ways which celebrate their whole human life and the gift their human life was to the world, and allow them to truly “die with dignity.” But the alternative,governments resolving the incompatible Pro-Life/Pro-Choice tension by consistently affirming Pro-Choice values, logically spells the end of our free and democratic way of life. Even without the Pro-Choice philosophy yet being legally enshrined as a “right” already all attempts to “ensure access” to abortion are right now trampling democratic freedoms and undermining the foundations of democracy. Religious beliefs “have to be changed” to ensure access to abortion (in Hilary Clinton’s words); life-protecting doctors have to be disciplined and forced to facilitate abortion (and euthanasia) against their conscience and against their free choice, and doctors’ freedom of speech to object to killing humans has to be silenced; peaceful protestors of abortion-killing who dare to go near an abortion clinic have to be jailed. Already people who believe in the Pro-Life principles undergirding democracy are scared to speak freely and no longer live free because they know their jobs or funding can be threatened if they are too actively Pro-Life. Formally enforcing the Pro-Choice position can only restrict more and more freedoms, and logically so. And as more and more Pro-Lifers are jailed or silenced by fear of persecution, as more and more Pro-Lifers have their democratic freedoms of conscience and speech taken away, less and less people will be standing up for everybody’s rights to life and everybody’s freedom as long as it doesn’t impinge on others’ human rights. So we can only expect more and more compromises of human rights and freedoms to follow any more formal enforcement of the Pro-Choice mindset than we already have, which is already seriously threatening democracy.
The comparison is obvious: formalizing Pro-Life laws (and constitutionally enshrining the Pro-Life principles) affirms all human rights and freedoms which only ever developed in a Pro-Life context, so they will last for the long-term. Pro-Life laws only “restrict” the “freedom” to kill, they only restrict the violation of human rights by taking human lives, and this “restriction” of killing affirms and protects ALL of our human lives. Pro-Life laws encourage people to overcome the temporary weaknesses which would tempt them to kill valuable human lives (their own or others) and in the process affirms the supreme value of every human life without exception which is at the foundation of democracy. At the very worst, formalizing and where necessary enforcing Pro-Life values will make some people (who for whatever reason do not overcome the temptation to kill themselves or their babies) feel desperate (even with a new societal emphasis on the preciousness of human life supporting them), and these may do desperate acts to harm themselves or others, but even while this sad thing is happening to a few the formal adoption of Pro-Life principles protects the human rights and freedoms of ALL of us for the long-term, and makes oppressive governmental totalitarianism unthinkable (for the safety of all).
Changing current laws and enforcement policies which allow abortion and euthanasia back to a form restrictive of abortion and euthanasia that upholds the immense value of human life simply means that for the sake of the long-term continuance of human rights and freedoms (which are so compromised by current Pro-Choice laws which are logically taking us back to the Pro-Choice and totalitarian-style government of the ancient world because our laws no longer uphold the inherent preciousness of human life that obligates the government to always protect and serve humans), citizens will be challenged to re-learn the precious value of human life and be challenged to be more mature and loving instead of selfish in areas that involve human life, which can only ultimately make our societies less selfish and more sharing and caring and more humane and affirming of the great value and dignity of every human life, which can only help guarantee human rights last for the long-term. Because human life is precious, sex which produces precious human lives is a great gift and a great responsibility. If laws once again protect all human lives including preborn human lives as they did since 318 AD, while modern human rights and freedoms were gradually developing from the underlying First Principles of the inherent preciousness of human life, then it will simply challenge persons who have grown very immature and undisciplined in the use of the great gift and responsibility of human sexuality (and no longer even associate sex with loving committed marriage and family life) to become more mature and disciplined (no longer able to use legal abortion as a back-up irresponsible form of birth-control), for the sake of the long-term continuance of human rights and freedoms. Surely human rights and freedoms for the long-term are worth a little discipline that helps us become more mature and loving humans (mature, self-giving love being the path also to our lasting happiness).
Commitment to the Pro-Life principles which undergird human rights and democracy will challenge society to figure out better ways to provide better access to quality palliative care for the dying which allows them to truly “die with dignity” instead of succumbing to the quick and easy “Dark Side” temptation to euthanize the old sick and dying or shame them into asking for “assisted suicide” euthanasia because their human lives are no longer regarded as a precious gift to always be protected but a burden to be removed when deemed inconvenient (like all oppressive States believe). For example, providing better social support for unwanted pregnancies to be carried full-term because human life is precious and because this is the basis of all our human rights and freedoms, creatively organizing better structures for linking unwanted pregnancies to childless couples wanting to adopt (given the long waiting lists for adoption and the number of unwanted pregnancies, I am amazed that more creative and effective “supply and demand” managing of resources along these lines has not already been done – except that it is obvious the quick and easy “Dark Side” of killing humans for convenience rather than meeting their needs because they are precious is in play here). Of course, the large number of unwanted pregnancies itself can be drastically reduced by simple practical education in the preciousness of all human life which must be upheld in order to guarantee all of our human rights and freedoms for the long run, making clear the point that this means we must be mature and disciplined in our use of the great gift and responsibility of human sexuality which generates precious humans. If legal abortion is not available as an immature and irresponsible form of “back up” birth control because every human life is precious and because this is the foundation of our free and democratic way of life, then citizens are challenged by the immense value of human life to not foolishly and ignorantly treat sex by which precious human life is generated lightly and cheaply, as if it was merely for recreational pleasure. From a purely scientific, biological perspective, the whole purpose of sex is for procreation, propagation of the species (Christianity would add sex has a further unitive purpose in lovingly uniting a husband and wife as “one flesh,” which naturally generates the next generation of humans and at the same time provides a loving stable family environment in which to raise the next generation of humans to a standard of mature committed love). It is quite literally unnatural to separate sex from procreation, against our very biology, and this unnatural separation has by a logical sequence resulted in the serious compromise of our human rights and freedoms, because it inclines people to immaturely treat sex partners not as valuable persons with whom to raise a family but as mere tools to be used for sexual pleasure – and the unwanted human tools naturally produced by sex are then killed by abortion (and old, worn out human tools are killed by euthanasia), and this easy killing of mere human tools logically means NO human life is inherently precious, and, as shown, human rights and democracy never came about and cannot last without human life being inherently precious (Chapter 7 will discuss the logical connection between sex for pleasure not for committed married family life, Pro-Choice philosophy, and totalitarianism in more depth).
Government consistently applying (and constitutionally enshrining) the Pro-Life principles just means that because human life is always precious and because the preciousness of all human life is the foundation and basis of our whole free and democratic way of life and of all International Law guaranteeing human rights for all humans, individuals will be challenged to live and manage their lives and their interactions with other humans (including elderly, sick, handicapped and preborn humans – as well as Jewish or Black humans whose lives or freedom are no longer threatened by the bigotry now threatening the preborn and the handicapped) in ways that affirm the preciousness of all human life for the sake of the long-term maintenance of human rights and freedoms. And the governments which govern societies will be challenged to never take the “easy and quick” way out of complex social problems by killing inconvenient humans (which can only ultimately compromise our democracies which are based on the preciousness of human life, and which is, in a “Star Wars” analogy, the quick and easy sure “path to the Dark Side”), but governments must work with society to find better solutions to complex social issues which affirm the preciousness of human life which must always be protected, for the sake of the long continuance of human rights and democracy itself which historically and logically depends on the preciousness of all human life and cannot be sustained long without it.
© 2014, 2015 William Baptiste SFO
 The CPSO is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario; this is the government-regulated body of medical professionals who made this new anti-democratic policy as part of doctors’ “self-regulation” specifically because they are implementing governmental regulations which have long been clearly Pro-Choice.
 (At the final vote, Hitler’s thugs prevented some from entering who they knew would vote against him; but by this time he was already the legitimately democratically elected President of Germany!).
 This term was coined by my dear Bride, Lorelle Baptiste, about April 2014, in response to her discovery of the horrible realities of using killed baby human remains to make or develop consumer products intended to give us health benefits and make money, making us consumers into cannibals.
 Or, where current laws technically preclude the selling of aborted human corpses, this technicality is easily overcome with unregulated payments for the “transportation” of the human remains of the abortion procedure. Whatever the money is technically for, abortion clinics make big money sending killed human fetal-age babies to medical labs and companies that use them to develop or make products. Human death means big profits. The widespread secrecy about this is starting to lift with the recent undercover videos of high-ranking members of Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion provider, speaking in mercenary terms about how much money they intend to make by selling dead baby parts.
 [Rough footnote] Especially having established how Pro-Choice philosophy by its own internal logic progressively compromises human rights and freedoms for all of us, the original rationale of legalizing abortion so as to prevent women seeking out illegal abortions which may harm them is shown to be all the more ridiculous. Would we legalize burglary because cat-burglars who are motivated to illegally steal other people’s property by dangerously climbing in through upper-story windows sometimes get hurt while committing their crime? Even if the criminal was motivated to commit his or her crime because of challenging circumstances which made them feel “desperate” enough to commit the crime of stealing, even desperate enough to risk bodily harm or death by entering upper story windows to steal (where they could fall, to their injury or to their death), and even if we had sympathy for the criminal’s difficult circumstances motivating the crime (perhaps he or she is stealing to feed a family?), still it would not change the fact that stealing is fundamentally criminal; still it would not change the fact that the criminal chose to risk bodily harm or death to commit the crime of stealing; and still it would be utterly ridiculous to make it legal to steal, robbing innocent citizens of their legal rights to their own property, in order to prevent those desperate enough to criminally steal from getting hurt or killed while committing their crime. Whatever sympathy we may have for their circumstances, if they got hurt or killed while dangerously committing their crime it is their own fault, it is on their own head, for criminally choosing to break the law and steal. If an inordinate number of people were for sympathetic reasons becoming criminally desperate enough to steal and getting hurt or killed while doing it, an appropriate compassionate response would be to build better social supports so that less people become criminally desperate enough to commit the crime, but it would still never be appropriate to legalize burglary so that burglars do not get hurt while taking serious risks to commit their crime. In the same manner (but more so because human life not just human property is involved in the crime) it was utterly ridiculous to legalize abortion which had been criminalized in 318 AD (making all our human rights possible) just so that those who for whatever reasons (sympathetic or otherwise) felt “desperate” enough to choose to risk getting hurt to commit their crime against the law and crime against humanity (killing another human life exactly like their own and exactly like ours when they and we were that fetal age) by seeking out an illegal abortion (whose illegality had protected everyone’s human lives and freedoms since the 4th Century).
Even by pure statistics the legalization abortion was a horrible trade for humanity, causing 10 times the human deaths it sought to prevent: Canada has about 10 times the number of entirely innocent preborn humans being killed by legal abortion each year as there were reputed (in inflated estimates) to be women killed in illegal abortions who criminally chose to risk their lives while murdering their own child against the law (which upheld everybody’s human rights) and against the primary human right to live their child had just as much as they had. Making a serious crime against humanity legal just because some were criminally desperate enough to commit the crime got hurt simply encouraged 10 times as many women who were NOT criminally desperate and who may not have even thought to break the law and become murderers (and so were not at risk from illegal abortions) to commit merely “for convenience” the same crime against humanity as the criminally desperate did. Would we de-criminalize any other crime because the criminals who commit the crime sometimes get hurt? Only age-discrimination bigotry against preborn humans just like each of us when we were their fetal age makes the notion of legalizing abortion to save mothers with murderous intent from getting hurt while murdering their child even conceivable. And very many criminals feel “desperate” enough (for whatever reason) to commit their crime, and even “desperate” enough to take a risk to their safety so they can commit their crime. Some (by no means all) of the reasons criminals feel “desperate,” motivating their crime, may be worthy of sympathy. But if some are desperate enough for sympathetic reasons to criminally steal, is the solution to de-criminalize stealing, or is the solution to uphold the law but seek social reforms and social support programs that lessen people’s temptations to become criminally desperate? Because human life not just property is involved, a closer analogy would be if a woman hired a hit-man to (against the law) murder her ex-boyfriend who had beaten her, we might feel somewhat sympathetic to her reasons but it would still be murder, and if the hit-man accidently killed her while carrying out the murder she had hired him to do (perhaps she had to “set-up” her ex-boyfriend by meeting with him so the hit-man could snipe him, but this put her in the line of fire), it would still be by her own choice to murder that she got killed – and it would certainly not be appropriate to legalize the hit-man’s profession as they legalized the abortionist’s profession to prevent such unintended deaths of those who conspired to murder a human life. Please note that in actuality, a closer analogy yet would be if a woman for whatever reason hired a hit-man to murder her innocent toddler child who was already born, but the hit-man accidentally killed both child and mother in the shooting. It would be a tragedy that the mother got killed, but her death would be on her own head because she was killed in the act of murdering her own toddler child through a hired hit-man, and the innocent toddler child’s death at the same time from his or her mother’s violent and criminal action would be even more tragic. Please note that if you think or feel this analogy of a mother hiring a hit-man to kill her toddler-age child is extreme and a mother hiring an abortionist to kill her fetal-age child is not analogous, it is ONLY BIGOTRY AGAINST PREBORN HUMANS despite their genuine humanity and personhood (which Chapter 3 shows is supported by biological science) which makes you feel the two cases are not closely analogous. ONLY bigotry against preborn humans that denies their personhood and human rights despite their obvious and scientifically verifiable humanity, ONLY bigotry of the same rank of ignorance and evil as the Nazi bigotry which similarly denied personhood and human rights to Jewish humans despite their obvious humanity, could possibly allow the argument that somehow was ridiculously (yet successfully) used, that abortion should be legalized to prevent mothers from seeking out dangerous illegal abortions in which they might be killed while someone they criminally hired to do so is killing their preborn child against the law and against the human rights all humans need to have for democracy to work and to last. So clearly, if a woman for whatever reason, however sympathetic it might be, feels desperate enough to kill her own child that she is willing to risk her own life while committing the crime in a dangerous illegal abortion (as in the “cat burglar” analogy where a man feels desperate enough to steal to feed his family that he is willing to risk his own life while committing the crime in a dangerous upper-story cat-burglary), the solution in either case cannot be to legalize the crime, which can only make more innocent people victims, because it only motivates many more people, who are NOT criminally desperate, to commit the same crime as the criminally desperate. The solution has to be to uphold the law which protects the rights of everyone (the right to life or the right to property) but seek social reforms and social support programs that lessen people’s temptations to become desperate enough to commit a crime, whether a crime against humanity or a crime against property.
© 2014, 2015 William Baptiste SFO