Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

The Ten Commandments

  1. Have no other gods.

  2. Don't worship images.

  3. Don't mention Gods name in vain.

  4. Remember the sabbath day.

  5. Honour your father and mother.

  6. Don't kill.

  7. Don't commit adultery.

  8. Don't steal.

  9. Don't lie.

10. Don't desire anything or anyone that belongs to someone else.

The Sixth Commandment

The abrogating of this command brought about the most serious consequences, now more so than even under Hitler and Stalin: Massive numbers of abortions, euthanasia, and even the eugenicist policies that led to genetic cleansing

"You shall not kill." Exodus 20:13

What have we done to this one?  Can it be expected that anyone who has no compunctions about keeping this commandment will have absolutely none about any of the other nine?  Can we trust people who deliberately call for the violation of the Sixth Commandment, who are motivated in that by violations of the Tenth Commandment, and who deliberately violate the Ninth Commandment to achieve their aims?  Can we trust them to truly speak for our children when ostensibly "in the best interest of the children" they call for the introduction of new legislation that will rip apart the bond between children and their parents?

Assisted suicide  (see also Abortions)

In the latter half of 1945 war-crimes trials were held in Germany and many other parts of Europe to bring criminals to justice who under the guise of the code name "euthanasia" had introduced a program of mass killings.  Just as in the vilification of today's men and fathers, the deliberate creation of a propaganda campaign, including the production of a number of very compelling movies by Leni Riefenstahl and others, preceded the legalization of the Nazi "euthanasia" program.  The "mercy killing" of ten's of thousands of handicapped people provided the expertise that eventually expanded the program of mass-exterminations by the SS of "humans of lesser value" into the mass-extermination of 12 million Europeans, half of them Jews.  However, the mass-extermination of these 12 million Europeans too had to be made palatable first.  That was done by expanding and stepping up the propaganda campaign that had made the SS euthanasia program possible.  The scope of the propaganda campaign was quite simply expanded into a hate campaign to include the Sinti, Roma (both Gypsy races), Jews and others in the definition of "humans of lesser value", to condemn them to death and thereby to purify the "Aryan" race.

Today's advocates of the merits of assisted suicide claim the record of the Netherlands, where it is now legal to assist greatly suffering people in their wish to be killed, so that they may be allowed to die in dignity.  However, the record in the Netherlands shows that the majority of such patients are being killed without their consent and without the prescribed forum of doctors who must reach a unanimous decision as to whether a given patient can be killed.  Most of such decisions are being made by just one single doctor upon the request of relatives who no longer want to carry the burden of providing for members of their families that became a nuisance.  It appears that more than 80 percent of ostensible "assisted suicides" in the Netherlands are in reality cases of euthanasia, so-called merci-killings, in which the victim has no say.  What's more, although charges of manslaughter or murder were brought against some of the Dutch doctors who in spite of the liberated Dutch euthanasia laws killed some of their patients illegally, none of them have yet been brought to trial.

On November 22, 1998, Dr. Kevorkian, a.k.a. "Dr. Death" was featured on "60 Minutes", which showed a video made by Dr. Kevorkian.  That video provided clear evidence of how Dr. Kevorkian in violation of his Hippocratic oath killed a man, without any doubt an act of homicide.  Sure, the man asked that he be killed, but it is still illegal to kill!  At any rate, the video showed Dr. Kevorkian injecting first a drug that would stop the man's breathing, and then showed him injecting a drug that was intended to stop the man's heart from beating.  Dr. Death promptly made the news on account of having challenged the authorities to charge him with murder.  Dr. Kevorkian believes that it is his right to kill people and that if anyone should dare to find him guilty that that would be an injustice.  He threatens the authorities that if they should dare to sentence him to prison for what he has done, that he'll promptly go on hunger strike.
(Update 1999 06 11: Dr. "Death" has been sentenced to Prison.  There is no word on whether he has started his promised hunger strike yet)

How are his actions and his experiments—which apparently included the use of plastic bags to suffocate his victims—as to how best to kill people any different from the experiments of the Nazis.  Those eventually brought 12 million people to the gas chambers of the extermination camps.  Let's hope that the authorities take Dr. Kevorkian by his word and let him starve himself to death.

The advocates of "assisted suicide" claim that if someone isn't capable any longer to kill himself, it should nevertheless be permissible to put him to death, because there is no hope for him anyway that he'll ever be able to lead a productive and comfortable life.  What excuse can therefore be used when such people insist that abortions must be made legal?


Abortions involve the killing of an unborn child, something not even the Nazis considered making legal.  Unborn children in the wombs of their mothers—a place once regarded to be a sacred place, the safest place ever for a child to be—are now being killed at any stage during their gestation right up to the instance of birth (see the Partial-Birth Abortion Procedure. Diagrams  Texts).  The legalization of abortions became promoted under the euphemism "therapeutic abortions", abortions that were intended to prevent "defective" children from reaching full term, abortions that were to protect the life and health of the mother from harm of the risk posed by specific isolated pregnancies and associated complications.

From those ostensibly benign intentions the rate of abortions grew to 55 million abortions annually in the world.  In North America, about one third of all conceived children are being killed before they have a chance to be born—under the premise that it is the right of the mother to her body that allows her to ask someone to kill her unborn child, and that because she asks for an abortion, it is legal for any doctor to kill her unborn child for her.

Abortion rates in North America:

  • USA: 1.5 million per year
  • Canada: 106 thousand per year
  • Alberta: 10,231 per year, an increase of 15% over two years,  "...3,401, of the 1997-98 abortions were performed on women that had previously aborted, some of them up to six times." (Alberta Health Statistics released in May 1999, Alberta Report, June 7, 1999, p. 27).  Obviously, if abortion are for therapeutic reason, the "treatment" doesn't take too well and must be taken repeatedly.

The killing of unborn children and young children alike has become so commonplace that it is hardly ever mentioned in the news, unless the circumstances of a particular killing are extraordinary violations of even our much relaxed moral values.  Yet, the heart of the public still beats for the rights of animals.  If someone should dare to hurt a dog or a cat, a public outcry is made.  Animal-rights people would rather that we pollute the environment to produce the plastics that are used in the manufacturing of the clothing and footwear that is to protect us from the extremes of the Canadian climate than to have any items of clothing made from animal products.  They clamor for ceasing the use of animals for the development of new medication but will not utter a single word of protest against the use of tissue obtained from freshly-killed children to be used in biological experiments.

Update 2006 05 14

Chilling perspectives on "Ethics"

In case of a deadly flu pandemic, whom should we save?

Once-upon-a-time a question like that never came up, except in totalitarian nations such as the USSR, Red China and Nazi Germany.  The presence of universal moral standards in the cultural heritage of the West ensured that the answer to such a question was, women and children first, then the elderly, the weak and the sick.  We fought wars to preserve that as a right of humanity, to ensure the abolition of slavery and the right of everyone to life and liberty.  That had made our society reach the heights it attained before its fall.  However, those standards no longer exist.  Now the legalization of euthanasia, assisted suicide and rigorous culling to establish the survival of the fittest is the norm in our brave-new world. 
    In the name of science it is now rationalized that rigorous selective culling is needed on the basis of economics, not survival of the weak on moral grounds.  The outcomes of such practices are similar to those that the Nazis hoped to achieve, for similar reasons; only the methods differ.  The Nazis actively killed those that were and in our brave-new world we actively withhold the means to keep alive those that are deemed not worthy to let live, although in the rationalizing for the eradication of the right to life of the weakest of all, those not yet born, we have already shown ourselves to be far more ruthless than the Nazis ever were.
    Still, vestiges of our largely vanished great cultural aims still exist, or else it would not be that the proposal by Ezekiel Emanuel and Alan Wertheimer (in the journal Science, May 12, 2006) sparked as much public discussion as it did.  (The discussion is still growing.  A May 13, 2006 search per the preceding link provided 539 entries in the search return list. Sixteen hours later, May 14, the entries in the return list for the search had grown to 572.)

Abortions and violence against women in the context of overall numbers of violent deaths

In the US, 1,326 women died in 1996 in domestic violence-related incidents, versus bout 1,600 a few years earlier.  (Mother Jones: Women Hit Too!), yet, 38,000 people in North America (mostly men) died last year as the result of successful suicide attempts, and about 25,000 (mostly men) in total died as the result of interpersonal violence.  Almost an equal number of men died in domestic violence-related incidents (41% of spousal murder victims are men, according to US Bureau of Justice).
    What extraordinary efforts we make to secure the well-being of 2% of the victims of violence!  Yet, we permit the same half of society from which these 2% of domestic-violence victims come to kill 1.5 million defenceless children each year in North America (55 million each year in the whole world).  Not only that, but we give them the right to do these killings.

See more information on abortions and on some of the complications that arise out of mercy killings.

Back to The Ten Commandments     The Fifth Commandment    The Seventh Commandment

Last updated:
1999 06 11
2001 01 29 (format changes)