Some of the most horrific uses of aborted babies do not occur in laboratories but in common, everyday life. For example, according to news reports, elite Russians have begun a new trend of using aborted baby stem cells as Botox-like injections in order to smooth wrinkles and remove cellulite. This expensive treatment has enlarged the market for aborted babies, with their bodies being sold to beauty clinics for over $8,000 each.
Thus, aborted babies are instrumental in the development of U.S. vaccines, while other countries are able to develop and use vaccines without resorting to these methods.
The methods of procuring aborted babies for research are perhaps even more disturbing than the actual uses for which researchers seek these tiny humans.
Swedish procedures have been described as “puncturing the sac of a pregnant woman at let us say 14 to 16 weeks, and then they put a clamp on the head of the baby, pull the head down into the neck of the womb, drill a hole into the baby’s head, and then put a suction machine into the brain and suck out the brain cells.” The drive for live baby tissue for research prompted procedures such as this where the baby is extracted whole from his mother, after having his brain cells vacuumed out and preserved on ice.
Even more alarming is the procedure called “prostaglandin abortion” where the baby is born alive about half the time. However, as one writer notes, the researchers “… simply open up the abdomen of the baby with no anesthesia, and take out the liver and kidneys, etc.”
The next, and much more dangerous, justification for this research comes from both sides of the abortion debate. While it is phrased in various ways, this justification assumes that abortions are going to be done anyway so society should try to benefit in some way and not waste these babies.
One word can refute this “let’s not let it go to waste” mentality: the Holocaust. Nazi doctors used this precise argument to justify the research they performed on Jews during the Holocaust. According to a medical consultant at the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi doctors claimed that “since the Jews would die in the concentration camp one might as well obtain some good for humanity out of them.” This argument, of course, does not rest in sound logic. Indeed, a woman’s decision to have an abortion, however protected, does not change the nature or quality of fetal life. We do not subject the aged dying to unconsented experimentation, nor should we subject the youthful dying. If this argument is taken seriously, there is no stopping point for research. Why not dissect an aged dying person right before death?
Throughout all the research involving aborted babies,
one theme emerges: the “specimens” do not have human rights. The great paradox in this is that while our laws provide a no-human-being status to an unborn baby, the baby is considered human for the purpose of scientific experimentation.
It seems that some of our “scientists” have found their dream come true.
They have an abundant supply of “material” that is human enough to perform a wide array of research upon, but the laws afford no human protection to these babies. This leaves just one question: How long will it be until society allows experimentation on handicapped people, those on life support or a person on death row? After all, they are going to die anyway.
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_d...?record_id=385
Linear Mode
