"No legacy is so rich as honesty" - William Shakespeare
The Intellectual Honesty Challenge in Brief: Everyone is uneducated in something before they have opportunity to be educated. It is no shame to admit that one simply did not previously have the necessary Human Rights Education to choose an intelligent and intellectually honest position on the Human Rights for All Humans Debate (the Abortion Debate). No Pro-Choice Legal Abortion supporter (politician or voter) ever chose that position after knowing the established facts of History, Science and Logic collected in Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy, which means every Pro-Choice Abortion supporter holds a position based on ignorance and lack of knowledge, which lack of Human Rights Education will be corrected by this book. This powerful collection of facts demands a thoughtful and intellectually honest response. The Intellectual Honesty Challenge posits that there is no such intelligent response which allows for legal abortion to continue. Anyone currently “Pro-Choice” who disagrees is hereby challenged to mount an intelligent and intellectually honest response to this book’s conclusions based on facts to see if they can intelligently and honestly “justify” remaining Pro-Choice, or else concede to this book’s conclusions and change their position, as intellectual honesty demands, if they cannot.
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
“I add this caveat for Pro-Choice politicians and voters: Stop the lie. Before you read this, you already knew that preborn humans are humans. You already knew that abortion kills humans. You already knew that killing humans is wrong. So all you have to do is stop lying.”
– William Baptiste
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Revolution. (Merriam Webster’s Dictionary) 2. d: a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something : a change of paradigm
The fact that somewhere between 1948 and 2020 an ‘unthinking revolution’ about human life with extremely politically significant consequences for human freedom today has already occurred in the West, necessitating THE THINKING REVOLUTION announced in this book Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy to correct it, is obvious. It is obvious that an ‘unthinking revolution’ degrading human life and freedom has already (if quietly) happened because in 1948 the “Free West” produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was produced specifically in response to the numerous bigoted legal human-killing Human Rights violations of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Worker’s Party (the Nazis for short), which had politically taken over Germany (through democratic processes) and then plunged humanity into its Second World War. During this time the Nazis had also systematically murdered 6 million Jewish humans (plus disabled humans and other groups of humans the Nazi bigotry did not think were deserving of life). After the war, the victorious “Free West” produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to help make sure nothing like the bigoted Nazi atrocities (which had legally devalued and then legally killed Jewish humans, disabled humans, and preborn humans) ever happened again. In 1948 this crucial document declared that Human Rights were for all humans
“without distinction of any kind” (from Article 2) because “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” (from the first sentence of the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
Also in 1948, against Nazi doctors performing Nazi Germany’s newly-legalized practices of legal (human-killing) abortion and legal (human-killing) euthanasia, the Declaration of Geneva soundly reaffirmed the 2500-year-old non-killing doctors’ Hippocratic Medical Tradition to “do no harm” with the newly-worded doctors’ promise:
“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”
The most ancient form of the Hippocratic Oath had likewise specifically prohibited abortion and euthanasia, and the Declaration of Geneva’s general medical principle to protect human life with utmost respect “from the time of conception” was specifically applied also in 1948 at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials of the Nazis for their numerous Human Rights violations. At Nuremberg in 1948 Nazi doctors were condemned for performing legal abortion, which was described as
“an inhumane act,” an “act of extermination,” and a “crime against humanity.”
The intensely bigoted flagrancy of the many Nazi violations of human life and freedom forced the new United Nations in 1948 to clarify genuine Human Rights in detail with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the same year at Nuremberg forced the recognition that such Human Rights implied a Human Responsibility to recognize those Human Rights in all other humans, “without distinction of any kind,” in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – or else totalitarianism and atrocities happen. The many Nazi atrocities and violations of human life and freedom out of flagrant disregard for human life and dignity – including legal human-killing abortion – carried out at every level of German society under the politically extremist and legal human-killing Nazi government – were so severe that it was recognized that human civilization itself could not bear a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany. Justice had to be done to discourage such flagrant evil from ever happening again, even though everything done in Nazi Germany was technically “legal.” Even genocide – the law in Germany simply legally devalued Jewish humans before killing them in the millions.
“The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews . . . as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
German Supreme Court decision, 1936
Thus, at Nuremberg it was recognized that traditional mitigating excuses for immoral behavior such as “I was just following orders” and “it was legal in my country” or the (out-of-context) super-patriotic phrase “my country, right or wrong” (in context the phrase has the qualifier, “may she always be in the right”) all had an upper limit in a court of law. There was a line after which such excuses as “it was legal in Germany” or “I was just following orders” no longer applied to mitigate criminal responsibility, a line which the legal human-killing Nazis had crossed in many ways – all of them denying any concept of Equal Human Rights for All Humans
So, judges and doctors who followed and perpetrated the intensely bigoted but completely legal Nazi approach to human life (including legal human-killing abortion) had criminally shirked their Human Responsibility to recognize and protect Human Rights in all other humans. Even businessmen, such as the owners and managers of metal foundries which had fulfilled the Nazi government’s “business orders” for custom metalwork used in Death Camp gas chambers, were put on trial at Nuremberg. At their government’s request they had built custom metalwork with no purpose but to kill Jewish and handicapped and other humans legally devalued by the government. So, they were put on trial for criminally shirking their Human Responsibilities to protect Human Rights. They were not “just fulfilling a legal government contract” in making custom machines of mass-murder.
Humans have basic Human Rights which are not given by any government and which cannot be taken away by any government deciding to legally devalue some groups of humans, as the Nazi government decided to legally devalue Jewish humans, disabled/handicapped humans, and preborn humans. Because of these Human Rights which are “inherent,” “equal,” and “inalienable” in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights produced while the Nuremberg Trials were underway, every human (in 1930s Germany and today) has a Human Responsibility to recognize and protect these Human Rights in other humans. For the safety of all humanity for all time, humans must in other humans always recognize and protect these Human Rights which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights very sensibly declares are the very “foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,” and failing to do so is an affront to Justice which bears criminal responsibility. For the protection of all humanity for all time, justice was meted out at Nuremberg with civilization itself as the complainant against what happened “legally” within the sovereign borders and legal structures of Nazi Germany (including the just condemnation of Nazi doctors who practiced legal human-killing by abortion, in violation of the “inherent,” “equal” and “inalienable” Human Rights declared in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Yet somehow, since 1948 the countries which defeated Nazi Germany have willingly adopted Nazi ideology concerning human life and made bigoted legal decisions denying inherent equal inalienable Human Rights to some humans just like the German Nazi case law above, such as this one:
“The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.”
Canadian Supreme Court, Winnipeg Child and Family Services Case, 1997
That our Western Society has since 1948 already undergone an uneducated ‘unthinking revolution’ of ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’ which has already reversed the gains for human life and freedom made after World War II is obvious once one realizes that currently, in 2020, the West is hurtling full-speed towards ever-easier and broader legal human-killing by abortion and euthanasia policies which the Nazis would have forced upon the Free West if the Nazis had won World War II. And just like under the Nazis, those (like this author) who believe in Equal Human Rights for All Humans can be arrested and imprisoned under laws passed by today’s officially Pro-Choice political parties for speaking up for those humans who have been legally devalued by the government and killed in the millions. [Update: Yet another region of this author’s country passed yet another draconian “no free speech bubble zone” law making peaceful Pro-Life Human Rights advocacy of any kind a crime where most pertinent – introducing and passing this totalitarian legislation this time in a mere 8 days, from March 2-10, 2020, as witless uneducated Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’ accelerates wherever ignorant Pro-Choice politicians are in power]. Even speaking scientifically and medically verifiable facts about abortion; even saying that killing humans is wrong because Human Rights are for all humans; even just “staring disapprovingly” at an abortion clinic can get this author arrested and imprisoned in the national capital of my country under totalitarian laws against normal democratic freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, conscience and religion passed by one officially Pro-Choice regional political party in power (later copied by others; implemented lightning-speed).
How can it be considered anything less than a “revolution” with very tangible and serious political consequences since 1948, that today in 2020 we have “officially Pro-Choice” political parties following the (1934) totalitarian Nazi precedent of legal human-killing abortion and the century-old (1920) totalitarian Soviet precedent of legal human-killing abortion which just like those totalitarian extremist political parties have (recently) passed laws against Free Speech in defense of humans legally devalued by the government and killed in the millions? To reverse this ultimately democracy-destroying unthinkingand quiet revolution, it is going to take THE THINKING REVOLUTION announced in this book Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy with THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTY CHALLENGE.
People with a solid Human Rights Education (like that in this book) know that abortion was first criminalized in the 4th Century, and human life was generally protected from the womb by Western law or custom until one century ago this year, in 1920, when human-killing abortion was first legalized in totalitarian Soviet Socialist Russia – by the same Soviet government which in 1932-33 also legalized the genocide-killing of millions of this Ukrainian Canadian author’s Ukrainian ethnicity. Just as the legal bigoted Nazi genocide of Jewish and disabled humans was getting started – the Nazis also legalizing abortion in 1934. Those who want to continue the current legal human-killing abortion practices first legalized in totalitarian States because these evil regimes did not believe that killing humans is wrong have invited upon themselves the following INTELLECTUAL HONESTY CHALLENGE to finally settle the Abortion Debate which they initially began by reviving the legal abortion which had in 1948 been condemned as a “crime against humanity” . . .
THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTY CHALLENGE
NO LEGACY IS SO RICH AS HONESTY – William Shakespeare
To expand upon the above Intellectual Honesty Challenge in Brief: For certain, to maintain Free Democracy on its historical and logical foundations long-term, the societies of the “Free West” must have an intellectually honest, respectful, intelligent, scientific and rigorously logical dialogue, informed by the most pertinent facts of Human Rights History, Biological Science, and the Formal Science of Logic identified in the chapters of this book, in order to settle the central dispute of our time, The Human Rights for All Humans Debate(otherwise known as The Abortion Debate). Because the Pro-Choice side of the debate has so far refused to have such a debate, keeping abortion legal by refusing to talk about it (and because Pro-Choice legislators in some jurisdictions now are with great intellectual dishonesty taking away Pro-Lifers’ Free Speech in order to silence debate), this book finally, actually starts this necessary debate with a large “first salvo” of information culled from the disciplines of Science, Logic, and History, which the Pro-Choice side is challenged to respond to intelligently and honestly after reading this book’s initial contribution to intelligent dialogue. Clearly identifying the key, crux question at the core of the Abortion Debate (the Human Rights for All Humans Debate), this author asks:
Do humans have Human Rights or not? Are Human Rights for all humans, or only for some humans, such that some humans can be legally killed in a democratic State (as humans are commonly killed in oppressive totalitarian States, such as Soviet Russia, the first modern State to legalize the killing of humans by abortion, or Nazi Germany, the first modern state to legalize the killing of humans by both abortion and euthanasia)?
The “Pro-Life” side of The Human Rights for All Humans Debate (The Abortion Debate) believes that Human Rights are for all humans without exception (“without distinction of any kind” in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights); the “Pro-Choice” side of the Human Rights for All Humans Debate (the Abortion Debate) believes that not all humans have equal Human Rights, but that some humans can be legally killed by abortion (and/or euthanasia). The “Pro-Choice” side of the debate effectively believes this but they are never intellectually honest about it, and they only ever use what the Science of Logic calls “Fallacies of Distraction,” and other textbook logical fallacies, to support legal abortion, in order to avoid ever even engaging the key question of the Human Rights of the young humans who (scientifically speaking) are indisputably killed in abortions, which is actually the very crux of the Abortion Debate. To keep abortion legal, the “Pro-Choice” side of the Human Rights for All Humans Debate, the Abortion Debate, have for decades refused to even talk about the crux question of the Abortion Debate but have only distracted away from it with great intellectual dishonesty, and usually without any educated knowledge at all of the most pertinent facts of Science, Logic, and Human Rights History laid out in this book.
Since the “Pro-Choice” side has so far refused to even have a proper, intellectually honest Abortion Debate to settle the Equal Human Rights for All Humans question at the center of the debate, the author has had to publish this book to finally, actually START the necessary Abortion Dialogue and Debate properly, by laying out clearly the key facts of History, Science, and Logic which, the author posits, overwhelmingly prove the book’s title, that Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy (and Pro-Choice Equals Pro-Totalitarianism).
So, The Intellectual Honesty Challenge (for dedicated Pro-Choice “hostile readers”) is:
Can you write and send to the author at
an intellectually honest and intelligent defense of your Pro-Choice position that does not use the usual Pro-Choice logical fallacies exposed as such in this book, and does not ignore established facts of Human Rights History, Science, and Logic laid out in this book, as Pro-Choicers have done for decades in order to dishonestly keep abortion legal? Is it even possible to make an intellectually honest defense of the Pro-Choice position for Legal Abortion in the light of the most pertinent facts of Science, Logic, and Human Rights History?
This collection of facts is far too powerful to ignore. Thus, to remain Pro-Choice but not respond to The Intellectual Honesty Challenge is to fail it, and is to tacitly admit that you have no intelligent nor honest justification for remaining on the “Pro-Choice” side of the Human Rights for All Humans Debate (the Abortion Debate).
“Abortion is not a 3rd option [to parenthood or adoption] because [unlike parenthood or adoption] it dismembers, decapitates, and disembowels a baby.”
– Stephanie Gray
“Violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with lying.”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
The author respects an honest attempt to defend your Pro-Choice position against the mountain of evidence that Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy collected in this book, and will be very happy to continue respectful dialogue with you. Intending to be the world’s informal “Professor of Human Rights,” this author considers no opponent an enemy, but a precious human being who, it is hoped, will become convinced to treat all other humans as precious. This is our Human Responsibility which comes with our own Human Rights: to recognize “inherent,” “equal,” “inalienable” Human Rights in all other humans, “without distinction of any kind,” in the words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you are intellectually honest enough to discover the attempt to refute this book forces you to change your position from “Pro-Choice” to “Pro-Life,” as, the author posits, intellectual honesty demands, then please also email the results of your attempt to The Intellectual Honesty Challenge at the above email address.
For the particularly hostile reader who insists on being an enemy, remember that respectful, rational submissions are preferred as a sign of intellectual honesty (only those whose position is weak feel they need to use outrage and abuse or name-calling to “win” an argument); but, if you feel you cannot defend your position without resorting to feelings and insults (or ridiculous and unsustainable accusations of “hate speech” or irrational “phobias” in anyone who disagrees with you, as “Intellectophobes” resort to because they cannot win honest and intelligent arguments), by all means go ahead and express yourself as you wish to The Intellectual Honesty Challenge. Your response will make clear to all how you fared in The Intellectual Honesty Challenge. The author welcomes all three types of responses of Pro-Choice Legal Abortion supporters to the Intellectual Honesty Challenge:
1. Intellectually Honest and Respectful Attempt to refute the author’s conclusions in this book or his other works, which invite more respectful dialogue which the author will respond to respectfully, intelligently, and honestly (as necessary pointing out the respondents’ continued errors in Logic or Science or merely pretending established facts do not exist in order to support their Pro-Choice position); the author will continue a back and forth dialogue as long as the respondent is up to it, since it is important to Lasting Democracy that such intelligent dialogue between the polarized sides happens in Western Society;
2. Intellectually Honest Attempt to refute this book which ultimately lead to the Pro-Choice respondent conceding that Intellectual Honesty demands the major conclusions of this Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy book (or the author’s other works) be accepted;
3. Intellectually Dishonest and/or Disrespectful Ravings and/or Groundless Intimidating Accusations in Logically Fallacious attempts to intimidate those who disagree with them into silence, which show the Pro-Choice person making the accusations to be an “Intellectophobe” - afraid of intellectually honest, rational, respectful, intelligent, scientific and rigorously logical debate about their Pro-Choice position which they would lose on the basis of established facts of History, Science, and Logic.
Samples of all three types of responses to The Intellectual Honesty Challenge (and any further back-and-forth responses) will eventually be put into a new book on the state of the Dialogue that needs to happen in Western Society over the central controversy of our time, the Human Rights for All Humans Debate (otherwise known as the Abortion Debate). That this debate actually be carried out intelligently is vitally necessary because no society can remain stable and safe and free when there is such polarised disagreement over something as basic to free society as whether humans have Human Rights (in which case abortion, which kills humans, is wrong) or whether Human Rights are for all humans not just some humans (in which case abortion, which kills humans, is wrong).
“There can be no acceptable future without an honest analysis of the past.”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Abraham Lincoln faced precisely the same kind of societal division over precisely the same question of Equal Human Rights for All Humans. Democracy-grounding Equal Human Rights for All Humans were then compromised by the legal slavery of Black humans precisely as Equal Human Rights for All Humans are now compromised by the legal killing of preborn humans (just like each of us at that age, meaning to deny preborn humans an Inherent Human Right to Live is to deny ourselves any Inherent Human Right to Live). In his own day noting this great bifurcation and division among the American people on such a fundamental issue to democracy as whether or not all humans have Equal Human Rights, Lincoln famously said:
“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free.
[today he might say the American government cannot endure permanently half-Pro-Choice and half- Pro-Life. That is, the American government cannot endure permanently half-Pro-Choice-to-Kill-Humans and half-Pro-Human-Right-to-Live]
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved - I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”
Lincoln’s words in a directly parallel situation to today’s situation mean that Free Democracy (based on Traditional Western beliefs about equal human preciousness) is so fundamentally incompatible with either legal slavery of humans or legal killing of humans by abortion that neither can last long-term in a healthy democracy.
Part of the Intellectual Honesty Challenge is this: Pro-Choice politicians and parties (and voters) not responding to the Intellectual Honesty Challenge after exposure to the book Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy (or any of the author’s other works which prove from Human Rights History, Science and Logic that Pro-Life = Pro-Democracy and Pro-Choice = Pro-Totalitarianism), but continuing to be ardently Pro-Choice, is tantamount to you as a Pro-Choicer admitting that you are intellectually dishonest (or unintelligent), if not actually evil, for insisting on maintaining the legal abortion-killing of humans after being exposed to the most pertinent facts of biological Science, sound Logic, and the entirely totalitarian and anti-democratic history of the practice of legal abortion throughout History.
This truly non-partisan Human Rights scholar also notes that continuing to refuse to oppose legal human-killing abortion after exposure to this Human Rights Education for Lasting Free Democracy will also mark as spineless unprincipled cowards those politicians and political parties which are not officially Pro-Choice but who have thus far allowed legal human-killing abortion following totalitarian Soviet and Nazi precedent to exist unchallenged; and allowed the recent Pro-Choice anti-democratic laws against Freedom of Speech, Expression, Assembly, Conscience and Religion of Pro-Life Human Rights advocates and others to exist unchallenged. It is unconscionable that this author can still be arrested and imprisoned in his national capital (and the entire region of 14 million inhabitants around it) for saying “killing humans is wrong because Human Rights are for all humans” under Pro-Choice totalitarian laws still in force even though the officially Pro-Choice (therefore politically extremist, legal human-killing) political party that passed the totalitarian law was in the last election reduced to a mere 7 seats in the regional legislature (“the minivan party”). Apparently due to insufficiently educated ignorance of Free Democracy’s Pro-Life foundations, even the parties which are not Pro-Choice are afraid to roll back Pro-Choice totalitarian laws which have no place in any healthy democracy.
This author’s opinion column “Wynne’s Liberal regime will be remembered for its totalitarian laws”[i] was published by an Internet news service the day before the election, to help make sure that voters went to the polls realizing that our Human Rights and Democracy itself were at stake. Even those many voters who did not read my column (published by North America’s largest Pro-Life news service), or who could not articulate in scholarly terms as I did the underlying reasons for their vote, still instinctively voted the governing officially Pro-Choice majority party almost into oblivion – it even lost “official party status” in the legislature, having too few elected representatives (though just enough to fill a mini-van). This was likely a subconscious or visceral reaction to the fact that for four years millions of people had been uncomfortable with how they had been governed, without most being able to articulate precisely why as I did: that for four years this government had been misusing its majority to act like a totalitarian One-Party State, engaging in unprecedented totalitarian “social engineering” through many new laws and public “education” putting the State in between parents and their own children and imposing new-fangled values with no history in the culture (and pseudo-scientific ideologies with no grounding in hard science), all while smiling and pretending to still be a democracy. There are no established rules for what to do when your democracy starts acting like a totalitarian State, so nobody knew what to do, and let them get away with it (Jordan Peterson, living a few hours away from this author in the same provincial jurisdiction, called the Pro-Choice Extremist Leftist ideologue Premier “the most dangerous woman in Canada;” this author called her “totalitarian creep of the decade.”) Even in defeat her beaming smile revealed how happy she was that she had achieved her goal of setting up a Neo-Marxist future for our country’s most populous province: The less corrupt/more normal political party now governing this region still has no idea what to do, and so they have left all the layers of new totalitarian legislation intact, as “political time bombs” waiting for a more politically opportune time to be strictly implemented and potentially end all pretence of democracy overnight (as totalitarian laws against religious freedom passed in 1917 Mexico were unenforced but still “on the books” for 9 years, until they were suddenly strictly enforced in 1926 and religious freedom ended overnight).
Hopefully, this book Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy (in which this first draft of THINKING REVOLUTION: The Intellectual Honesty Challenge is first published) changes the situation for the future, by (in “Chapter 11: Solutions”) clearly identifying from History, Science and Logic The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, plus ten related Core Principles of Lasting Democracy (as well as identifying “The Winning Strategy for ‘The Culture of Life’ to WIN the ‘Cultural War’ with ‘The Culture of Death,’ to Save Humanity Forever from Bigotry and ‘Creeping Totalitarianism’). If these principles are adopted and implemented by today’s compromised democracies, Free Democracy should become protected and stable for centuries to come, on solid foundations. These implicit principles, if previously explicitly known, would have prevented Hitler’s Nazi takeover of Germany by democratic processes; and would have prevented the unprecedented kind of totalitarian “social engineering” which has made this author’s country (and Jordan Peterson’s) a world leader in ‘Creeping Totalitarianism.’
“What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.”
– Adolf Hitler
(whose genocidal Nazi government was the first government, other than the genocidal Soviet government, to legalize abortion)
"Logic needs to be compulsory in high schools to ensure future voters and future politicians both know how to think clearly, logically and with intellectual honesty, so they can vote and govern intelligently and not be so easily fooled (even by textbook logical fallacies) into destroying the foundations of their own Freedom. When citizen voters and politicians know neither The Foundational Principles of Human Rights and Democracy, nor how to think clearly, consistently, and logically (nor how to avoid logical fallacies of reasoning), Free Democracy is sure to fail and not last."
- William Baptiste,
Founder, Human Rights and Freedoms Forever!
Founder, The Intellectual Honesty Challenge
Proclaimer of THE THINKING REVOLUTION
 Records of the United States Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, United States of America v. Ulrich Greifelt Et Al (Case VIII), October 10, 1947 March 10, 1948; The National Archives, Washington, D.C.
Pro-Choice respondents to The Intellectual Honesty Challenge should keep in mind that this author’s very bold formulation of the Abortion Debate (The Human Rights for All Humans Debate) in terms of Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy (and Pro-Choice Equals Pro-Totalitarianism) is not merely academic but politically practical, because it is made specifically in response to officially “Pro-Choice” political parties in power at the regional and national levels in this author’s country (following a current world-wide trend) passing numerous laws and policies restricting normal Democratic Freedoms of Speech and Expression; restricting normal Democratic Freedoms of Assembly, Conscience, and Religion; and taking away these Democratic Freedoms specifically in order to ensure “Abortion Access” completely unhindered by the peaceful Free Speech and Expression even of verifiable scientific facts made by peaceful Pro-Life Human Rights Advocates and doctors who actually believe that killing humans is wrong. This author posits that officially Pro-Choice political parties have no choice but to thus become ever-more totalitarian and ever-less democratic in order to keep human-killing abortion (which literally follows the totalitarian Soviet and Nazi precedent) legal for the long-term, because they simply cannot win an intellectually honest, respectful, intelligent, scientific and rigorously logical debate, informed by the most pertinent facts of Human Rights History, Biological Science, and the Formal Science of Logic identified in William Baptiste’s books (Pro-Life Equals Pro-Democracy; DEMOCRACY 101; Killing Humans Is Wrong; No Fruit Without Roots), sampled on this website.
If any Pro-Choice politician or voter disagrees, and thinks they can make an intelligent and honest defense of the Pro-Choice position in response to these books (sampled on this website), then they are invited to send their response to
in order to intelligently and honestly continue the necessary societal dialogue started by these books' initial contribution to the dialogue.
Part of The Intellectual Honesty Challenge is that the author posits that anyone who remains ardently Pro-Choice without attempting such a defense has tacitly admitted that they cannot make an intelligent defense of the Pro-Choice position, but are too intellectually dishonest to abandon their position for legal human-killing by abortion which actually follows totalitarian historical precedent.
Note: In addition to the above purely intellectual challenge to Pro-Choicers to test if they can justify their position with intellectual honesty (good luck with that!), William Baptiste, as a member of an ethnic group which was target of one of history's two biggest bigoted genocides that murdered millions, also makes an impassioned challenge to Pro-Choice politicians (and voters), at this link:
William Baptiste Human Rights & Freedoms Forever!
E-Mail: INFO@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - To become a "Volunteer Democracy Leader" in your city, e-mail VOLUNTEER@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - To book William Baptiste as a speaker, e-mail BOOKINGS@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com - for more donation options, e-mail DONATE@WilliamBaptisteHumanRightsAndFreedomsForever.com
Phone: (613) 761-0147
Copyright © 2019 William Baptiste Human Rights and Freedoms Forever! - All Rights Reserved.
HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION for LASTING FREE DEMOCRACY