Is Grafting Dead Babies' Scalps On Lab Rats Better Than Child Sacrifice?

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one week ago  •  78 comments

By:   Joe Allen (The Federalist)

Is Grafting Dead Babies' Scalps On Lab Rats Better Than Child Sacrifice?
The horrors of experimentation on aborted babies are too easily purged from our thoughts, but they should stoke our national conscience.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



This article is about gruesome subject matter.

Child sacrifice strains the limits of moral relativity, yet too often abortion gets a pass. There are various arguments why, but at least it's a debate. In contrast, most Americans are only semi-conscious of the use of aborted babies for medical experiments. Our tax dollars pay for it through the National Institutes of Health, but more often than not, we never hear about it.

In a recent Newsweek editorial, David Daleiden reminded the public that scientists at the University of Pittsburgh have been taking five-month-old aborted infants, cutting out their body parts, then grafting their scalps onto mice, or otherwise harvesting their organs for medical use. Our natural response is revulsion. For the sake of sanity, though, our momentary outrage is usually followed by forgetfulness.

It's a difficult subject to contemplate, so most people don't, at least for long. When Daleiden exposed similar abuses by Planned Parenthood back in 2015, very little changed. Most of us who heard about it simply recoiled in disgust and moved on.

Meanwhile, Daleiden faced felony eavesdropping charges for his undercover investigation and is still trying to appeal court orders to pay Planned Parenthood more than $15 million in damages and legal fees. Outside the activist community or his delighted detractors, his story goes largely untold.

Any gruesome practice done in the name of "medicine" is subject to the ethical scrutiny of experts, of course, but the experts are usually the ones conducting them. Most observers have no power over the situation — if they even know about it at all.

Similarly, most people rarely think about the dark acts occurring daily in abortion clinics, or the child sacrifices taking place today in Uganda, South Africa, and elsewhere. Effectively, these horrors exist outside the public's moral framework.

Meanwhile, the horrors of abortion have become too normalized. A recent Pew poll found 59 percent of Americans support allowing abortion to remain legal while only 39 percent oppose it. That opposition is heavily skewed toward white evangelicals. Even among Catholic respondents, more than half favored legalization. As you'd expect, older generations are more concerned than young people, although the majority in every age bracket was pro-abortion.

I'm unaware of any public opinion polls on child sacrifice, but I think it's fair to say almost no Americans would favor throwing infants onto temple fires — even for the benefit of the community. For one thing, few modern Americans believe the gods require human blood to make the crops grow or keep the sun on its course. Beyond that logical reasoning, though, we're morally conditioned from childhood to believe human beings deserve better.

Part of the shift in attitudes toward "pregnancy termination" is due to pop science narratives. For instance, because a newly conceived embryo has not yet developed a nervous system with pain receptors, this living being is easily seen as a mere clump of cells. It takes real effort to imagine what the baby's experience might be like, so it's easy to pretend it has no soul.

Then again, science also reveals that by seven weeks a fetus has formed free nerve endings. By this time, the spinal cord and thalamus are sufficiently developed to receive nerve impulses — including discomfort.

Some of the children used in the University of Pittsburgh experiments were at 22 weeks of development when they were killed and mutilated. There's every reason to believe these tiny people are fully capable of experiencing pain. Nevertheless, those who stand to benefit decide such pain is worth the sacrifice.

The comparison of abortion to child sacrifice is a common polemic, largely because there's no satisfactory answer for why the two are fundamentally different. In many historical ritual murders across the globe, the purpose wasn't purely malicious. Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Canaanites, Polynesians, the ancient Chinese, various African tribes, and probably the Celts were all willing to make a trade-off: kill innocent people for the perceived benefit to the community.

The logic for abortion, at its core, is pretty much the same. Women have various reasons for wanting to terminate a pregnancy, as do men, but it ultimately snuffs out an innocent life so other people's lives can proceed unencumbered. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as incest or rape, the infant's life is being sacrificed for the benefit of other people.

The same principle is at work in this kind of medical research, but with a seductive twist. The purpose of the child's sacrifice is to benefit other people, but the results are more readily demonstrated. In one of the University of Pittsburgh experiments, tissues were scraped from the livers of infants at 22 weeks of gestation, and injected into liver disease patients. The researchers hope to use similar cell-based treatments to rejuvenate the withered livers of anyone who can afford it.

The rhetoric we've heard many times this past year, "if we can save just one life," is at play here in its most twisted form — ignoring the fact that such medical research costs the lives of countless unborn children.

Another study, published in Nature, shows pictures of infants' scalps growing on the backs of pitiful rodents. The viewer knows the soft hair should be growing on a child's head, but isn't. The conscience revolts. The spell is broken. You begin to wonder whether any potential benefits to those who are alive are worth something like this.

It's a deeply moral question, arising from an innate sense of fairness. Surely there were Aztecs who witnessed the bloody spectacle and thought it might be better to let the sun go dark. I've known a number of women who've had abortions, and for most, the emotional price of their newfound freedom was far greater than they'd ever imagined. I also know laboratory techs, all women, who still weep after euthanizing lab mice.

The reality is that many Americans benefit from human cruelty — directly or indirectly — be it from wars of aggression or hellish factory farms. In the case of research on aborted infants and "humanized mice," it's possible countless lives could be saved by the resulting information. So the moral concern shifts away from the invisible innocents toward more immediate desires.

Yet when confronted with the brutal truth behind these actions, something in the soul recoils. We should heed that awakened voice. The moment it goes silent, we cease to be fully human.


Joe-Allen-bw-1.jpg

Joe Allen is a fellow primate who wonders why we ever came down from the trees. For years, he worked as a rigger on various concert tours. Between gigs, he studied religion and science at UTK and Boston University.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one week ago

Joe Allen says it is a moral question.

One of our "credentialed" scientist might say it's necessary.

What say you?


screen-shot-2020-12-18-at-7.06.41-am.png

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one week ago

I say read the researchers article:

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Hallux @1.1    one week ago

Thanks for the link. It seems not everyone is interested in actual research, but instead attempts to put a dishonest spin on it or vilify it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
2  Bob Nelson    one week ago

Misinformation. As usual. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    one week ago
Misinformation. As usual.

Federalist.  As usual.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
2.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1    one week ago

Logical fallacies in place of argument.  As usual.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    one week ago
Logical fallacies in place of argument. 

The article is full of appeals to emotion fallacies instead of any actual rational argument.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.1    one week ago

Logical fallacies in place of argument.  As usual.

So stating that it was a Federalist article is a logical fallacy ???

FlakyFirstAmbushbug-size_restricted.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
2.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.3    one week ago

Your attempt at a veiled dig on the source was quite evident. Don't be coy.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.4    one week ago
Your attempt at a veiled dig on the source was quite evident.

So stating that it was a Federalist article is a veiled dig?

Please, explain how 1 word, which accurately named the source of the article, is a "veiled dig".

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
2.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.5    one week ago

Easy. Your comment history on any of Vic's articles that come from the same source. How soon some forget their own stances. You may need help with your memory.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.6    one week ago
Your comment history on any of Vic's articles that come from the same source.

Ahhh, so you ASS-U-ME, that I feel that any article from Federalist is considered misinformation. 

Since you have looked up my comment history, please list the specific number of Federalist articles I have commented on, then list the specific number articles that the Federalist has published.

Now do a little math and state exactly what percentage of Federal articles I have put down.  And remember, I never limited my comment to Vic's seeded articles, so for you to be accurate, you cannot limit them either.

I will await the result of your homework assignment.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.7    one week ago

The Federalist is on the borderline of being banned from use as a source on NT . It is as far right on the chart as you can be and still be usable, and is criticized for failed fact checks and spreading conspiracy theories. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.8    one week ago
The Federalist is on the borderline of being banned from use as a source on NT .

Not as long as I live and breathe!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    one week ago

go ahead and stick your finger in the dike

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Expert
2.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.7    one week ago
I feel that any article from Federalist is considered misinformation.

Painfully obvious. As for your other ASS-UM-ptions, I have a memory and don't need to look up your history. It would be some comic relief on certain days but I have other means of entertainment. 

And your assignment ............LMMFAO just who the hell do you think you are?? And lest you delve into the swamp of borderline violations, I just last week was ticketed for telling someone they needed to prove what they wrote to the membership and the outside looking in folks.

Oh, and asking for a friend, how's the weather up on that high horse?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.9    one week ago
Not as long as I live and breathe!

You have say as to what sources are acceptable by NT?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.12    one week ago

15 inches worth.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.11    one week ago
As for your other ASS-UM-ptions, I have a memory and don't need to look up your history.

So you lied?  You did not look up my comment history?

I guess you're going to blow off your homework too.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.13    one week ago

That little, eh?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2    one week ago
Misinformation. As usual. 

Not to mention emotional rhetoric too.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2    one week ago

There can never be rational discussion of abortion, because the "pro-life" arguments are fundamentally irrational.

"Pro-life" arguments are based on faith: faith in carnaval-barkers who sell their anti-abortion tripe today in exactly the same way as they sold their miracle-medicines yesterday.

Illogic rules them. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.1    one week ago

It's not just faith. The arguments are also based on emotion and emotional appeals to sway opinions. Completely irrational. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.2    one week ago

Yes. That's the "because our preacher said so" contingent.

I could also mention a very odd contingent: the legalists. They kinda raise Roe to the status of "God engraved it in stone". That decision somehow becomes its own justification. These people refuse to dig any deeper. "Roe is right!" The refusal to examine "why" is just as stubborn as the "pro-life" crowd. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.3    one week ago
That's the "because our preacher said so" contingent.

Or replace "preacher with bible or God. Same difference.

That decision somehow becomes its own justification. These people refuse to dig any deeper. "Roe is right!" The refusal to examine "why" is just as stubborn as the "pro-life" crowd. 

The why has been established: individual rights and autonomy, especially of the woman. Roe has been challenged before too. So there has been explanations as to the "why" of Roe is correct. But none as to why Roe would be incorrect.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
2.2.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.4    one week ago
Or replace "preacher with bible or God. Same difference.

No. I know the Bible fairly well. It says very little about abortion. It does not forbid it.

So this is important: whoever claims Biblical justification is taking the name of the Lord in vain.

The why has been established: individual rights and autonomy

Perhaps I should have been more precise. Roe sets a limit at three months. That's arbitrary. The legalists get upset if asked "why"? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2.6  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.5    one week ago
No. I know the Bible fairly well. It says very little about abortion. It does not forbid it.

I think we both know that some people will cherry pick the bible to secure their own agenda or bias. Twist some words around or fit in their own interpretations.

So this is important: whoever claims Biblical justification is taking the name of the Lord in vain.

Even more importantly, any use of the bible as justification clearly has no valid or logical argument to make.

Perhaps I should have been more precise. Roe sets a limit at three months. That's arbitrary. The legalists get upset if asked "why"? 

At the time, it became an issue of when "state interests" (whatever that is) became paramount. The court established a trimester system to appease both sides. Abortions were allowed during the 1st trimester, for health reasons in the 2nd trimester, of only for life saving measures in the 3rd trimester. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
2.2.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.6    one week ago
The court established a trimester system to appease both sides. 

Yes. It's a political compromise that has nothing to do with either science or morality. Which is why the legalists melt down, if asked "why?". 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2.8  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.7    one week ago
Yes. It's a political compromise that has nothing to do with either science or morality. Which is why the legalists melt down, if asked "why?". 

Morality is subjective and irrelevant. Neither should it be the basis for law or legal analyses. While there may be political aspects to the case, science was more used in the subsequent case challenging Roe, "Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). There, the trimester system was replaced with the fetal viability standard, as established by science. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
2.2.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.8    one week ago

Good Comment. I was still on Roe.

Still... Casey's standard is dependent on technology. "Fetal viability" is not the same today as fifty years ago, nor as fifty years hence. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.9    one week ago
Good Comment.

Thank you.

Still...Casey's standard is dependent on technology. "Fetal viability" is not the same today as fifty years ago, nor as fifty years hence. 

Actually, it is. Despite advances in medical technology and such, fetal viability has not significantly changed from its established 23-24 week gestation point. Technology has just improved survival at viability.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.11    one week ago

I'll see your Time article and raise you a Pediatrics (2011) journal. Although, where is the scientific research to support the claim of decreasing viability limits? I see the claim made, but nothing cited to back it up. I do accept that viability limits probably have decreased over time. 

In addition, I reluctantly offer this article as a counterpoint to your time article. The article itself is old and non-scientific, so I hesitate to use it. I offer it only as a counter opinion to the claims in your Time article, with emphasis on this part stated in the article (Para 3), " Doctors now believe a fetus can become viable during the 23 rd  week–a week earlier than was thought 24 years ago ." So in 2.5 decades, the viability limit has only decreased by 1 week. Just food for thought.

Bear in mind, current viability stands at approximately 24 weeks gestation. This has not changed since PP v Casey (1992), nearly 30 years ago. Survival rates have improved. But viability itself is largely the same. Now, compared to 50 years ago, there is probably some decline in viability limits. Around the time of Roe, it was thought to be around 28 weeks. So if we accept that fetal viability has steadily decreased over the decades, it seems there is a "hard point" (for lack of a better term) at which viability can no longer be decreased and provide a 50% survival chance, and that seems to be the current 23-24 week mark, which has remained unchanged for 30 years. 

There are cases where a fetus born below the viability limit has survived. But such cases are extremely rare. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
2.2.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.12    one week ago

Alternatively, medical researchers may not be greatly motivated to improve "real viability", as long as "legal viability" remains fixed. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
2.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.13    one week ago
Alternatively, medical researchers may not be greatly motivated to improve "real viability", as long as "legal viability" remains fixed. 

Doubtful. Even if viability were reduced, it would take a legal challenge or review to change the current viability standard. Medical research will probably try to improve survival chances for pre-term neonates.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.15  CB   replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.13    one week ago

I will say this (on my behalf, still leaving it up to a girl or woman without personal judgement): Girls and women have to make the hard decision early(iest) in their pregnancies. The courts are only dealing with this question of viability because of the living girls and women involved. That is, we have confirmed that once a suitable clasps with a suitable egg and enters its womb a being will issue forth, all things being equal.

So abortion is a 'hail mary' action to extend the privacy of a girl or woman; as such it should not be a leisurely snap judgement or an act lacking conviction. It is the last ditch effort to grant a girl or woman her independent in full, though consciences will be more than likely affected or 'pricked.'

 
 
 
charger 383
PhD Quiet
3  charger 383    one week ago

No point in letting things go to waste,  a cure for disease could be found 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  charger 383 @3    one week ago
No point in letting things go to waste,  a cure for disease could be found 

Exactly! Abortion products are thrown into a medical waste bin, bound for an incinerator. Might as well use those contents for something beneficial.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
4  Gordy327    one week ago
Child sacrifice strains the limits of moral relativity, yet too often abortion gets a pass. There are various arguments why, but at least it's a debate. In contrast, most Americans are only semi-conscious of the use of aborted babies for medical experiments. 

Equating abortion with child sacrifice is quite disingenuous.  Abortion is a personal choice and there is no "child." Embryonic/fetal remains are generally disposed of as medical waste. Rather than simply letting it go to waste, the tissues can be used for medical research.

Our natural response is revulsion.

Only for those who might be overly emotional or squeamish about such things.

Daleiden faced felony eavesdropping charges for his undercover investigation and is still trying to appeal court orders to pay Planned Parenthood more than $15 million in damages and legal fees. Outside the activist community or his delighted detractors, his story goes largely untold.

His story is actually well known. His "investigation" was intentionally misleading and Planned Parenthood was cleared of any wrong doing. He breaks the law, he faces the consequences. He had his time in court.

Any gruesome practice done in the name of "medicine" is subject to the ethical scrutiny of experts, of course, but the experts are usually the ones conducting them. Most observers have no power over the situation — if they even know about it at all.

Medical experts and practitioners are subject to board and state oversight and regulations. So there is power over conduct. To state or imply otherwise is either woefully ignorant, or just plain lying!

Similarly, most people rarely think about the dark acts occurring daily in abortion clinics,

Such as? Melodramatic much?

or the child sacrifices taking place today in Uganda, South Africa, and elsewhere. Effectively, these horrors exist outside the public's moral framework.

What do other countries actions have to do with anything here?

Meanwhile, the horrors of abortion have become too normalized.

Hyperbole.

For instance, because a newly conceived embryo has not yet developed a nervous system with pain receptors, this living being is easily seen as a mere clump of cells.

Have you ever seen pictures of a blastocyst or early embryo? It basically does look like a clump of cells. After a while, it starts to resemble a piece of uncooked shrimp.

so it's easy to pretend it has no soul.

Prove such a thing exists!

Then again, science also reveals that by seven weeks a fetus has formed free nerve endings. By this time, the spinal cord and thalamus are sufficiently developed to receive nerve impulses — including discomfort.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a fetus is incapable of feeling pain or discomfort until the 3rd trimester (27 weeks). That is past the point of viability an when elective abortions are allowed. 

Some of the children used in the University of Pittsburgh experiments were at 22 weeks of development when they were killed and mutilated.

Well there's a spin in an attempt to appeal to emotion. They're fetuses. And they were before viability when they were aborted. 

There's every reason to believe these tiny people are fully capable of experiencing pain. 

Believe what you want. Actual facts say otherwise. I'll take fact over mere belief.

Women have various reasons for wanting to terminate a pregnancy,

That is their right, their prerogative, and their choice!

as do men,

Irrelevant. They have no say in a woman's choice.

but it ultimately snuffs out an innocent life so other people's lives can proceed unencumbered. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as incest or rape, the infant's life is being sacrificed for the benefit of other people.

Forcing a woman to remain pregnant possibly sacrifices her normal life, and utilizes her body, to benefit another. So if that argument is to be used, then it works both ways!

In one of the University of Pittsburgh experiments, tissues were scraped from the livers of infants at 22 weeks of gestation, and injected into liver disease patients. The researchers hope to use similar cell-based treatments to rejuvenate the withered livers of anyone who can afford it.

Stem cell therapy can be a significant medical breakthrough. The ability to regenerate diseased organs means an individual can have restored health and reduce the need and wait for a transplant. 

You begin to wonder whether any potential benefits to those who are alive are worth something like this.

Yes.

I've known a number of women who've had abortions, and for most, the emotional price of their newfound freedom was far greater than they'd ever imagined.

Highly subjective. Many women also have no problems with their choice. According to a study published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (2013),

Compared with women who obtained a near-limit abortion, those denied the abortion felt more regret and anger (scoring, on average, 0.4–0.5 points higher on a 0–4 scale), and less relief and happiness (scoring 1.4 and 0.3 points lower, respectively). Among women who had obtained the abortion, the greater the extent to which they had planned the pregnancy or had difficulty deciding to seek abortion, the more likely they were to feel primarily negative emotions (odds ratios, 1.2 and 2.5, respectively). Most (95%) women who had obtained the abortion felt it was the right decision, as did 89% of those who expressed regret.

In other words, women who were denied abortions or had abortions when they planned for a pregnancy were the most unhappy about it. Even then, the overwhelming majority thought it was the right choice they made for themselves.

Yet when confronted with the brutal truth behind these actions, something in the soul recoils. We should heed that awakened voice. The moment it goes silent, we cease to be fully human.

More hyperbole and appeals to emotion. Most people probably have at least a basic understanding of what abortion is. And as the cited poll in the article shows, most people also want abortion to remain legal. So the solution is simple: don't like abortion? Then don't have one. But every woman should be allowed to make and exercise that choice for themselves. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    one week ago

The seeded article, quite openly, compares abortion to child sacrifice .

-

In many historical ritual murders across the globe, the purpose wasn't purely malicious. Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Canaanites, Polynesians, the ancient Chinese, various African tribes, and probably the Celts were all willing to make a trade-off: kill innocent people for the perceived benefit to the community.

Many of those who advocate for the right to abortion do not consider the unborn to be people, yet the writer of the seed implies that they are people by the very act of the comparison. 

Carl Sagan was without doubt, in my opinion, one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century. He wrote somewhat extensively on abortion and concluded that the best course was abortion rights up until the fetus achieved viability if it were separated from the mother. Sagan concluded that this was the end of the second trimester. 

Nothing is going to change this, and if abortion is banned it will just go underground. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.1  Gordy327  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one week ago
The seeded article, quite openly, compares abortion to child sacrifice

That alone discredits it.

yet the writer of the seed implies that they are people by the very act of the comparison. 

With a soul no less.

Carl Sagan was without doubt, in my opinion, one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century.

Agreed.

Nothing is going to change this, and if abortion is banned it will just go underground. 

Like it was pre Roe v. Wade. And we know how well that worked out, especially for women. It seems some people want history to repeat itself.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
5.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one week ago
up until the fetus achieved viability

This is pure semantics. A two-year-old child is not viable. Without assistance, it cannot live.

And... as medical equipment improves, a day will come when in vitro fertilization can be followed by an incubator... with the "baby" never spending a single moment in a mother's womb.

So "viability" means roughly whatever we want it to mean.

We can spend a lot of time, searching for "the moment of personhood". (I know I spent a great deal of time, before accepting the fact that I was on a snipe-hunt...)

Personhood is a continuum, from conception to death. The person spends forty years growing, and then... the rest... coasting to a stop.

There is no magical moment of personhood.

---

Human beings have a very strong "parenting reflex". Our brains get mushy at the sight of a newborn - regardless of species! We must take care of it, nurture it, protect it...

So the "pro-life" arguments are not about abortion, but about "saving the babies". While avoiding discussion of what, exactly, is a baby. It's not easy to contend that a clump of cells, only visible with a microscope, is a "baby". And if pressed hard enough, the discussion always ends with "because my preacher says that's God's word!"

... which isn't true...

In the end, "save the babies" is a pack of lies. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2    one week ago
This is pure semantics. A two-year-old child is not viable. Without assistance, it cannot live.

Not quite.  It's a matter of duration.

How long can a 2 year old survive without assistance?  -   Couple days, maybe.

How long can a zygote or a fetus survive with assistance?  -  Instant death.

And... as medical equipment improves, a day will come when in vitro fertilization can be followed by an incubator... with the "baby" never spending a single moment in a mother's womb.

And when that day comes, do you think any republican will support a healthcare plan that covers, 100%, of the cost to remove the cells from the mother and implant them in the incubator?

So "viability" means roughly whatever we want it to mean.

The meaning of viability stands by its current meaning, not based on some "possible" future that may never exist.

We can spend a lot of time, searching for "the moment of personhood".

Both science and the bible say the moment he/she takes their 1st breath.

There is no magical moment of personhood.

Yet republicans keep trying to define it using the magical book known as the bible.

So the "pro-life" arguments are not about abortion, but about "saving the babies".

"Pro-life" arguments are not about babies, they are about a parasitic group of cells growing in a woman.  And whether or not she can be FORCED to leave them in her body.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
5.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.1    one week ago
Both science and the bible say the moment he/she takes their 1st breath.

   jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

Could we please have citations? I know the Bible fairly well, but I don't know this. 

And I can't imagine any scientist espousing it...

It happens that I personally believe birth should be the last limit for abortion, but not for any reason concerning the newborn. At birth, our brain-melting parenting reflex kicks in, so "killing the baby" becomes abhorrent. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2    one week ago
This is pure semantics. A two-year-old child is not viable. Without assistance, it cannot live.

This is a false equivalency. When referring to viability, it is specifically about fetal viability.

And... as medical equipment improves, a day will come whenin vitrofertilization can be followed by an incubator... with the "baby" never spending a single moment in a mother's womb.

That is pure speculation and irrelevant to the current issue.

So "viability" means roughly whatever we want it to mean.

Viability is defined as the point where the fetus can possibly survive outside the womb with medical assistance, around 24 weeks gestation.

We can spend a lot of time, searching for "the moment of personhood". (I know I spent a great deal of time, before accepting the fact that I was on a snipe-hunt...)

"Personhood" is the moment of birth. An embryo/fetus is not legally considered a person.

There is no magical moment of personhood.

See previous statement.

Personhood is a continuum, from conception to death. The person spends forty years growing, and then... the rest... coasting to a stop

That's not personhood. That's life cycle.

Human beings have a very strong "parenting reflex". Our brains get mushy at the sight of a newborn -regardless of species!Wemusttake care of it, nurture it, protect it...

Humans are also emotional, which makes for irrational thought processes.

So the "pro-life" arguments are not about abortion, but about "saving the babies"

But an embryo/fetus is not yet a baby, despite what the pro-life crowd believes or states. And that battle cry gives no consideration to the woman in question.

While avoiding discussion of what, exactly, is a baby.

A baby is defined as a newborn up to 1 year old.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.2    one week ago
Could we please have citations? I know the Bible fairly well, but I don't know this.

Genesis 2:7

Job 33:4

Ezekiel 37:5&6

There are others that imply it also.

And I can't imagine any scientist espousing it...

I was generous with that, currently life begins when the baby is born.  Technically that is seconds before the baby takes it's first breath, but if the baby doesn't take that 1st breath it is not alive..

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.4    one week ago

None of your three citations mentions abortion. 

Life began... about three billion years ago, on Earth. (Longer ago, if panspermia is real.) The father is alive; his sperm is alive. The mother is alive; her egg is alive. The zygote is alive.

Life is an unbroken chain. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.5    one week ago
None of your three citations mentions abortion.

Neither did your question. 

I can cite instances in the bible that show god as pro abortion (not pro-choice, actually pro-abortion).  But that is not what we were discussing.

You were questioning "Life at 1st breath".

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.5    one week ago
Life began... about three billion years ago, on Earth. (Longer ago, if panspermia is real.) The father is alive; his sperm is alive. The mother is alive; her egg is alive. The zygote is alive.

You consider it murder every time a guy jerks off? 

Or puts his sperm anywhere except in a woman's vagina? 

How about the hundreds, or even thousands of sperm that do not penetrate an egg?  Is that manslaughter or mass suicide?

 
 
 
Veronica
Junior Guide
5.2.8  Veronica  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.7    one week ago
How about the hundreds, or even thousands of sperm that do not penetrate an egg?  Is that manslaughter or mass suicide?

I often wonder what they call it when a woman's body rejects the fertilized egg either before or after implantation.  We call it spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) - is it manslaughter because the woman's body rejected the egg?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Veronica @5.2.8    one week ago
is it manslaughter because the woman's body rejected the egg?

Child abandonment???

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  Veronica @5.2.8    one week ago

The sad part is, there are countries where women are arrested and even prosecuted for having a miscarriage. I have little doubt there are those who want the same thing here.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.2.11  Gordy327  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.5    one week ago
Life is an unbroken chain. 

"Life" is also a poor argument regarding abortion. It's more of a buzzword abortion opponents sometimes use to emotionally sway opinions in their favor. It has never made for a compelling or rational argument.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.2.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.7    one week ago

You should probably talk to a high school biology teacher. You don't seem to know what sperm is. 

Seeing some of these posts, I don't know if the abortion cheerleaders struggle with basic biology  or logic more.   

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.12    one week ago
You don't seem to know what sperm is.

Care to explain where I am wrong?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
5.2.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.13    one week ago

You don't understand the difference between a sperm and fertilized egg?  

Do you confuse a strand of hair with a human being as well? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
5.2.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.6    one week ago
You were questioning "Life at 1st breath".

Not particularly. I was just trying to get a straight answer. But hey! We can start with "Life at 1st breath".

Do you have a Biblical citation? The three you gave say nothing.

Do you have a scientific citation? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
5.2.16  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.7    one week ago
You consider it murder every time a guy jerks off?

WTF? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
5.2.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.11    one week ago

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.14    one week ago
You don't understand the difference between a sperm and fertilized egg?

Somehow it appears that you have simply misread what ever you think I said.  You're going to have to me more specific on what you are claiming I said.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.15    one week ago
Not particularly.

Yes, SPECIFICALLY.  I have provided you with the specific bible verses you asked, so now you are trying to backtrack since you can see that you are wrong.

I was just trying to get a straight answer.

About when the bible said life begins.  And I gave you your answer.  I didn't attempt to paraphrase or anything, I gave you specific verse.

We can start with "Life at 1st breath". Do you have a Biblical citation? The three you gave say nothing.

Then you didn't read them! 

Quote them in your reply and anyone here can show you where they specifically address it, if you have problems reading for yourself.

Do you have a scientific citation?

Just trying to see what sticks to the wall huh?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.20  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.16    one week ago
You consider it murder every time a guy jerks off?
WTF? 

Let me quote you....again....

Life began... about three billion years ago, on Earth. (Longer ago, if panspermia is real.) The father is alive; his sperm is alive. The mother is alive; her egg is alive. The zygote is alive.

You are putting sperm at the same level you had previously put "baby", that you have just renamed as "zygote".  Or do you believe that a "zygote" does not have as much right to live (in your opinion) as a "baby"?

AND just so you don't get confused, I will quote you again using the word "baby" to include all levels from zygote to fetus.

And... as medical equipment improves, a day will come when in vitro fertilization can be followed by an incubator... with the "baby" never spending a single moment in a mother's womb.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
5.2.21  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ozzwald @5.2.20    one week ago

I don't know if your misunderstanding is intentional or not... but I'm not going to waste any more time. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
5.2.22  pat wilson  replied to  Gordy327 @5.2.3    one week ago
So the "pro-life" arguments are not about abortion, but about "saving the babies"

But an embryo/fetus is not yet a baby, despite what the pro-life crowd believes or states. And that battle cry gives no consideration to the woman in question.

While avoiding discussion of what, exactly, is a baby.

A baby is defined as a newborn up to 1 year old.

I think Bob agrees with you here, unless I'm mistaken.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
5.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  pat wilson @5.2.22    one week ago
I think Bob agrees with you here, unless I'm mistaken.

I would hope so. But I'll let Bob clarify that position.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Principal
5.2.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  pat wilson @5.2.22    one week ago

We do. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5.2.25  Ozzwald  replied to  Bob Nelson @5.2.21    one week ago
I don't know if your misunderstanding is intentional or not... but I'm not going to waste any more time.

After backing yourself into a corner, that is a good way for you to escape.  Adios....

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6  XXJefferson51    one week ago
The reality is that many Americans benefit from human cruelty — directly or indirectly — be it from wars of aggression or hellish factory farms. In the case of research on aborted infants and "humanized mice," it's possible countless lives could be saved by the resulting information. So the moral concern shifts away from the invisible innocents toward more immediate desires.

Yet when confronted with the brutal truth behind these actions, something in the soul recoils. We should heed that awakened voice. The moment it goes silent, we cease to be fully human.

sadly for too many on the pro abort side of this issue, that moment has come and gone.

 
 
 
Hallux
Freshman Principal
6.1  Hallux  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6    one week ago

You would be happy living in Poland.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Hallux @6.1    one week ago
You would be happy living in Poland.

Or Romania, where abortion was once severely restricted, and still is to a degree. That did not work out well for that country.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
PhD Guide
7  Paula Bartholomew    one week ago

When I was a nurse in the Army Burn Center, I saw a lot of skin grafting.  One patient had a graft from his upper arm placed on his penis (electrical burn), complete with a butterfly.  His gf loved it.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
7.1  pat wilson  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7    one week ago

Did it have a tattoo ?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
8  CB     one week ago
Meanwhile, Daleiden faced felony eavesdropping charges for his undercover investigation and is still trying to appeal court orders to pay Planned Parenthood more than $15 million in damages and legal fees. Outside the activist community or his delighted detractors, his story goes largely untold.

Special pleading? Is eavesdropping (in his case) 'special'? I am not sure. I would say that people who eavesdrop on others should have their own background 'drilled down' into in a court. Let's see what's in his dirty laundry hamper that led him to feel it is okay to invade the privacy of another!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB     one week ago
Similarly, most people rarely think about the dark acts occurring daily in abortion clinics, or the child sacrifices taking place today in Uganda, South Africa, and elsewhere. Effectively, these horrors exist outside the public's moral framework.

If people truly think about what goes on daily in the bedrooms of  the U. S. A they may think about "sweeping around and making repairs at home, before peeking into their near and faraway neighbors affairs looking for something to judgemental about!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10  CB     one week ago
Meanwhile, the horrors of abortion have become too normalized. A recent Pew poll found 59 percent of Americans support allowing abortion to remain legal while only 39 percent oppose it. That opposition is heavily skewed toward white evangelicals. Even among Catholic respondents, more than half favored legalization. As you'd expect, older generations are more concerned than young people, although the majority in every age bracket was pro-abortion.

Okay here we go: White Evangelicals, Catholic respondents.  and "older generations" need to come clean. We want to see background documentation of those who have joined the ranks of the saints who are 'pure as the driven snow.'

I propose this: The Righteous Ones standing outside of abortion clinics peaceably holding up signs of "baby parts," should be checked to see if they are in the record-keeping files of abortion clinics (listed as procreators). If so, then they should be asked about it endlessly. Or, at least, every time they show up on a 'local' abortion clinic campus.

Could these purists be suffering from delayed guilt of their own (abortion or wish to abort)?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
11  CB     one week ago
The logic for abortion, at its core, is pretty much the same. Women have various reasons for wanting to terminate a pregnancy, as do men, but it ultimately snuffs out an innocent life so other people's lives can proceed unencumbered. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as incest or rape, the infant's life is being sacrificed for the benefit of other people.

And the writer says this to say what?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
12  CB     one week ago
We cease to be fully human.

Oh, the irony of what goes into making us 'marginally' humans. People screw over people just for the hell of it all the time! Why should an unborn child be above it all?

To be clear, I sound crude in a way, but let's get something straight, these people have 'sold' themselves into believing that they care about the unborn children. But, it's interesting that they are insensitive to the mental health needs of a girl or woman dealing with a child they do not wish to have.

This is about meddlesome people trying to place strictures on someone not themselves. It is pathetic, sad, and I condemn Christians and other religious figures who can't leave other people to govern their own legal liberties.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
13  Buzz of the Orient    one week ago

I'm getting sick and tired of anti-aborthon articles.  I think anti-abortionists (pro-lifers) should be required to spend a few days taking care of the monster babies that were NOT aborted, that are on the top floor ward of the Hospital For Sick Children in Toronto, and maybe thay will come to the realization that maybe their sanctimonius piety might not be so impeccable.  If you have the stomach for it, check this out.  (It's probably a good thing that I was incapable of opening and posting the videos).

Strangest Babies Ever Born


Women Sometimes Give Birth To Strange Creatures Instead Of Babies

Viewer-Discretion-Is-advised.jpg

Not all babies are born cute, let’s have a look at some of the strangest babes ever born! A baby is considered a blessing upon every family, but what if the woman gives birth to a not -so-normal child instead of the little bundle of joy she was expecting?
Sometime along the normal gestation period, mutations happen in the womb, and when the time of birth comes,  some  sort of mutant-baby is born causing sadness and reasons of worry for everyone involved. Let’s check out some of the weirdest and strangest babies which were born, viewer discretion is advised for the pictures and videos of this article.

1. Rat-like baby with a tail:

rat-like-baby.jpg

The most recent case of a strange baby is that of a woman who was pregnant for about 12 months. According to all medical reports, the 30-year-old mother had taken all of her pre-natal vitamins, she had gotten the best treatments from JFK SOS hospital staff, and even renowned midwives.
After 6 months of the pregnancy had passed, the so far unidentified woman, noticed some worrisome signs about her pregnancy which determined her to seek spiritual advise.

The local priestess advised the mother to go on a dry fasting period of 21 days, and the 30-year-old woman agreed. At the end of the fasting period, the woman felt relieved of the pains, but her pregnancy began to decrease in size… The medical staff kept her under observation, while her pregnancy prolonged from the normal 9 months, to 12, when she finally went into labor. After 9 hours of labor pains the woman gave birth to a strange baby, which she said personally described as “a hairless rat with a long tail”. Further details were not given, as to where the strange event happened, or any details about the mother, but this picture of the bizarre fetus was published. Sadly for the family, the baby passed away soon after birth.

Strange-baby.jpg

2.   Frog-like baby

frog-like-baby.jpg

Several cases of so called “frog-like” babies have been reported. One woman in the area of Ekiti State also in her 30s, who had already given birth to two children, was shocked when she saw that her pregnancy had surpassed the normal 9 months. In her 13th month, under strict medical supervision, she thought she was giving birth to twins, but instead, she gave delivered a bizarre baby who looked similar to a frog rather than a human child.

Frog-like-Baby-Nepal-1.jpg

The same incident was reported in Nepal. Both babies died soon after birth due to the fact that they came into this world with no brains. Their heads were open at the back, you could easily see inside their skull, and instead of brain matter, they reportedly had a strange sort of mucus. Apart from all of the mystery and superstitions behind these strange births, the poor families and children actually suffer from a tragic medical condition.
You’re probably wondering why these poor beings are so distorted… Well, the fact of the matter is that they suffer from a condition known as Anencephaly, it’s a rare condition which occurs when the cephalic region fails to close between the 23rd and 26th day of pregnancy, hence the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp.

Nicholas-Coke-baby-with-no-brain.jpg Nicholas Coke a baby who survived one year after he was born with no brain.

Due to the severe condition, most babies do not make it after birth, or die soon after, but Nicholas Coke, a baby suffering from this rare condition did survive till his first, and second birthday. Have a look and see him in the video below:

Unfortunately Nicholas Coke died on December 31st 2012, at the age of 3. He was an amazing child, the “no brain” baby who fought for this life so much. Sad news 🙁

Read more about the   life and death of  Nicholas Coke .

Below you can watch a video of a baby born with Anencephaly. It is truly saddening to watch it, personally, I do not agree with filming this tragic event. Your discretion is advised when watching the clip.

3. Babies With Harlequin Ichthyosis

Harlequin-Ichthyosis.jpg

These babies are also known as Harlequin babies, and they suffer from a rare genetic disorder which causes the keratin layer of the skin to thicken and make the baby look like a tiger at birth. The babies have massive scales and a reddish color. With the skin being so hard, the baby’s every move causes skin ruptures, which serve as portals for bacteria.

Death usually occurs within a few days due to general infection, but there have been exceptions. Nusrit “Nelly” Shaheen is the oldest survivor, having been born in 1984 and she’s still alive.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

bugsy
JohnRussell
Thrawn 31
Just Jim NC TttH
Kavika
Ozzwald
Gordy327


53 visitors