Legal Euthanasia Makes Human Lives Worth Less Than Money

Go To Chapter 1 Introduction: Democracy Under Threat  (Scroll Down to Conclusion to continue from this Euthanasia insertion)

Go To Chapter 2: The History of Human Rights and Freedoms

Legal Euthanasia Logically Follows Legal Abortion in the Progressive De-Valuing of Human Lives No Longer Worth the Money and Loving Effort it Takes to Care for Human Needs Long-term

[This new section incorporating euthanasia/assisted suicide substantially into the treatise is a first draft/collection of Pensées (thoughts) in Draft 2.1.  I have attempted to order the separate “pensées” into an order with a reasonable “flow” of important insights or ideas]

The Pro-Choice Abortion Mindset (De-valuing Preborn Human Lives) that Needy Human Life is a Burden to be Removed Rather Than Always a Gift to be Treasured and Protected Naturally Leads to Euthanasia-Killing of Other Needy Human Lives Which Also Take Money and Effort to Care For Long-term – Insidiously Introducing Government-sanctioned Legal Killing of Adult Humans in Addition to Preborn Humans as in Oppressive States; and Cheapening All Human Life (as in Oppressive States) Such That Money Once Again is More Valuable Than Humans (As Before the 4th Century Adoption of the Historic “Pro-Life” Principles), Such that If Humans are Not Materially “Productive” For the State/Society or Take Money and Effort to Care For They Can Be Legally Killed by Euthanasia (often Shamed into Asking for Euthanasia in “Assisted Suicide” Because Their Human Lives are a Burden to be Removed Not a Gift Worth Lovingly Looking After – The De-valuing of Adult Human Lives Too in Full Congruence With the Same Pro-Choice Abortion Mentality that Human Life is NOT Inherently Precious and Can Be Killed When Deemed Inconvenient – As Also Believed by All Oppressive States)

Are our individual human lives fundamentally a gift to be treasured and protected by the State (and aided in reaching their human fulfilment) or fundamentally a burden to be removed when not “productive” and “useful” to the State or to the society as a whole?  As discussed more in Chapters 2, 5 and 6 the Pro-Life mindset of the supreme and equal value of every human life without exception, after it was embraced by Western Civilization in the 4th Century, was the underlying motivation for the State starting to protect human life wherever it existed (including in the womb since 318 AD) and for States to limit and eventually stop their previous supreme power of life or death (and slavery) over their citizens and subjects (the government killing its own citizens afterwards mainly limited to the death penalty reserved mainly for criminals considered dangerous to society or traitors who could dangerously destabilize a whole society[1]). This Pro-Life mindset was directly responsible for healthcare and education and charity for the needy being made available to as many humans as possible as the most appropriate to human dignity and to assist precious human individuals in having fulfilling human lives, initially provided mostly on a volunteer basis by missionaries and religious orders but eventually governments holding the same high esteem for individual human lives took over these functions.

In contrast, the whole underlying mindset and logic behind de-criminalizing euthanasia, which is only possible after de-criminalized abortion has already established that human life is NOT an inherently precious gift always to be protected from harm, is that needy human life is a burden to be removed and not a gift to be treasured and protected.  But because the very long Pro-Life tradition of Western Civilization since the 4th Century makes most people innately assume that human life is valuable and precious and worthwhile to care for regardless of social status or wealth or suffering ill health or handicap and so on, the new practice of killing human lives legally (young or old or sick) has to be dressed in the language of “compassion,” as if killing humans somehow respects their humanity (even though the first of all human rights without which the others are meaningless for all of us is the human right to live).  Hence abortion advocates speak as if killing unwanted human babies is supposed to “compassionately” protect them from growing up poor and abused (when the babies are considered at all – usually the “compassion” focuses on the mother’s convenience to end her problems and pretends there is not another human life involved in abortion at all).  Abortion was initially de-criminalized for “extreme” cases where the mother did genuinely suffer some hardship from her pregnancy, but once the inherent preciousness of human life was thus abandoned by de-criminalizing abortion it led to abortion-on-demand for any reason including things as trivial as “I have plane tickets on my due date.”  With abortion-on-demand mothers are now encouraged to be irresponsible with something as precious as human life and even to use abortion as an extremely irresponsible means of birth-control.  So de-criminalizing abortion was never really about “compassion,” it was really about (short-sighted and democracy-destroying) convenience.  De-criminalizing abortion was a foolish “quick fix” which avoided finding other social supports for the mother in those (much fewer) cases where the mother genuinely faced hardship in her pregnancy, solutions which did not logically make every human life no longer inherently precious, which would have saved our democracies from the current threat this treatise addresses.  In like manner euthanasia is always introduced as an “extraordinary” means of “compassion” and “mercy” for those terminally ill (who would soon die anyway) who are enduring “unbearable suffering” and who ask for it.  Like the arguments for the initial legalizing of abortion, these conditions make euthanasia/assisted suicide sound reasonable on the surface even as it insidiously crosses the next big line in humanity’s protection by introducing government-sanctioned legal killing of adult humans who nobody disputes are persons in addition to previously crossing the first big line in humanity’s protection (all human life without exception is precious) with government sanctioned legal killing of preborn humans whose personhood was disputed (by the discredited “tissue blob” argument) when abortion was de-criminalized (even though both scientifically and historically preborn humans are just as worthy of recognized human personhood as adults – see Chapter 3).  The (like Pro-Choice abortion) fundamentally anti-human and thus ultimately anti-democratic nature of euthanasia quickly shows its true colours, however, because once legal euthanasia in practice if not as quickly in law becomes perpetrated upon more and more persons for more and more reasons, terminal or non-terminal, with or without great pain, and whether or not it is asked for. Legal euthanasia becomes (like legal abortion which was condemned as “an act of extermination” at the Nuremberg Trials in 1948) yet another convenient way to exterminate those humans who are not valued by a society which no longer holds the Pro-Life principle of the supreme and equal value of every human life without exception which historically and logically undergirds all human rights and freedoms.  Some high-profile euthanasia advocates are even extremely blunt in their rejection of this principle foundational to human rights and democracy and clearly express their prejudice that no longer “productive” citizens (whether or not they are in pain) are not worth keeping alive and even have a “duty to die” because their lives are no longer worth living and they are merely a “burden” on a society which no longer recognizes the inherent preciousness of human life and no longer thinks it is worth the loving effort and monetary cost to take care of human needs.  We have come full circle:  after de-criminalizing abortion and euthanasia, individual human lives are once again only valuable as they can serve the greater State/society, as before the Pro-Life principles criminalized the abortion of humans and exalted the status of humans and first gave us human rights.

Regardless of any legal wizardry supposedly intended to prevent the abuse of the awesome power given doctors to legally kill undisputed human persons with government sanction, wherever euthanasia is de-criminalized in practice more and more people are being killed/euthanized by doctors for more and more reasons including non-life threatening and thoroughly treatable conditions like diabetes and even people not in pain who are perfectly healthy but want to die for reasons of “psychological suffering” – people who would normally be treated for depression and suicidal tendencies to help them re-find their temporarily lost sense of meaning in life because their human lives are inherently valuable (according to the Pro-Life mindset underlying human rights and democracy) are instead killed by a doctor because their human lives are a burden (according to the Pro-Choice mindset).  Studies have shown that doctors typically seriously under-report how many of their patients who died they actually killed/euthanized – and with or without consent of the patient and even without informing the patient’s family.  Studies in Flanders have even shown that almost half of euthanasia deaths in the region go officially unreported (and often without being asked for).   Doctors simply should not have this incredible power of life or death over citizens, which is why the traditional doctors’ Hippocratic Oath made it unthinkable for doctors to be killers in the first place, but in order to make abortion possible Pro-Choice forces managed somehow to get medical colleges to abandon this key element of the great medical tradition meant to establish TRUST between doctors and the patients who put their health and their very lives in doctors’ hands.  The logical progression of the Pro-Choice mindset now in more and more jurisdictions (such as in Europe and Ontario) is taking the next step and not only making doctors not take the Hippocratic Oath not to harm or kill their patients, but now actually forcing doctors to be party to the killing of their patients at least by requiring them to “effectively refer” for abortions or euthanasia or else lose their jobs for trying to be trustworthy dedicated healers not killers according to the great Hippocratic medical tradition!  (The Doctors for Democracy movement I have just started has the whole weight of the medical tradition behind it in medical professionals and patients demanding the right of doctors to follow the Hippocratic medical tradition and not kill humans or be party to the killing of humans, and the right of patients to have doctors they can trust are not killers because they have taken the Hippocratic Oath.  This protects doctors’ democratic rights not to be forced to kill humans against their conscience – something which we should expect only in totalitarian states – and is a great first step in defending democracy itself which ultimately depends on every human life being treated as precious.  See my website http://protecthumanrightsandfreedoms.ourchur.ch/doctors-for-democracy).

 

A Leading World Euthanasia Advocate Reveals What Legal Euthanasia is Really All About: Not Compassion But Money. “Pensioners” (Drawing on Government Money) “Unable to Look After Themselves” Have “a Duty to Die” and Not Be a “Burden” and Should Be “Helped to Die” (that is Killed) “Even If They Are Not In Pain”

The above synthesis of a leading euthanasia advocate’s words are not pulled out of context but simply a logical correlation of the guiding principles she has clearly expressed.  The underlying anti-human and thus anti-democracy money and time-saving real reasons behind the push for euthanasia in so many Western countries, which explain how out-of-control euthanasia gets wherever it has already been legalized (and so far away from the initial justification of legal euthanasia as “only” for those terminally ill who would soon die anyway who are enduring “unbearable suffering” and who ask for it), are clearly discernible in the words of the influential British medical ethics expert the Baroness (Lady) Warnock, a leading euthanasia advocate who has been touted as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher.”  Lady Warnock is reported in British newspaper The Telegraph[2] as saying:

Dementia sufferers may have a ‘duty to die’

pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

pensioners who do not want to become a burden on their carers should be helped to die.

she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves.

Here a leading world euthanasia advocate tells us what euthanasia is really all about.  To the underlying ultimately Pro-Choice mindset behind euthanasia, just like human babies are too burdensome to love and care for it is also simply not worth the money and effort to love and care for elderly and sick humans, who should be shamed into asking for euthanasia as their “duty to die” and healthy people should be licensed to “put them down” just like animals because human life is not inherently precious in this Pro-Choice mindset.  The elderly pensioners drawing on government money “should be helped to die” (that is, should be killed) “even if they are not in pain” – because the “compassion” of “easing the suffering” of the terminally ill about to die anyway was never what legalizing euthanasia was really about, but was only an excuse to get euthanasia legalized, only an excuse to get around that pesky Pro-Life concept of the supreme and equal value and worth of every human life (which grounds democracy) which would flatly object to killing humans unless it was made to sound like it had something to do with respecting and loving humanity.

This false compassion for human life hiding the actual devaluing of human life as worth less than the money it costs to care for it so that human beings can be legally “put down” as if they were animals is in sharp contrast to how in a natural human family following the long Western Pro-Life tradition that human life is always valuable there is a natural and loving family balance that our parents take care of us when we are too young (or sick) to take care of ourselves and we take care of our parents when they are too old (or sick) to take care of themselves, at least by ensuring they have adequate medical care for their physical needs in a “nursing home” or hospital when their needs become too great to take care of at home, or a palliative care center when they are dying, remembering that our parents lovingly took care of our great and expensive physical and material needs when we were babies and children.   In this leading euthanasia advocate’s words it is specifically pensioners who are a “burden” and are “wasting people’s lives” because they have more needs than a young healthy adult to take care of – that is, those elderly pensioners who are drawing on government resources by drawing a pension, government money (which they contributed to when they were healthy and working), are just not worth the money.  The government would rather have the money than take care of the elderly; money is worth more than people.  So is time.  The healthy have better things to do than take the time and loving effort it takes to look after the needs of the elderly and sick, therefore “even if they are not in pain” the old and sick should “not want to become a burden on their carers” and should be “helped to die” (that is, killed) “for the sake of their loved ones and society” – that is, for the sake of saving money and time for the young and healthy family members and for a society at large that no longer values human life, no longer cares for the value of a lifetime of contributing to society, and is now ready to throw out “used humans” whose strength is spent, like throwing out a spent battery or a worn-out tool, because there is no longer any preciousness to human life grounding our self-centered society.  Thus the elderly and sick are shamed by the Pro-Choice mindset into thinking they are only valuable as long as they are contributing in certain measureable and material ways to society and not drawing on much of society’s resources for the care of their human needs, shamed into thinking that they themselves should realize how little value their human lives are now and should ask to be euthanized – an attitude which can only progress eventually to an obligation to be euthanized because a society formed in a Pro-Choice mentality is no longer willing to put up with needy human lives who cannot take care of themselves.

Thus the real reasons underlying legal euthanasia are utterly anti-human.  Lady Warnock even literally degrades human life down to the level of mere animals (no longer special animals with the unique human reason and spiritual soul that makes human life uniquely precious) by using the same expression of “putting them down” that is commonly used for the euthanasia of animals.  Unlike the preborn who (without any actual scientific justification) are formally denied the human personhood which preborn humans had since the 4th Century criminalization of abortion (which is as long as any humans have been called persons), euthanasia victims are not formally denied personhood. Yet still they are not treated as supremely valuable persons anymore but are reduced to the value of the money they cost the government or their family to take care of them, and the government would rather have the money.  If the family has been absorbing the changing now anti-human Pro-Choice values of society then the family too would rather have the money, get their inheritance early and save the time and effort it takes to care for valuable persons.  So it is not just preborn human life that has been devalued by the Pro-Choice mentality. All human lives have been devalued and are no longer worth the love, time, effort, and money it takes to care for them if they are no longer able to produce for the State/society in materially tangible ways.  Euthanasia is ultimately just as Pro-Choice (and anti-democratic) as abortion, rooted in the belief that human life is NOT inherently precious and the government is therefore NOT obligated to protect human life wherever it exists.

 

Suicide is No Longer a Human Tragedy But Becomes a “Medical Treatment” for Depression Where Euthanasia Is Legal

There are other serious anti-human issues surrounding legal euthanasia as well, such as the tragedy of the suicide of a family member becoming a “medical treatment” that is not even discussed with the family.  Legal “assisted suicide” euthanasia in Belgium put chemistry professor Dr. Tom Mortier into the bizarre situation of having to write an article “How My Mother Died: A mentally-ill Belgian woman sought euthanasia to escape her problems. The doctors told her, sure, why not?”[3], in which he asks  “how it is possible for euthanasia to be performed on physically healthy people without even contacting their children?”  “How is it possible that people can be euthanased in Belgium without close family or friends being contacted?” “Why didn’t the doctors try to arrange a meeting between our mother and her children?”  Dr. Mortier notes “These doctors are nowadays even discussing euthanasia for people suffering from autism and youngsters who are suicidal . . . Are we going to control suicides in the nearby future by putting people out of their misery before they can do it themselves – instead of investing in mental health and palliative care?”  People who need psychological care and assistance for depression are instead offered assisted suicide!   Regarding the “culture of death” that legal euthanasia brings with it, in Dr. Mortier’s estimation,

We are rapidly changing into a society of absolute loneliness where we don’t want to take care of each other any more. And when we suffer, we ask our doctors to kill us, breaking fundamental biological and human laws. However, by doing this, we create new and insoluble problems. Therefore, we really should rethink what we believe in. Is it life or is it death?

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition writes “Assisted suicide is a form of abandonment.  It is a tragic end for people seeking help.  When people receive good end-of-life care (physical, psychological and emotional care), they do not seek death by lethal drugs.”  Providing quality psychological care for the depressed and palliative care for the dying is an alternative that does not contribute to the de-valuing of humanity and thus to the degradation and eventual loss of democracy.  If actually caring for human needs costs more money than killing humans, is that not to be expected?  And is not precious human life worth the effort and time and money to take care of?  It was seen as so during the whole long period that modern human rights and freedoms were gradually developing since the 4th Century.  When governments did not have either the resources or the will to take better care of their citizens’ needs, missionaries, priests and religious orders did their best to care for them and to remind rulers, government officials, and wealthy citizens, of the supreme and equal dignity of every human life, to engage resources being invested into precious humanity (the priest Saint Vincent de Paul was particularly successful here and centuries later still has many religious and lay charitable organizations named after him).  The success of these efforts to convince governments that every human life is precious and worthwhile to invest in is what gives us the ideal of modern healthcare and education for everyone, and charity for the needy, provided no longer just by missionaries and religious orders but by governments, these things even described as human rights governments are ideally obligated to provide since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which by the way never intended to exclude preborn humans from having full human rights; in 1948 the preborn had been protected by law or custom since the 4th Century, and in that same year legal abortion in Nazi Germany was condemned in the Nuremberg Trials as “an act of extermination” and “a crime against humanity”).  Legal abortion and legal euthanasia (both fueled by the Pro-Choice mindset) both undermine the whole concept of the preciousness of humanity governments are obligated to care for which gave us modern human rights and freedoms.

 

Like Legal Abortion, Legal Euthanasia Paves the Way for the Return of Totalitarianism

Thus sadly in a logical progression of the underlying Pro-Choice mentality that needy human life is a burden to be removed rather than a gift to always be treasured and protected which has already given us the government-sanctioned killing of preborn humans by doctors in legal abortion, currently very many Western countries or states have either already legalized (especially in Europe and some American states) or are in the process of legalizing euthanasia-killing by doctors, starting with “assisting the suicide” of those who wish to be euthanized by a doctor as an escape from whatever they may be suffering (but typically degenerating into doctors euthanizing patients who take more money or effort to care for with or without the consent of the patient or their family).  This treatise considers that Western democracies are here as with legal abortion abandoning the great “Pro-Life” heritage of Western Civilization (every human life without exception is equally precious and should be protected from harm), the Pro-Life foundation which gave us modern human rights and democracy, mainly through ignorance of what they are doing (just because the historical and logical foundations of democracy were laid so long ago, in the 4th Century, that our democracies have consciously forgotten what was unconsciously assumed when our modern democracies were established and simply do not understand what they are doing and so do not recognize the danger).  However, it is disturbing that “assisted suicide” or “assisted dying” where doctors kill humans who ask for it is the obvious and best way to insidiously re-introduce the government-sanctioned killing of adult humans who after so many centuries of the underlying Pro-Life principles undergirding modern democracy are now used to government protecting humans from harm.  Human adults who (unlike preborn humans already devalued by the government) are capable of speaking up for themselves to protect themselves, are less likely to see the ultimate potential danger to themselves of the government once again sanctioning the legal killing of adult humans like themselves, if at first it is only those human adults who “want” to die and ask to be killed who are killed.  I do not expect that current governments are deliberately preparing for future totalitarian states.  But they certainly are paving the way for them by re-introducing the government-sanctioned killing of humans (young or old) against the long Pro-Life tradition that made all Western governments ultimately accountable to protect and serve always-precious human lives, which accountability developed logically into modern human rights and democracy, and history teaches us we should be wary of political opportunists waiting to take over when the conditions are right even if these things come from ignorance and are not part of a deliberate conspiracy to end democracy.

The very dangerous for humans and ultimately democracy-destroying nature of these new euthanasia policies which flow naturally from the fundamentally anti-human and anti-democratic Pro-Choice philosophy is demonstrated by the fact that in so many jurisdictions, most especially those which already have legal euthanasia in addition to abortion, doctors who are the instruments of killing humans have their democratic freedoms not to be killers taken away by current policies which demand that doctors give up their democratic freedom of conscience and freedom of speech to object to killing humans and MUST participate in the killing of humans against their conscience at least by “effective referral” (if you don’t want to pull the trigger yourself, you HAVE TO at least hand the gun to someone who will).  If abortion and euthanasia were REALLY about GENUINE human compassion in an environment that genuinely HIGHLY VALUES human life, why would it be necessary to trample the democratic freedoms of doctors who highly value human life to make sure that humans can be killed without the pesky moral values of doctors who think human life is precious getting in the way?  And once all the people who are most inclined to protect human life wherever it exists have been effectively bullied and silenced by Pro-Choice forces, then it is all the easier for the Pro-Choice mindset to progress onto the next logical stage of the totalitarianism which I have shown the Pro-Choice mentality has always been associated with since ancient times.  U.S. Presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton has already demonstrated how very willing she is to go the next step of using totalitarian belief control to “change” “deeply held religious beliefs” that oppose Pro-Choice abortion, to make sure the killing that devalues all of our human lives can continue.  Again, because of so many centuries of Western Pro-Life habits most people, including our politicians, still at least SAY they believe in human rights and democratic freedoms, thus in this treatise I have been working from the assumption that Pro-Choice forces including politicians like Hilary Clinton have been undermining our democracies mainly out of ignorance of what they are doing, out of ignorance of the “human life is cheap” totalitarian milieu the Pro-Choice mindset originally comes from which Pro-Choice philosophy will by its own internal logic eventually take us back to simply because it is necessary to bully and trample the freedoms of those who would defend and protect de-valued human lives in order to ensure human lives can be legally killed unimpeded (just like those who defended the de-valued Jews had their jobs and freedom threatened in Germany).  This treatise aims to be the antidote to this democracy-threatening ignorance.  But once this “education necessary to preserve democracy now under attack” becomes more and more known by more and more voters who start demanding accountability to the Pro-Life foundations of democracy from their politicians, we will have to watch very closely how Hilary Clinton and other Pro-Choice politicians react:  will they start to bring democracy back where it has been eroded so that Pro-Lifers who believe in the Pro-Life foundations of democracy are no longer so often scared to speak freely their belief in the value of every human life, will they constitutionally enshrine the historic Pro-Life principles which underlie modern democracy and which are necessary for democracy to continue long-term, or will they continue to try to ignore or discredit any Pro-Life position and continue to tighten their grip on power and continue to lead our democracies back to the totalitarianism that was common back when Pro-Choice philosophy ruled in the ancient world?

In the meantime we must not be fooled by the language of “compassion” being used to hide the “thin edge of the wedge” that will ultimately separate us from our human rights and freedoms that lies within euthanasia rhetoric.  The countries and states which have legalized euthanasia or are in the process of doing so for now are simply speaking of offering the option to kill the old, sick or handicapped and dying, though just offering this option which used to be illegal (because governments understood human life was precious and they were obligated to protect human life wherever it existed) is in fact already de-valuing human life and encouraging people to take this new option.  Still for now it is only those who are depressed enough or manipulated and shamed enough by the Pro-Choice “needy human life is a burden” mentality who ask for it who are officially being euthanized by “assisted suicide” (though unofficially Pro-Choice doctors are euthanasing many more even without the patients’ consent and, as studies have shown, are seriously under-reporting the numbers of human persons they are killing).  But as this Pro-Choice “human life is a burden to be removed” mentality gains more ground at the expense of Pro-Life “human life is gift to be protected” mentality, it will become less and less necessary to pretend euthanasia is about caring for human lives – the current new “offering the option” can be expected to go to strongly encouraging the option and eventually to obligation – “how dare you burden society and your family with all your human needs,” as if only healthy adult lives are worth living and the fact that babies, the elderly, the sick and handicapped have greater needs makes them not worth lovingly looking after their needs any more.  And if they are dying, let us speed up the process instead of taking the loving effort and cost of providing quality palliative care.  Top euthanasia advocates like Lady Warnock have already spoken of the “duty to die,” and we can only expect legal euthanasia to develop in this direction of formal obligation to die, especially because already while legally patients have to ask for euthanasia to end “unbearable suffering” the common practice in the countries where euthanasia is legal is for doctors to seriously underreport how many patients they are actually killing, with or without great pain and with or without the patient asking for it (the latter being first degree murder).  Already doctors in such countries are “obligated to kill,” forced to kill or be party to killing at least by referral to killing doctors against their conscience and against all democratic rights.  Already in countries and states where euthanasia is still illegal it is sometimes carried out secretly, with or without the patient’s asking for it but because doctors decide as they do where it is legal that it is not worth the effort and money to prolong the patient’s life.  And all of this is because of the insidious anti-human and ultimately democracy-destroying Pro-Choice mindset that takes away the inherent preciousness of human life and reduces the value of human lives to the value of their productivity for the state/society (compassion for suffering only an excuse to cover the low esteem for human life held by the Pro-Choice mindset).

The advancement of the Pro-Choice mentality (the specter of its return from brutal ancient times causing the Pro-Life mentality which gave us human rights and freedoms to retreat along with our rights and freedoms) has resulted in inconsistent “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” societal values and governmental policies.  To the degree that our Western societies still have Pro-Life habits of valuing all human life, we still accommodate the handicapped and elderly and look after the sick and the dying and care for their needs (“Dr. Jekyll”).   But to the extent that the Pro-Choice mindset is embraced, we find new reasons and excuses to kill more humans by abortion and euthanasia (“Mr. Hyde”).  Nowhere is the governmental “split personality” about the value of human life more evident than in government-made posters warning pregnant mothers of how alcohol and smoking during pregnancy can harm their baby – proving that governments know the 1970s “tissue blob” argument used when abortion was legalized is way out of date, governments know it is a human baby in the womb and they should protect these vulnerable human lives from being harmed by their mother’s ignorance of the dangers posed by things like smoking and alcohol (“Dr. Jekyll”) – yet the same governments make no attempt to warn frequently seriously ignorant mothers of the grave danger to identical human babies posed by all abortion techniques (“Mr. Hyde”).  Somehow the same governments do not even make any attempt to warn pregnant mothers of the many known and medically documented health risks of abortion to the mother herself.

As only one specifically Canadian example of the moral confusion of our inconsistent “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” governments since the de-criminalization of abortion, the Canadian Government has bestowed its highest civilian honour, the Order of Canada, on two men, Jean Vanier (Ph.D.) and Dr. Henry Morgentaler:  the first for being a champion of human dignity, the founder of L’Arche, a Federation of 147 communities in 35 countries and on 5 continents, in which the mentally handicapped or “developmentally delayed” suffering intellectual disabilities and their caregivers live together in mutually rewarding community; and the second for being the pioneer of abortion-on-demand in Canada which has resulted in the mentally handicapped including Down’s Syndrome babies and others who could have ended up in a L’Arche community which celebrates their humanity now instead being aggressively targeted for abortion by Pro-Choice doctors who pester mothers to abort them because in the Pro-Choice abortion mindset underneath legal “abortion on demand” of course the very first children to be killed instead of raised with love are the handicapped – their human lives are seen as not worth living and definitely not worth the effort of caring for like they are in a L’ Arche community.  In the government acting as “Dr. Jekyll” one man is awarded Canada’s highest honour for lovingly taking care of handicapped humans in a way that celebrates and learns from their full humanity despite their limitations, and (acting as “Mr. Hyde”) another man is given the same honour for devaluing the humanity of humans with the same handicaps to such a gross extent that they now are targets to be legally killed in Canada.  In a world-class confirmation of Jean Vanier’s worthiness of the Order of Canada,

The Templeton Foundation has just announced from London that [it] has awarded the 2015 Templeton Prize to Jean Vanier, for his innovative discovery of the central role of vulnerable people in the creation of a more just, inclusive and humane society. The Templeton Prize, which has previously been awarded to Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and others, is one of the most prestigious honors in the world . . . According to Jean Vanier, this prize honors primarily the most vulnerable among us, often marginalized in our societies, and to whom he attributes his discovery.  It is these people who revealed to him that any person who has been previously rejected, when welcomed, becomes a source of dialogue, of healing, of unity and of peace for our societies and our religions.

In sharp contrast, Dr. Henry Morgentaler’s abortion-on-demand legacy in Canada is right now actively undermining our whole democracy with medical professionals all over our country often afraid to speak freely against abortion in our supposedly free country.  And Canadian doctors from Ontario are now forced to give up their democratic freedoms to speak or act on any objection to killing humans, in order to ensure humans can be killed by abortion.  Doctors will soon be forced to facilitate killing of the old and sick too as Canada has just decriminalized euthanasia in the logical progression of Pro-Choice philosophy resulting in a less and less humane country where more and more humans can be legally killed for more and more reasons all because human life is no longer seen as inherently precious since the de-criminalization of abortion and Morgentaler’s victory of “abortion on demand.”  Only one of these men deserves the Order of Canada being bestowed on them by a democratic government and no logically consistent country who believes in democracy from its foundations could award both these men.  What massive moral confusion in our government!

The Pro-Choice mindset starts with “this fetal-age baby human impinges on my life too much already and once born will have too many needs for me to look after and so it is not worth the time and effort to lovingly bear and raise this child,” and in logically progression now the Pro-Choice mindset says “this old, sick, handicapped or dying” adult also has too many needs and so it is not worth the time and effort to lovingly minister to their needs or provide quality palliative care for the dying.  Human life is a burden to be removed not a precious gift to be protected, and therefore the old, sick and handicapped should be offered the new option of “assisted suicide” euthanasia; as this mindset progresses,  they should be encouraged to take this new option; as it progresses further they should be shamed into not being a burden on society or their family so they will take this new option; and eventually, “they should just be euthanized without any choice in the matter in order to save all the time, effort and money it takes to keep them alive.”  In all of this our whole society becomes less and less humane because the starting point was the Pro-Choice abortion denial of any inherent high value or worth to human life that obligated governments to protect or serve humans in the first place.  The Pro-Choice logic comes to its mature conclusion – it started with death for those too young to take care of themselves yet and progresses to more death, for all those who cannot take care of themselves any longer, devaluing all of us who are human in the process.

In the meantime doctors are made into killers instead of dedicated healers, even against their will, in a major compromise of democracy.  Human life is cheap and individual human lives are valuable only in as much as they materially serve a greater State/society once again, just like in the brutal ancient (and Pro-Choice) world.  But human rights and democracy were built on the historic Pro-Life principle that every human life is precious and is properly served by the State government which helps to provide safety and security for valuable human persons and even helps them find human fulfilment in “the pursuit of happiness” through providing quality healthcare and education which help them to be all they can be.

True functioning democracies are characterized by the citizens feeling safe and free under their authorities.  Our democracies have already been compromised, as is proven by the fact that many doctors and other medical professionals and also teachers and others are often scared to freely and publicly speak at their jobs about their Pro-Life belief in the supreme and equal value and preciousness of every human life which undergirds all human rights and democracy or else they can lose their jobs or otherwise be persecuted.  Right now handicapped citizens and parents who take care of handicapped children are frightened by the specter of legal euthanasia, seriously and very reasonably concerned that with legalizing euthanasia (and the typical trends where it has already been legalized showing that legal euthanasia means handicapped lives are no longer worth living but are a burden) means that it may be only a matter of time before the handicapped are no longer accommodated but euthanized, even obligatorily (recalling how the handicapped were rounded up for extermination in Nazi Germany for reasons of a similar prejudice that handicapped lives are not worth living).  This total about-face from accommodation to obligatory euthanasia for the handicapped will not happen tomorrow, but it has to come eventually if the Pro-Life foundations of democracy are not reaffirmed and constitutionally enshrined, because the Pro-Life mindset behind valuing and accommodating the handicapped and the Pro-Choice mindset behind aggressively aborting the handicapped are fundamentally incompatible and the conflict will have to ultimately be resolved one way or the other (as the fundamental incompatibility of democracy and slavery was thankfully resolved in favour of democracy).  The only way to stop our citizens from right now being afraid for their jobs, their freedom, or even their lives, in the face of current Pro-Choice bullying, is to prove to them we have functioning democracies by upholding (ideally constitutionally enshrining) the Pro-Life principles that democracy cannot live long without.

Legal Abortion and Legal Euthanasia and the Cheapening of All Human Lives Leading to the Compromise of Democracy Which Depends on All Human Lives Being Precious

It is worth elaborating on key factors of the underlying “Pro-Choice” mindset which logically connects legal abortion, legal euthanasia including “assisted suicide,” and the cheapening of all human lives leading to the compromise of democracy itself which assumes human lives are precious and therefore must be protected from harm and even given a democratic say in their own government. The fundamental difference between the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice mindsets is that in the Pro-Life mindset human life is always regarded as a precious GIFT to be treasured and protected wherever possible and in the Pro-Choice mindset needy human life is typically regarded as a BURDEN to be removed wherever possible.  To the Pro-Life mindset human life is always a gift not a burden, a gift so precious it is a privilege to serve human needs with love, and all the more a privilege to serve the “extra” needs of babies, the elderly, the sick and the handicapped (medical professionals have traditionally seen their profession in service of human life as a “calling” and not merely a burdensome job).  In fact, in consideration of the entire human lifecycle, you could say these four groups of needy humans do not even have “extra” needs, but rather they each have particular needs common to certain periods of the human lifecycle.  Babies and children and the elderly are simply specific stages in the human lifecycle which have more needs for assistance than do healthy adults, and all healthy adults are subject to periods of illness or injury even when they are not permanently or terminally sick, even when they are not permanently injured/handicapped.  Note in the human lifecycle there is traditionally even a naturally-occurring reciprocity and wonderful balance here:  your parents lovingly take care of you while you are too young to take care of yourself (and are sick/injured); and you lovingly take care of your parents when they are too old to take care of themselves (and are sick/injured).

Thus it is just part of a normal human lifecycle that as baby humans, as sick or injured/handicapped humans and as elderly humans each of us has periods where we cannot produce as much (at least in measureable material terms) and have more needs to take care of than we as healthy adults in their prime do.  In the Pro-Life mindset, all human lives are always worth the effort of lovingly taking care of their human needs however great or small in whatever stage of human life they are (young or old) or whatever condition of human life they are (healthy/sick/injured/handicapped/dying).  The great medical tradition represented by the traditional doctors’ Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm” to human lives but to treat them in whatever stage or condition they are (and provide quality palliative care to ease the suffering of the dying) is completely congruous with the Pro-Life mindset of the high value of every human life without exception which actually obligates doctors to always do their best to heal human patients (which is why the traditional doctors’ Hippocratic Oath provides an inherent context of TRUST between doctors and patients.  Thus it degrades medical care for all of us that Pro-Choice forces managed to get medical colleges to abandon the Hippocratic Oath a long time ago, paving the way for our doctors to become killers instead of dedicated healers as they are now, in some jurisdictions even obligated to be killers against their own conscience, as in thoroughly anti-democratic fashion medical colleges or other regulatory bodies give them no freedom of conscience or free speech to object to killing humans.  Such an attack on doctors’ democratic freedoms initially motivated this treatise).

Needless to say, in sharp contrast to the “Pro-Life” mindset a truly “Pro-Choice” mindset does NOT regard human life as of any necessary value such that one would always choose to treasure, love, and protect it.  Ultimately to a Pro-Choice mind a human life is not necessarily a gift but may well be a burden which one would be inclined to choose to kill.  Now, I realize that many who consider themselves “Pro-Choice” may happen to decide to choose to love and raise a child they conceived, but if they do it is incidental and not by any sense of obligation to value human life as precious. It actually really bothers me as a parent that Pro-Choice parents who are logically consistent with their position (thankfully many are not, but in this case they should change their position) cannot say to their children (as I have) “I love you because your whole existence is a precious gift and I was privileged to become your parent responsible for the sacred trust of guarding and raising the treasure that you are” but could only say “I love you because I chose to love and raise you (but I could have just as easily hired a doctor who kills to do violent hate upon you, kill you and throw you in the garbage bin, like I maybe already did to your brother(s) and sister(s), and the State government would have allowed it because your life was never inherently valuable).”  This sounds harsh but at bottom it is the cold truth about the Pro-Choice position.  “Pro-Choice” philosophy is really only about the “choice” to kill human life (without this particular deadly choice as an option one would be “Pro-Life,” consistently treating human life as valuable and precious).  Killing human life is characteristic of oppressive and totalitarian states so this is a “choice” that has nothing to do with true freedom which is instead based on all human life being so precious it should be freeHowever superficially clothed in the language of “compassion” (and this only as a concession to centuries of Pro-Life habits of treating all human life as valuable) “Pro-Choice” philosophy (ancient and modern) at bottom is only about being able to make a choice against human dignity and worth by legally killing humans.  And it does not stop with killing preborn human babies.  Most Western countries already have legalized abortion and already offer the option to kill human babies, most especially handicapped babies who are aggressively targeted for abortion by Pro-Choice doctors who pester the mothers to abort because to the Pro-Choice mindset it would be such a “burden” to lovingly take care of a handicapped child because handicapped children have greater needs.  So it is not much of a stretch from where we are already to start killing the handicapped by euthanasia later in life for the same reason (“assisting their suicide” or shaming them into asking for it), and it is not much of a stretch from there to kill the sick and injured and elderly for the same reason (using “easing their suffering” as an excuse but Lady Warnock’s guiding euthanasia principles eloquently spelling out the low esteem for human life worth less than money which is ultimately behind the abortion and euthanasia “burden” mindset).

As I alluded to above, I realize many “Pro-Choicers” are inconsistent or sloppy thinkers and would not personally follow Pro-Choice principles to their harsh logical conclusions.  But in this case they should take a consistent position against Pro-Choice philosophy, because by identifying themselves as Pro-Choice they support all those who are consistent with their Pro-Choice logic who degrade the whole human race with the big-money abortion industry and so on (haggling over the price of dismembered human baby parts as in the recent videos of high-ranking Planned Parenthood officials), and by identifying themselves as Pro-Choice they support all those who are currently actively undermining our whole free and democratic way of life with Pro-Choice policies which do follow Pro-Choice philosophy to its logical conclusions.  I encourage many “nice” Pro-Choicers who are Pro-Choice in the following ways to abandon their identification with the Pro-Choice position for the sake of logical consistency and for the sake of humanity and its freedom.  There are some who consider themselves “Pro-Choice” who would never personally consider having an abortion themselves, but they think women should have the “choice” because on the surface this sounds like freedom and democracy even though in actuality the legal choice to kill human life is fundamentally anti-democratic and robs all of us of any inherent human preciousness and right to live (the historical foundation of democracy) since we were all subject to being legally killed with impunity before we were born.  Such people are already closer to being Pro-Life and have merely been fooled by Pro-Choice rhetoric.  Now that you know what Pro-Choice philosophy really is all about underneath the rhetoric, you should change your position.  I think a great many people who consider themselves Pro-Choice are so just for convenience but to silence any stirrings in their own conscience about killing humans they justify being Pro-Choice (to themselves or others) only on the basis of scientific ignorance and antiquated medical arguments used decades ago when abortion was first de-criminalized like the “tissue blob” argument.  As Chapter 3 demonstrates, there is nothing in the biology of the human lifecycle (now richly detailed at all stages by medical science) to justify acknowledging human personhood and human rights in born humans but not pre-born humans (and Chapter 2 shows how in history as long as any humans have been called persons pre-born humans were called persons, their human right to live protected from abortion since 318 AD).  So these too, if they want to upgrade their science so as to not be seen as ignorant about “the facts of human life” which are so richly available now (as they were not when abortion was de-criminalized), will find that actually learning the facts of the human life cycle (and the medical facts of what the abortion procedure does to these young humans) can only incline them to abandon the Pro-Choice position.  Ignorance of these now easily accessible facts of the whole human lifecycle is not a reasonable justification to be Pro-Choice and thus contribute to the undermining of democracy.

But a true, consistent and dedicated “Pro-Choice” position is definitely open to killing preborn human lives without any moral objection and is not merely ignorant of science (as so many Pro-Choicers are) but nevertheless denies human personhood and human rights to preborn humans without ample reason.  And in great contrast to the Pro-Life mindset which always considers any human life worth the effort of meeting its needs however great or small, in the Pro-Choice mindset, ancient and modern, the normal great needs of a human baby take too much effort and commitment to love and raise and even too much effort to find someone else willing to love and raise by adoption (despite long lists of infertile couples on long “waiting lists” to adopt which could easily be reduced by pregnant women who find they have not enough maturity or self-giving love to raise a child being willing to give up their child for adoption instead of killing their child by abortion), and so the Pro-Choice inclination is to kill the baby by abortion instead.  Often this is deceptively clothed in the “compassionate”-sounding words of not wanting an unwanted child to grow up impoverished, which is simply just yet another prejudiced violation of the supreme and equal value and dignity of every human life without exception which historically and logically undergirds all human rights and freedoms – this Pro-Choice prejudice essentially says “not only is it better to be dead than to be handicapped” (which underlies the aggressive targeting of the handicapped for abortion) but “it is better to be dead than to be poor” and so I will “terminate” my pregnancy, “terminate” my unwanted child’s life (“with extreme prejudice” as they say in military operations as a euphemism for aggressive execution or assassination).  Ask the poor (and I and my family have been there) if they think “it’s better to be dead than to be poor.”  Human life is a gift and it can be greatly appreciated and enjoyed with either more or less material things, troubles can be overcome, and the best things in life really are free!

All of the euthanasia/“assisted suicide” options are rooted in this same Pro-Choice mindset that needy human life is a burden not a gift:  it is just not worth the loving effort to take care of the needs of elderly or sick/injured/handicapped/dying citizens or family members so it is better to euthanize them; or (the “assisted suicide” twist) it is better to manipulate them into asking a Pro-Choice doctor to euthanize them as if it is their own idea, manipulating them with guilt entirely rooted in the Pro-Choice perspective, that their human lives are a burden on others (their family or society) rather than a gift that others would be privileged to lovingly take care of.  This whole Pro-Choice perspective on human life reduces the human worth of all of us, because it takes human life back to the brutal evaluation it had before the 4th Century, when human life was cheap and its main value was in serving the greater State/society.  Legal abortion and legal euthanasia including “assisted suicide” take us back there because it assumes it is only if we are producing something measureable and tangible for society/the State and not drawing on its resources for our lives that our lives are considered worth living, and if we are not producing, and have needs the society must fill to keep us alive instead, we are a burden on society/our family which should be removed.  What horrible self-regard this breeds – I am only valuable if I am producing for the State/society and if I am not and have extra needs I am a burden on the State and my family and I am better off dead – and the State encourages this “human life is cheap again” mindset by de-criminalizing the option which once was criminal because human life was always precious.  And medical professionals who used to love to serve humanity are now made to kill humans, even against their conscience (and against democracy).

The common element of those who become victims of the Pro-Choice mindset is that babies, the elderly, the sick and the handicapped (and the dying) all have greater needs than healthy adults to take care of.  But this is just part of life; all of us once were babies with extreme needs to be taken care of by others and all of us will one day become either sick or injured/handicapped or elderly or dying.  There is a cycle to human life in which there are stages and phases with different challenges.  It is part of the human condition to be in a position where sometimes we are needy and where sometimes family members and others we are in relationship with are needy; at different times we all need to serve others and we all need to be served, and giving of ourselves for others is an essential part of the LOVE which “makes the world go ‘round”.  In a great sin against LOVE, the Pro-Choice mindset where human life is a burden to be removed rather than a gift to be treasured and protected would rather kill than serve human life, but this is terribly short-sighted.  All tempted by the short-term self-centered gain of not having to sacrifice in love for another person’s needs now because they can be killed instead (by legal abortion or euthanasia/assisted suicide) should remember that they will eventually be the one who is shamed into letting a doctor kill them by euthanasia because their lives are a burden not a gift and no longer worth living (all of us will one day be either sick or injured or handicapped or elderly – should our human worth cease at that moment?).  Where the Pro-Choice mindset takes us as a society is not only to our own deaths when we are no longer productive enough in society, but ultimately to the death of human rights and democratic freedoms.

The Pro-Life principles taught Western Civilization starting in the 4th Century that every human life without exception was inherently precious and equally highly valuable and therefore human life wherever it existed should properly be protected by the State government as a sacred duty, one which governments/rulers since the 4th Century were accountable to which is why since the 4th Century leaders were no longer chiefly remembered for their civic achievements but for how well or poorly they treated their citizens and subjects who now had the new great dignity of being called persons. Before this the norm used to be that individual human lives were cheap (easily killed even by the government when deemed inconvenient) and individual humans’ main value was in how they served the greater State or society as a whole. Ancient Pro-Choice philosophy mirrored this low estimation of human life as cheap, a burden to take care of it rather than always a gift, and thus parents likewise had the right to choose to raise their children or kill their children if they were deemed inconvenient.  The criminalization of abortion in 318 AD because Western Civilization had embraced the Pro-Life principles changed all this, and started Western Civilization on a road (described in Chapter 2) that in a long process of logical development of the Pro-Life principles throughout history eventually gave us modern human rights and democracy. The Pro-Life principle of the immense and equal value of every human life without exception which caused abortion and infanticide to be banned in 318 AD also logically meant humans of any lower class or social strata (even slaves) ultimately were equal to any higher or royal or ruling class.  According to this Pro-Life logic slavery (which had accounted for 1/3 of the population in the 4th century) was limited and eventually ended in any form in Western countries.  According to this same Pro-Life logic that ultimately kings and peasants were of the same extremely high human value, gradually more and more humans were given a democratic say in their own government.  So criminalizing abortion ultimately gave us human rights and democracy.  It is no surprise then that de-criminalizing abortion has resulted in the current serious compromise of our democracies and the loss of human rights. Money is worth more than human life once again as before the “Pro-Life” mindset became the norm, and in the “Pro-Choice” mindset human lives are once again only worth living if they are “contributing” materially to society, working to make things or to provide services for society, making money and spending it to help drive the economy – only then is your life worth living.  If you cannot produce much, then you are a burden and may as well be killed by euthanasia.  This mindset is a return to the ancient brutal perspective that individual human lives are not inherently precious but are cheap and their value is in serving a greater State/society – and logically this perspective can only lead eventually to what top euthanasia promoters have already called a “duty to die” and an obligation for doctors to euthanize the less “productive” members of human society such as the old and sick and injured and handicapped. Do we really want to once again live in such a society where we are only valuable as far as we can serve the State/society?  And how can such a society remain a democracy for the long-term?  If human life is not inherently valuable and precious (which is why all individual humans were eventually given a vote in their own governance) but the State sanctions the legal killing of humans while still young in the womb and when old or sick or injured/handicapped (whenever they are a burden on State resources and not contributing to them), why should the State even bother to give us a vote?  Or should only the healthy vote, if only the healthy are not encouraged or shamed into being euthanized? The whole Pro-Choice premise underlying abortion and euthanasia radically abandons the inherent precious value of human life which is the historical and logical foundation of our democracies.  Pro-Choicers use the word “choice” as if it has something to do with “freedom,” when it only means the “choice” to kill the humans who democracy says are so precious they deserve to have a vote or say in their own governance.  Pro-Choicers just do not “get” that the “Pro-Choice” mentality is not new but ancient, part of the brutal ancient worldview typically governed by totalitarian States.  Pro-Choicers just do not “get” that after the Pro-Life principles were embraced by Western Civilization in the 4th Century, parents no longer had the “Pro-Choice” right to kill their children but were accountable to value all human life FOR THE SAME REASON that governments no longer had the right to kill their citizens but were now accountable to value human life!

 

© 2014, 2015 William Baptiste SFO

Go To Chapter 1 Introduction: Democracy Under Threat  (Scroll Down to Conclusion to continue from this Euthanasia insertion)

Go To Chapter 2: The History of Human Rights and Freedoms

 

Footnotes

[1] Unfortunately governments always reserved the pre-4th Century right to execute traitors which threatened the government whether or not the government was a good one upholding the Pro-Life principles and respecting and protecting the human rights of the people. But still in the Pro-Life mindset after the 4th Century even the human existence of dangerous criminals who needed to be executed for the safety of other human lives were considered inherently valuable, the necessity of the State executing them for the safety of society and other human lives regrettable, and criminals were prayed for and encouraged to repent their crimes against their fellow humans to at least save their valuable human souls.

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2983652/Baroness-Warnock-Dementia-sufferers-may-have-a-duty-to-die.html accessed August 25, 2015

[3] Originally published in the Belgian medical journal Artsenkrant, this article can be viewed at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/how_my_mother_died/11772#sthash.Bw6e4YKv.dpuf accessed August 25, 2015

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *