The Holocaust Next Door

By Paul (John) Russo

Recently, a friend celebrated Planned Parenthood on social media by sharing a story that the organization had received 20,000 donations in protest of the election of a pro-life vice-president. Politically motivated posts are fairly frequent in these times, however this particular post caught my attention because it always causes me to pause when good people, people I respect, don’t just tolerate, but actively advocate such a terrible practice like abortion. I was moved to make the observation: that with 699,202 unborn people killed each year (the figure from 2012), Planned Parenthood, the leading advocate of abortion, only needed to get an additional 679,202 donations more to match 1:1 the number killed. Her reply was not unique, and one that I had actually heard before. But this time, as sometimes happens, it was heard with new ears. The response was simply that Planned Parenthood does other things too besides abortion. That seemingly benign comment, one that might serve to find common ground, initiated a conversation and intense path of thought that proved difficult to ignore.

That statement is really just a factual statement. But it is sometimes offered as a reason to support Planned Parenthood, while avoiding the issue of abortion itself. We often recognize there are positive and negative characteristics about things, places, organizations, even people. Often we take the positives while ignoring the negatives. In this case it seems different. Why?

Killing with Benefits

One of the first things that struck me about the comment was that it did not even attempt to dispute that people were being killed. Rather it simply moved on. It moved on to the claim that there were other things, presumably other things of benefit, that the organization engaged in that warranted supporting it. Though I had heard this phrase before, I don’t think I had thought about it quite that way. If we take for granted the organization is actually killing unborn human beings, what kind of redeeming benefit could balance the moral equation? And how do you even formulate such an equation that balances 699,202 deaths of innocent human beings on one hand, with some other benefit to human kind on the other? What would the equation look like?

A few weeks prior I had been reading about an American bioethicist named Peter Singer in a book by Patrick Madrid. Peter Singer is a tenured professor at Princeton University, and author of the book Practical Ethics(1). Mr. Madrid was discussing possible justification for euthanasia and refers to one of the assertions made by Mr. Singer about hemophiliac infants:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects for a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second [even if not yet born]. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effects on others, according to the total view, it would be right to kill him.

According to an equation of total happiness, outlined in Practical Ethics, he makes an argument for the justification of killing one baby to maximize the happiness of another, even if the other is merely potential and does not yet exist.

Reflecting on our conversation, was my friend suggesting that there was some equation of total happiness, which Planned Parenthood was effecting that balanced the lives of unborn children on one hand, with the happiness of others through some unspecified programs on the other? Peter Singer was just an academician, surely no one would actually attempt to put this into practice? Unfortunately this is not true. Mr. Madrid goes on to discuss that Mr. Wesley J. Smith wrote a letter to the editor in the May 2002 issue of First Things Magazine that describes a time when this was indeed put into practice (1):

The first officially sanctioned infanticide in Germany occurred in 1939 after the father of a disabled baby, “Baby Knauer,” wrote to Chancellor Hitler seeking permission to have his son euthanized. Hitler, believing the time was ripe to begin eradicating the “defectives,” sent his physician, Dr. Karl Brandt, to inform Baby Knauer’s doctors that there would be no legal consequences for killing the infant. This was done, so pleasing Hitler that he issued a secret directive, licensing doctors to kill disabled infants.

The father of Baby Knauer was later interviewed in 1973, and his remarks were published by Robert J. Lifton in The Nazi Doctors:

He [Brandt] explained to me that the Fuhrer had personally sent him, and that my son’s case interested him very much. The Fuhrer wanted to explore the problem of people who had no future – whose [lives were] worthless. From then on, we wouldn’t have to suffer from this terrible misfortune, because the Fuhrer had granted us the mercy killing of our son. Later, we could have other children, handsome and healthy, of whom the Reich could be proud. [Emphasis added]

Now these cases discuss euthanasia of infants that have been already born. But this makes the examples that much more striking. It does indeed seem that some people are able to balance the killing of certain individuals, even born individuals, to other benefits received by an individual or group.

Before proceeding much further, I would like to pause at this point to state something that is obvious me, but perhaps not to others. Nowhere in my thoughts, either while pondering the consequences of abortion, or as I prepare the words on this page do I have negative thoughts or feelings towards my friends, neighbors, family, or others who might not see this subject as I do, and especially not towards women who have had abortions. And the reason for this is simple: my interest is not in the individual actions, and more in the institution of abortion practice within the society in which I live. I personally don’t think much about abortion as the act of an individual alone, because an individual cannot actually do an abortion alone. Not safely anyhow. It requires the collective medical industry. No entity owns all of the knowledge used to perform safe abortions. They are the product of a social medical-complex, the employment of which, in a democracy, every member participates. That said, I am interested in how individuals view abortion, tolerate it, and even advocate for it, since it perpetuates the social behavior.

Personal Reflection

With this fresh in my mind, and my own inner conviction there is no such equation to balance the killing of one with the benefit to another, I searched for a simple way to express the error I perceived in my friend’s statement.  At that moment, I reflected on a memory when I was in high school. During a lecture on Holocaust history, the teacher made the comment that a great mystery of the tragedy is how the German people, by and large, did nothing. He mused that however they had internalized what was happening, it wasn’t well understood. He speculated if it were some kind of mass brain washing. And he commented that most Germans were people who loved their children, pet their dog, had dinner at 6, and would otherwise seem like normal people. How does this happen to a society? He concluded that we need to study the Holocaust to be sure it never happens again. As I rewound this memory from over 30 years ago, I thought how today, at this very moment, normal people, MYSELF INCLUDED, go about our business all the while systematic killing of human beings is occurring somewhere near us. Here in my home town of Monterey it happens on Fridays, over on Hilby Avenue in Seaside. This isn’t some obscure German town that existed 70 years in history. It’s a few miles away, this week. It’s a town right in our community. And on Fridays, unborn human beings people are systematically killed. Could it be a Holocaust right next door?

Clearly, normal people cannot really accept human beings are being systematically eliminated. Right? Not every Friday. There would be a huge social media outcry. And certainly nobody would be celebrating the organization doing it. If that were happening, we would all instantly become Brad Pitt in our own version of Inglorious Bastards, roaming though the towns and forests, mercilessly hunting and killing these Nazis. We’d NEVER agree with the Fuhrer’s physician in solving the problem of people with no future by killing them, would we? So it must be that the fundamental premise, that abortion kills innocent human beings, is incorrect. But if we believe it is not killing, is our belief defensible? Of course it is. Let us turn to Science.

The Judgement of Science

This will be easy.  I have often seen abortion advocates characterize pro-life beliefs as being faith-based. Not founded in science. They are criticized for being science ignorant, and backwards. This is well known. In fact, not just faith-based, but base-less. Everyone knows a fetus is just “a mass of cells”. Even just saying the word “cell” immediately invokes science to your side. Cells are just things, and even living cells simply invoke an image of a quivering clump on a slide under a microscope. Not a person. The microscope can’t prove these little ovals with dots is a human being, right? Even the landmark Roe v Wade decision said that we have no test to tell what these cells are. Perhaps in 1973 when Roe v Wade was decided. Science has now progressed considerably. And with each advancement it gives us new evidence for reevaluation. In 1973, we did not have ultrasound. We could not see the fetus inside the woman. We could not see that it had a head, arms, legs… Wait, that sounds like a person. But just seeing the human form has been unconvincing to many. After all, it could be just a piece of play dough shaped like a human. A doll. Dolls aren’t people. But science keeps moving forward. Now we have genetic testing. We can look deep into the cell nucleus and see exactly what it is! Genetic identification is used forensically all the time to identify clumps of cells left behind at crime scenes. It is solid enough to convict (or exonerate) accused murderers and rapists. What can it tell us about an unborn baby? Two very important things. (1) It is a human being. Not a doll. Definitely not a doll. Not a dog, not a cat. It is human. (2) It is not the mother. That means it is a distinct human being. Not part of someone else’s body. Attached it may be, but a distinct individual it is. And there is a third thing we can tell scientifically: It is ALIVE. It is growing, it has a beating heart, and if you leave it alone, it will eventually look just like you and me. And finally, we can tell that after the abortion, it is NOT ALIVE. Now let us use some basic deductive reasoning. When you take something alive and make it not alive, you kill it. What does science say we killed? Not a doll, not an organ of the mother. A distinct human being. Oh. My. That doesn’t work out the way it was supposed to. It turns out, that all the evidence points to killing a human being. To think otherwise is, well, just based on faith.

Let’s Be Reasonable

Even granted all this evidence for abortion being the killing of a distinct unborn human being, I have heard and carefully considered many attempts to rationalize away this inconvenient truth. Here are a few of the ones I’ve heard most often:

(1) This human being is not a person. This is the approach used by Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Campaign during the MSNBC interview when she asserted that unborn babies are not legal persons and therefore have no rights. This is just a legal sleight of hand. It doesn’t carry moral weight unless you believe everything legal is moral. She was using the term technically, and not discussing the truth of the issue that this is an unborn human being, like science suggests. Note in the Baby Knauer situation, the Fuhrer removed legal consequence (made the killing of mentally handicapped babies legal). But this doesn’t automatically remove the discomfort.

(2) This human being is a not a full human being (or it is somehow lesser of a human being than born people), either through cognitive deficiency or biological dependency or just by virtue of being in the womb vs. out of the womb. This one is interesting. There is no scientific test to prove one human being is “lesser” than another.  It is still common belief that all human beings have equal worth as a human being. But this is not unanimous. The lesser argument is the argument of the father of Baby Knauer. His cognitive disability made him a lesser person in the father’s eyes and the Fuhrer’s eyes. A worth-less person. And Peter Singer came up with the same lesser argument for the hemophiliac. That person had lesser happiness. History is replete with lesser examples. The Nazis viewed the Jews as lesser. Slave owners viewed slaves a lesser. In all of these cases, these dubious claims have been proven false. In many of these cases they attempted to use false science to objectify lesser. All failed. And logically, it would be foolish to assume the unborn child is lesser than any other person. In fact, they are equal to anyone at that stage of development. Not lesser. The dependency argument also applies to Baby Knauer too as his cognitive disability meant he could not function independently without being a burden to others. He is not a person, but a misfortune to his family and burden to his country. The same dependence is true for a healthy infant, by the way. Without frequent dependent care and feeding, a born child will die. Any baby, even a born baby, is a dependent on someone. And so are the elderly. The more these rationalizations are explored honestly, they appear just that, rationalizations and vanish. They are rationalizations for convenience. Of course, Peter Singer has an ivy league framework to justify rationalization of convenience: the maximization of happiness. His framework just has some sobering extended consequences. Like it doesn’t stop at birth.

For me, at this point the death-benefit equations collapse. There is no justification of the grave evil done by killing innocents. Neither incidental or direct benefit of their death to others nor the benefit of other programs prosecuted by an organization that kills innocents negates the evil done by Planned Parenthood. For example, it does not matter if an SS officer volunteered at the SPCA on Saturdays if Monday through Friday he was doing grave evil by killing innocents at work. The grave evil must be accounted for independently. This is generally accepted in the prosecution of such crimes. Being a nice person off-duty is usually not accepted as a defense for negating the evil done on the clock. And consistently applied, this includes Planned Parenthood too. The fact that they do free STD testing Monday through Thursday does not negate the evil they do when they kill human beings on Friday.

The Holocaust Next Door

Nevertheless, the use of the term Holocaust may seem like hyperbole. Perhaps because trivial comparisons are too frequent. It is common in these times to use the comparison even around lesser political figures with whom there is disagreement or distaste. I can certainly understand the need to appropriately apply such a serious comparison so as not to desensitize ourselves to the horrific lessons of some historical events. But of all the comparisons, this might be the one that closest parallels the true meaning of the word. Let’s start with the definition.

Definition of Holocaust from Merriam Webster Dictionary

hol·o·caust

ˈhäləˌkôst,ˈhōləˌkôst/

Noun

1.       a sacrifice consumed by fire

2.       a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust>

3.       a) often capitalized :  the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the

b)  a mass slaughter of people; especially :  genocide

Considering estimates of 50-60 million human beings killed by abortion in the United States since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, significant loss of life does characterize the practice. The magnitude of these numbers is actually greater than anything we’ve really ever seen. By this standard, both definition 3 (b) and partially definition 2 (though not by fire) might appropriately apply. If you additionally consider that the claims of genocide are also frequently made when it comes to the promotion of abortion practice, 3 (b) becomes an exact match. One statistic on concernedwomen.org website cites over 54% of abortions are performed on black and Hispanic women while they account for only 29% of the general female population. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and heroine of abortion activists, wrote a paper on birth control and eugenics called Birth Control and Racial Betterment.

While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter. Neither the mating of healthy couples nor the sterilization of certain recognized types of the unfit touches the great problem of unlimited reproduction of those whose housing, clothing, and food are all inadequate to physical and mental health. These measures do not touch those great masses, who through economic pressure populate the slums and there produce in their helplessness other helpless, diseased and incompetent masses, who overwhelm all that eugenics can do among those whose economic condition is better. (2) [emphasis added]

Interesting thought that the poor are spoiling the fun of the economically advantaged and essentially messing up the race. Bummer indeed. Hitler, as we saw above, had his own idea of “unfit” and sought to control the “quality” of the citizens of his country through killing. The actual contact or mutual inspiration of Sanger and Hitler are subject of debate, but clearly the idea that some people have more value than others underlies both of their philosophies. This is the lesser rationalization. It seems that abortion meets the standard of gravity and scale to apply the Holocaust label. Since we are talking about the killing of innocent human beings, and killing on a scale of almost 10x the WWII use of the term, it seems those standards are met. This in no way is meant to diminish or minimize the suffering and death of the Jews in WWII, it was beyond belief. But that is the point, it puts in perspective the magnitude of the institutionalized killing that is happening among us, right here in the United States, every week. It is honestly shocking.

In one discussion I had, an objection was raised that the unborn babies are not tortured like some of the victims of The Holocaust were during WWII. I did consider that carefully. There is no requirement that victims be tortured before they are exterminated. In fact, in the nuclear holocaust example, death would be quick and relatively painless. And while some of the late-term abortions in particular are quite gruesome, and we can speculate about pain suffered by the unborn child, I question if that is really necessary. It remains mass slaughter of human beings.

Conclusions

Likely, every member of a society bears responsibility in some way for the perpetuation of the social practice. Wait. I couldn’t mean even people who never had an abortion or worked at Planned Parenthood? Yes, everyone is likely complicit in some way. Even those that speak out. Remember I am not discussing individual decisions, but societal complicity in a grave evil. If we allow the collective resources of society to be used for killing of innocents, if we do not challenge it with every influence we have, then we bear culpability. But what can I do? Henry David Thoreau bluntly discusses the culpability of  citizens that tolerate evil in Civil Disobedience. He speaks around the evil of his time, slavery and war. And his words are difficult to listen to if your goal is to rationalize inaction:

There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing; who even postpone the question of freedom to question of free-trade, and quietly read the price-current along with the latest advices from Mexico, after dinner, and it may be, fall asleep over them both.

What is the price-current of an honest man and a patriot today?

They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and feeble countenance and God-speed, to the right, and it goes by them. (3)

Thoreau’s rebuke is quite harsh. If unfamiliar it is worth knowing, but the following advice bears particular poignancy in the context of abortion:

What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn. (3)

For Thoreau, only the most basic first step would be to stop supporting the killing of innocent human beings, and the next is to not  speak out against it to everyone you can. Only at this point do we equal to the citizen with his hands in his pockets that Mr. Thoreau mocks. Harsh words in-deed.

I hope that this discussion has helped see this issue in a new way and I appreciate your interest and time to read these thoughts.

Footnotes

(1)    The Godless Delusion, Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley, pp. 95-96.

(2)    Sanger, Margaret; Birth Control and Racial Betterment, Birth Control Review, February 1919 https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=143449.xml

(3)    Thoreau, Henry David; Civil Disobedience, p. 391, 396

Why a Rational Person Might Consider Voting for Life

by Paul (John) Russo

The Blackout

During the final 5 months of the 2016 presidential election, I have occasionally mentioned to family and friends that I have been trying to live a self-imposed news blackout since June. An experiment, if you will. I noticed back in June, that the news I received from media channels was extremely low value, and had a negative effect on my general feeling of goodwill. So I tried an experiment. Stop reading and watching. Cold turkey. I will occasionally indulge in looking at the row of newspaper machines in front of Safeway to see what the printed headlines are. After several months, I'm happy to say, that sometimes I don't know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, only sometimes.  It is actually impossible to blackout the news entirely since enough family and friends comment directly to me.  It is interesting that with all the supposed new breaking news everyone is talking about, not really much has changed since June. Their comments are usually not unwelcome though, because I do care. Especially how issues are affecting my friends and family personally. And then, there are a very small handful of friends, really not that many, who seem to blast out one meme after another. And then there is an even smaller number attempting to change the discussion into a more thoughtful one on the issues. And lastly, a very small group that are resorting to enigmatic statements attempting to avoid the inevitable backlash against anything someone might say in this culture of tolerance. It is the first group that prompted me to write these thoughts. A common thread among them is a professed mystification at how any rational person could even consider voting for Donald Trump. Some go even further. But if some of those friends are interested, I'm happy to share a few thoughts on why a rational person, myself, won't do the "obvious" and rule out Trump.

The idea to write some thoughts down began recently, when my blackout took an uncontrolled one-hour pause. I went to visit my Grandmother. The debates were scheduled for that night, and she had CNN on the television for the 'pre-game discussion'. Oh my. To be honest, I really couldn't follow what anyone was saying because of the way they were saying it. The speech sounded to me like machine guns: dat da dat da dat da dat pop da dat pop da pop dat da pop. The dats and pops were the various 'sides' interrupting and stomping on the other. I could feel stress and negative emotions building, and I didn't even know why. There was no pause whatsoever to even contemplate what a speaker just said before the machine guns continued firing in another direction. It had a disorienting effect on the ears like strobe lights on the eyes. There was no information, just lots of emotion. For those of you who are true Star Trek Original Series fans, it felt like I materialized on board the Star Ship Enterprise during Day of the Dove.

So how can you make an informed choice mostly hiding from the news? When I got back to my farm, where my machine gun blackout could be effectively implemented, the emotion dissipated, and what I was left with were the unheard issues of the day. I did not continue to watch the debate that night, so in fairness, perhaps they did have a vigorous discussion of the issues. Most people I spoke with after either had no opinion after watching (said it was a draw and did not elaborate) or simply recited support for their particular candidate. I don't have to listen to the media tell me what a jerk one person is vs. the other, and I'm not really under any illusion that I have any real influence on the policy of our government, but I do have to live with the personal consequences of my own participation in society which unfortunately includes this election. This is what weighs on me most.

That means, in the end, if I want to make a rational choice, I have to set aside the uninformed emotion that appears to be driving irrational behavior, and vote on the issues most important to me, then leave it in God's hands. Wow. Is it really that simple? Rationally, there isn't really any alternative. This was a huge relief.

There is enough said about both candidates to know that both suffer serious character flaws. Which flaw is the greater and which lesser, well I think different people will come to different conclusions. No matter how you vote on this one, you're going to get a little bit dirty in the short term, and only history will know the future.

Does any Issue Take Priority?

In my own personal experience, I have let my thoughts drift from issue to issue attempting to understand what I believe and what I feel most strongly about; what is of critical importance for me in the next 4 years. Character I have briefly mentioned above. Then there is immigration, defense, the economy, social justice, foreign policy, taxes. All of these are important issues and I have ideas on each. Perhaps character keeps coming to the surface in the discussions and media over these other issues because we know how important it is to our soul. The foundation of our being. But what about the character of our country? If we secure our defense, but become a barbarous people, what have we achieved? If we create great wealth and prosperity but become despicable, where have we gone? If we achieve great fame, but no longer value Life, what have we become? It is likely no accident that the founding fathers listed the three most basic human values in the following order: Life -> Liberty -> Happiness. Because it is a chain. Without the former, you cannot move to obtain the next. Each is built on the former. And the first depends on God.

Life First

Coincidentally, Life is one of those issues that I often find myself meditating on. It is so basic. And the extent to which our society respects life seems so fundamental to our well-being. On the issue of life, there is clear distinction in this election. One candidate has expressly said he is prolife (with 2 exceptions), and the other the opposite. In fact, so forcefully has Clinton expressed her promise to defend abortion, she has in this election cycle gone so far to say that a child even just shortly before natural birth are not persons with any rights whatsoever, and particularly no right to Life. These statements are worthy of pause. I think anyone who is honest knows that babies are viable persons well before their natural birth. Debates often get hung-up on the "moment of conception" but even as we disagree on a fertilized egg, most people on both sides of this issue know in our hearts a child is a fully formed person a week before birth and likely much earlier. Morally can I, even with my tiny influence of a vote, support participating in the reality of a society that condones and enables the killing of innocent people just a month or even days before their birthday?

Before I go on, I must say to any woman reading this who has had an abortion late term or otherwise, these thoughts do not have any ill feelings towards you. If someone has family or friends who have had abortions, my thoughts have no ill feelings towards them either. In fact, it is actually likely that many of my friends have had abortions even if I don't know about it. The current statistic is 1 in 3 women. That makes it pretty likely. While situations and choices may be personal, the point at which these decisions actually happen are a collective societal responsibility. It is in this that I dwell. Further, in the discussion, I do not use the word 'killing' to offend anyone, but because I do believe it is the proper word for ending the life of an another person for whatever reason. The definition is simply: (1) to cause the death of a person, animal, or other living thing, (2) put an end to or cause the failure or defeat of something. Euthanasia is killing. Capital punishment is killing. War is killing. Whether it is justifiable killing is an entirely different discussion and unique to each situation. I do not use the word "murder" because the definition of that word includes "unlawful" and therefore technically not appropriate. What concerns me in this case is what society supports and enables, the collective will, and therefore by definition, that would be lawful practice. So please know that I am coming from perspective of society, not the individual situation, and I hope you may consider this in peace.

Constitutionality of Justifiable Killing of Innocents

My thoughts return to Clinton's statements, which attempt to defend the justifiability of lawful killing of people within 20 weeks of birth, also known as "late-term abortion". In defense of late term abortion, I have heard people assert many things. Some will say that these people are not full 'persons'. They are only part 'person'. These are similar arguments used by some to justify slavery and other forms of discrimination. Again, I'm talking only a month or two before birth. The essence of Clinton's statements defends the idea that these 'persons' are not entitled to any legal protection under the law that extend to any other full 'person'. If that is true, I must understand that they are less than a full person. I honestly do not know what that could be. I know Clinton did not say sub-person, but if it were not what she meant, then unborn babies would indeed be full persons which could not be deprived of life without due process just like you and me. This has some bizarre mind-bending implications. For example, that would mean under our constitution, a corporation, which is considered a "full person", is *more* of a person than a real baby just a few days before birth. Obviously that is not true. Whether she said it or not, this is the philosophical fundamentals of what she is saying. Who would want to live in a country founded on such a principle? Not I. Well, before we go too far into the twilight zone, let's see if her statement is even true from a constitutional perspective.

Can such statements be made in such a dry and categorical manner by an objective person? Is it an indisputable fact that the constitution excludes a baby let’s say a month before birth (although even 10 minutes would not be inconsistent with her statements) from protection? Obviously not from a moral or common sense perspective. But it is happening, and the law is permitting it. But what about from a constitutional perspective? The ability to speak so categorically about the constitution has become very complicated these days even about simple things. For example, we're talking about a statement made by a person, Clinton, who has expressed ideas consistent with the belief that the statement in the second amendment, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is reasonably disputable and fluid. Let's not argue that. Clearly though, even directly worded statements are not taken as definitive statements by everyone. Does the constitution or law anywhere define the magic moment of becoming a person? In fact, in the Roe vs. Wade decision, the supreme court expressly states that the beginning of life is NOT decided by the supreme court or indeed ANYWHERE. Referencing the decision itself: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." (U.S. Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, 1973) This just simply says in flowery language that since we cannot currently agree if "someone" is in the body, it is okay to proceed with a decision to destroy it. (I encourage you to meditate on that). It most certainly does not say they are not people. In most debates (including the reference above), the moment of conception is used as the benchmark, which is much more difficult for many people to clearly grasp and agree on. But most people see the situation that Clinton comments on, near birth or what they call post viability babies, as pretty clear. This is what makes it so striking. Yet, she defends it forcefully and publicly. Why?

Late-term Abortion is a Reality in America

Yes, why? This begs the question, why did this question come up at all anyhow? In the entire election, this statement from a relatively unpublicized MSNBC interview has received minimal attention relative to other statements, and the answer is almost unbelievable. At least it was to me. The inconvenient fact is that it was asked because late-term abortions happen legally in the US all the time. Full pause. This is not known by most people. When told, many reasonable people often reject this fact due to much misinformation. Even in Clinton's own statements with MSNBC, she propagates misinformation by stating the practice is only done only when it is life or death for the mother. In fact, she repeated that over and over. But is this true? Well, no. Not really. The life of the mother is legally not the only exception. The truth is that late term abortions usually do require a 'reason'. Isn't that the same thing? Not at all. Well then, why do we even require a reason at all? If the baby is not a real person, why need a reason? The answer to that, it is because obviously a baby is a person. This is confusing until you consider that life is complicated, and sometimes there are "advantages" for some people to destroy (kill) someone else. To clearly articulate that 8 month old unborn babies are people would either eliminate these advantages, OR inadvertently open the general population to such decisions. Yikes! Further, since a reason *is* required, most reasonable people assume that the reasons permitted must be reasonable reasons such as the example that Clinton gives: to protect the life of the mother. This is why her statement appears so, well, reasonable. But such extreme cases, presented as the only cases, are not true and serve to mask the actual truth about the situation. The reality is, that if something is permissible, but with a reason, it is extremely precarious for the government to legally define which reasons are valid and which are not without triggering discrimination issues. Even a definition like "medical" reasons might include "stress". What mother isn't under stress? A sufficiently broad definition that includes every situation, would not be any limiting factor at all. Attempting to define whose reasons are more justifiable is legally difficult. Therefore, the process *of* obtaining a reason is well defined, but the criteria *for* the reason, the reason for the reason, is not. I've got a headache just discussing it, but this is why such a shocking situation continues to exist in relative obscurity.

A Popularized Moral Dilemma

In fact, we actually can wind up literally in "The Twilight Zone" with this thinking. The specific episode we appear in is "The Button Box". In this episode, a couple is placed in a situation where they are handed a box with a big button on it. They are told if they push it, they will materially benefit, in this case with the receipt of money. However, the moral dilemma, somebody will die. But the palliative is that "somebody" is "somebody they don't even know." With that comfort, the couple does justify pushing the button and they indeed do. In the episode, it is just TV and Justice is served when the box is passed on to another "somebody they don't even know." This is where the analogy breaks however with our late-term abortion example. Since people never return to an unborn state, those that push the button are never placed in jeopardy. The immoral but just scenario in the TV example is actually immoral and unjust in ours. Worth considering.

Back in reality, the result is this legal situation enables late term abortions across America. At this point I will pause because some of you may still not believe this is actually happening. But sadly it is. At a huge scale. CDC estimates based largely on state reporting (which is voluntary, California does not report anything for example) and provider surveys from a former affiliate of Planned Parenthood, estimate that about 15,000 late term abortions are performed annually in the U.S. (Thorp, 2012; Pazole K, Zane SB, Parker WY, Hall LR, Berg C, Cook DA., Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2011) Since it is obvious to any honest person that a baby that is 8mo 29days 23hours and 50 minutes old is a fully formed person, what is actually happening is the legal killing of innocent people in the United States. 15,000 a year. And it is happening near you. Mind blown.

Subterfuge Common Practice

But wait, what about the cases where the mother is actually at risk? Do these exist? Probably, but it's harder to get to the truth than you might think. These are extremely gruesome procedures. If you saw pictures of an aborted 8-month old baby, it would make your stomach turn. This is why there is a large and concerted effort to keep the truth of this reality from us, and the gruesomeness is behind the new California law (as of 10/2/2016) prohibiting the private and unapproved recording of health care. If you try to research this, you get an interesting mix of articles. The articles and studies do not usually deny the legality, that would be verifiably false, but rather try to cast doubt on the extent to which it is "actually happening". A complex set of possible reasons and anecdotal evidence is used to present horrific cases that basically present us with emotionally difficult cases for euthanasia that would wrench anybody's heart. More importantly, they generally do not try to argue that the person is not a person, but rather focus on the merit of the benefit in killing the baby even if it were a person, leaving that particular issue of being a person entitled to protection obscure. This is the same strategy we see in the actual Roe v. Wade decision. But these horrifically difficult cases do not usually explain why, even if mandatory euthanasia (the babies don't have a choice, so this would be an accurate description of the procedure) was supported in certain cases, we would not just simply just delineate the acceptable scenarios. The answer lies at least in part in the difficulty of anti-discrimination laws described above. For example, commonly cited reason for abortion is abnormality such as mental handicap. But if the truth were acknowledged, it could open a Pandora's Box for mandatory euthanasia of *born* mentally handicapped persons. Age (i.e. unborn vs. born) would no longer be a factor. In fact, the only real difference in this example is that in one case it is "somebody we don't even know" and in the other case, we do. Clinton is a lawyer by training, and no matter what some people say, she is an intelligent woman. She knows this full well when she makes the statement that late term abortion is only used to save the mother's life. It's not true, and the extent of this untruth is being hidden from us just like the images of what an aborted baby looks like at 8 months. This follows the general pattern of promoting uninformed and irrational opinion in morally or ethically indefensible situations. Rather than facing these issues head on, instead we are turning our heads away while a common law de-facto approach is being imposed to justify the killing of real people unable to speak for themselves or their own interests. This isn't happening in some third-world dictatorship, but right here amidst our democratic society. There is nowhere to hide, we are all participating in that society. Mind blown again.

Material Support

I know this issue is not seemingly as sensational or outrageous as vulgar words and FBI investigations. But in the end what does this mean with regards to personal voting decisions? For me, I know that:

I CANNOT KNOWNINGLY PROVIDE MATERIAL SUPPORT OF ANY KIND TO ANYONE WHO I BELIEVE IS KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY KILLING OR AIDING IN KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE.

The capital letters are to indicate this is immutably true. I cannot knowingly "kind of" help, or "help but not approve of" killing an innocent person. And her own statements indicate that Clinton is defending this practice. That means she is helping through a promise to enable. How could I vote for her? In fact, I also know:

I MUST DO WHAT I CAN TO PROTECT INNOCENT PERSONS FROM BEING KILLED.

I am not omnipotent. In this case I only have one feeble vote in a sea of over 100 million. But Trump says he will oppose this practice. Even the President will not have the power to change this situation unilaterally. But he might have the ability to ensure that any laws that do exist to curtail abuse of this practice are strongly enforced. With this the case, how could I NOT vote for him (unless Clinton changes her position of course)?

Conclusions on Character

I know even with all that, many cannot get past the fact that Trump is a flawed unsavory person. I don't like it either. I am certainly not in a position to defend his character, only his position. But it still leaves the question: How can the degenerate character of the leader not define the future of our country? Well, I'm sure it will. But does it always work out in the way we expect? Let me recount an old story. There are three candidates for president. In this story we get three. Their character is described by the media as the following:

Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

Who is the most respectable candidate that will lead their nation to greatness? Candidates revealed: A is FDR, B is Churchill and C is Hitler. God uses flawed people for great things all the time.

Many things "might happen" depending on which candidate wins the election. Respectable people may speculate and even disagree about many complex consequences of voting for either candidate. But one thing seems certain, in the next 4 years that this new president holds office, we will all be participants in a society where approximately 60,000 babies within 20 weeks of their birthday will be killed. And we will all apparently suffer NO consequence in this world, save what our conscience imposes. Is that moral? Is that Just? We might just be in one of those strange temporal vortices where the misogynist defends the life of the innocent and the woman defends the killing of children and the only thing we can do is vote. A signal if you will of where we stand on the most fundamental human value: Life.

Strange times indeed. Peace.