|
4 Clinton lovers
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
On June 10, 1993, President Clinton signed a document allowing for taxpayer money to fund research using aborted baby parts. With the stroke of a pen, abortion was given an appearance of legitimacy. In anticipation of this event, Newsweek magazine devoted it's February 22 cover story to "Cures from the Womb." Dr. Gary Hodgen, a researcher at Eastern Virginia Medical College, stated that President Clinton's January 23 announcement supporting fetal tissue investigations was "the greatest day for science since the Scopes' Monkey Trial."
Why would these two seemingly unrelated events be singled out as the most significant advances in science in the last 70 years? Why bypass all of the incredible scientific advances of the twentieth century and link the Scopes' monkey trial to the legitimization of research on aborted babies?
To answer this the reader must understand both the reality of fetal research and the significance of the Scopes' monkey trial. Some fetal research is most effectively carried out on fetal parts which are as fresh as possible. Brain cells and organs of a baby deteriorate rapidly once deprived of oxygen so they are more valuable for research if they are extracted while the baby is still alive. However, this is a complication for the abortionist because legally every effort must be made to keep a breathing baby alive once it has been removed from the mother's birth canal. Therefore, one abortion technique is to use forceps to pull everything except the baby's head out of the mother's body. The skull is then crushed and the brain is sucked out. After the brain has been removed the baby's body is sliced open and other desired parts are extracted.
Even at 3 months the baby looks like a miniature human being. It has brain waves, a functioning heart, and miniature human organs (which is why the researcher is interested in extracting them). What caused our society to sink to this immoral, barbaric, low point?
Its slightly old news, but still makes me sick. |
|
|
| butterfly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
Its slightly old news, but still makes me sick. |
see, i kinda feel the opposite. i think it is good research. |
|
|
| mr. poopyhead |
man... i never knew it was like that... i've always read articles about stem cell research, but i never knew they got the cells like that, :sadgreen:
orbax: i think your anger should be directed at the abortion, not the research... if you're going to abort the baby anyways, might as well help some people along the way. whether the fetus is used for research or not, the end result is a dead fetus, so if annyone against such research should be opposed to abortion altogether...
personally, i don't think abortion is right, but if they're going to allow abortion, then i think they should allow stem cell research. |
|
|
| Orbax |
| The cold hearted technicality of it bugs me. If its fully removed they have to try to make it live. So they crush its skull when its in the mother still...What kind of woman would do that? The whole process is slightly ed in my opinion. |
|
|
| Renegade |
Here's a tip. Next time you want to spark outrage about the immorality of the progress of science, select an article that doesn't appear on a Creationist website, especially one run by one of the most fraudulent Creationists out there (which is saying something):
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=75
Any fetus removed from the womb prior to 20 weeks gestation has no chance of surviving. Even a fetus younger than 25-28 weeks stands, statistically, very little chance. Any abortion after this point is universally illegal. Therefore, I see little reason why any abortion doctor would go to the trouble of removing the fetus in such a convoluted way when all he need do is remove it and snip the umbillical cord. Besides - without wanting to get into another debate on the morality of abortion - the fetus is no more "alive" or "a person" than the human appendix - should we be outraged by the "immoral, barbaric" way in which appendectomies are performed? :conf:
In any case, once the fetus is removed, what would you have done with it? Use it in research that has the potential to benefit all of humanity, or just leave it in a trashcan? Which is more immoral? |
|
|
| Essential1 |
| Here we go, another abortion debate :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lost Inhibition |
| isnt abortion after the first trimester illegal?? what baby parts are u talking about if the baby wasnt born yet? it was a fetus and it was the mother's choice to keep it or not. if it will help scientific study on important matters such as bone marrow deficiancy or cancer, go on ahead. i see no problem. |
|
|
| djSlain |
| sick and inhumane. |
|
|
| occrider |
| I think abortion should be legal up until the 72nd trimester. |
|
|
| PhloTron |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I think abortion should be legal up until the 72nd trimester. |
Aborting 23 year old dorky people...sounds grand :D
I can think of a few crazy radikals to abort :D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by PhloTron
Aborting 23 year old dorky people...sounds grand :D
I can think of a few crazy radikals to abort :D |
Isn't it up until 18? I thought it was 3 months in a trimester. Well at any rate, I think parents should have the option to abort their kids if they turn out to be little s. |
|
|
| YaleTrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by butterfly
see, i kinda feel the opposite. i think it is good research. |
agreed. |
|
|
|
|
