Fetal & Newborn Organ Harvesting: Respectable Grave-Robbing
ShareCHAPTER 74 — FETAL AND NEWBORN ORGAN HARVESTING: RESPECTABLE GRAVE-ROBBING
American Life League
It's absolutely absurd that I have a legal right to abort that baby out of the mother within a week of delivery and throw it out, but because it's delivered, I have no access to it [for its organs].
Dr. Leonard Bailey, who gained fame for transplanting a baboon's heart into a newborn baby.[1]
WARNING!
Some of the material described in this chapter is extremely offensive in nature.
Anti-Life Philosophy.
If you are going to kill all these [Jewish] people, at least take the brains out so that the material may be utilized.
Nazi doctor Julius Hallervorden, Nuremberg trials, 1945.[2]
We can either use the tissue in what we know to be lifesaving [fetal tissue] research, or we can bury it. That is the choice.
United States Senator Brock Adams [D.-Wa.], 1992.[3]
Definitions Regarding Major Cranial Birth Defects.
Before we can intelligently discuss the types and ramifications of fetal tissue harvesting and experimentation, we must be familiar with the body systems most affected by the diseases that allegedly are ameliorated in those who receive fetal tissue transplants.
We must also be able to differentiate between the birth defects that render newborns 'eligible' for harvesting and those birth defects that are still considered 'out of bounds.'
Some of these definitions are listed below.
Brain Stem: The lower portion of the brain, located at the upper end of the spinal column, that handles primarily involuntary bodily functions, including respiration, swallowing, circulation, digestion, and reaction to pain.
Cerebellum: A portion of the brain located forward of and above the medulla, consisting of two lateral lobes and a median lobe. The cerebellum coordinates the muscles and maintains balance.
Anencephaly: Total lack of the cortex (upper brain), with lack of skull closure. Usually, the hypothalamus is malformed and the cerebellum is rudimentary or absent. This condition includes the exposure of the cranial matter to the air and is almost always fatal within hours or days (about 75 percent stillborn, with mortality of birth survivors at 90 percent in the first week), although some anencephalic babies live several years. For example, Andrew Vandal of Richmond, Virginia, who was born with only a brain stem, celebrated his fifth birthday in 1989 and, according to his mother, has an "outgoing, bubbly personality that really draws people to him." This condition is present in about 1 out of 1,000 pregnancies in the United States, and parents who have given birth to an anencephalic baby have a five percent chance of giving birth to another such baby. This condition can be detected by the AFP test or by amniocentesis.
Hydranencephaly: A purely descriptive term, not related to any particular disease, which means that the cortex (upper brain) is entirely replaced with spinal fluid. There is total or near-total hemispherical destruction. There is great ventricular (brain cavity) enlargement with little or no cerebral mantle. The brain stem, cerebellum, and basal ganglia are present but may be abnormal. Usually, the brain stem remains functional.
Hydrocephalus: The obstruction of the normal accumulation or drainage of cerebrospinal fluid from its points of production to its areas of absorption. The head will experience an increased quantity of this fluid under persistent or intermittent increased pressure.
Microcephaly: Abnormally small head size, usually (but not always) associated with brain disease and/or mental retardation. The baby's head circumference falls into the category of being more than two standard deviations (about the smallest five percent) below normal for all babies. The baby has a small or missing front fontanel (soft spot) and a recessed and/or sloping forehead. This condition is usually present in babies with Trisomy 13-15 and Trisomy 17-18.
Megalencephaly: The baby's head is enlarged due to abnormal enlargement of the brain. This condition is frequently accompanied by convulsions, retardation, and hypotonia (localized low osmotic pressure). It is usually present in the later stages of Tay-Sachs Disease and Alexander's Disease.
The 'Benefits' of Fetal Organ Harvesting.
The Allegations.
More than 15 million Americans suffer from diseases and injuries that allegedly could be aided to various degrees by fetal tissue transplants. These maladies include Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, diabetes, and head injuries, stroke, and paralysis. These are the conditions upon which pro-harvesting researchers focus when they say that fetal transplants can aid.
Therefore, some 'ethicists' and hospital researchers have become almost hysterically joyful over the prospect of having access to an abundant source of useful 'fetal material' produced by millions of abortions.
As Dr. Abraham Lieberman of the New York University Medical Center put it "This [fetal tissue techniques] is to medicine what superconductivity is to physics."[4]
Fetal cells can be used for transplantation because they are "immunologically naive," meaning that they have not yet developed all of the antigens that allow a transplant recipient's immune system to identify them and reject them. Additionally, fetal nerve cells regenerate and grow, unlike adult nerve cells.
A Nation of Vampires? Ethicist Arthur Caplan of the Hastings Center has labeled the use of tissue from deliberately aborted babies "a ticking time bomb of bioethics," and with good reason. The brains and nerve tissue from as many as 500,000 second-trimester aborted babies per year might eventually be required for transplants if the new procedures become popular and entrenched.
If the transplants do indeed become popular, the various procedures and any benefits they produce will be used as a powerful propaganda tool against 'heartless' pro-lifers who seek to deprive the 'hard cases' of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease sufferers of normal lives.
It is therefore entirely possible that our medical establishment will eventually be supporting a million or more 'neo-vampires,' who require the fresh brains of dismembered preborn human beings to stay alive.
The specter of organ banks filled with parts from unwilling victims, long a staple of horror writers, moves one step closer to reality with the advent and advancement of fetal experimentation and organ transplantation.
The Truth.
One common tactic used by Neoliberals in all fields is a program that involves the loud trumpeting of scientific studies that support their views and a studied indifference to a larger body of evidence that is contrary to their objectives.
For example, the very few articles written in support of the idea that homosexuality is genetic have become centerpieces for the pro-homosexual campaign, despite the fact that these writings were based on studies that were shoddily performed, flawed in execution, and obviously the products of an extreme degree of conflict of interest. Obviously, Neoliberals recognize the propaganda value of 'scientific' support for their positions.
The same scenario is unfolding in the fetal tissue debate. More than three-fourths of all studies in this area have concluded that fetal tissue transplantation benefits only a very few people: The scientists receiving the grants. Only a very few articles have described measurable improvement in symptoms related to neurological disorders, and most of these articles describe studies that are incomplete or fatally flawed.
Dr. Robert J. White reviewed these studies and concluded that "The clinical studies so far conducted in transplanting human fetal brain tissue into the cerebral hemisphere of patients with Parkinsonism have demonstrated little evidence of measurable, lasting improvement in neurological dysfunction."[5]
The Role of the "Expert Panels."
My own research has been focused with the hope of providing some information that might lead to the relief of pain and suffering of individuals who suffer from neurological diseases. But that cannot be the ultimate guideline for all that I do ... If I have to rely on the death of another individual in order to extend the life of another, I reject it and I have done this very forcefully.
Keith Crutcher, Ph.D.[6]
Introduction.
The 'expert panels' that are convened to study the issues of fetal tissue harvesting and transplantation have no regulatory or police powers; they can only recommend courses of action.
Although their charters allege otherwise, the true purpose of these panels is to make the cannibalization of the unborn palatable to the public by giving such activities a veneer of professional respectability. As might be expected, the panels are appointed by pro-abortion organizations like the American Medical Association (AMA), and are heavily loaded with panelists who are known to be solidly pro-abortion.
The AMA strongly supports fetal tissue transplantation. This is no surprise; since the AMA is very strongly pro-abortion, and since the tissue from natural abortion (miscarriage) is unsuitable for this purpose, the very existence of fetal tissue transplantation depends upon the continuing practice of surgical abortion.
Stacking the Deck.
The 'bioethics' panels invariably have a token (usually uninformed) Catholic priest or other known conservative sitting on them, so that when the inevitable and preordained "go" signal is issued by the group, it can claim that it had a clergyman or conservative activist on board when the decision was made.
In this manner, a panel can be heavily 'stacked' in order to insure a pro-harvesting outcome, and yet avoid the appearance of being fatally biased, even though that is precisely the situation. Any dissent written by those on the panels with moral qualms about fetal tissue harvesting will be dismissed out of hand and labeled "naive" and "not in keeping with current medical practice."
Naturally, the 'expert panels' know full well that the media will play along and trumpet their findings as a great boon to mankind.
Bait and Switch.
The expert panels invariably begin their 'studies' (in accordance with long and unaltered tradition) by insisting loudly that fetal transplantation is entirely separate from the moral issue of abortion.
This absurd allegation flies in the face of common sense, because fetal tissue comes directly from abortions the only possible source of supply of suitable tissue! Experts from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) acknowledge with the familiar obscure pro-death verbiage that "... the fetus has a different nature and value from that of other human tissue or organs because it has the potential to develop into a member of the human family."
In other words, the ACOG believes that the unborn child is quite literally an organ which is ripe for harvesting.
After the panel has decreed that the issues of fetal organ harvesting and abortion are separate, the obvious next step is to dehumanize preborn children even further than they already have been.
Dehumanization and Harvesting.
No class of true victims can be abused with impunity, killed, or disposed of unless its members have first been vilified or rendered something less than human in the eyes of the public.
'Bioethicist' Mary Anne Warren gives us an excellent example of this dehumanization in a hypothetical situation posed in the Hastings Center Report, as shown below. In this article, Warren enthusiastically endorses transforming unborn children into organ farms, as she cites and heartily approves of the no-longer-hypothetical case of a 28-year old man with kidney failure whose wife conceives for the express purpose of transplanting both the baby's kidneys to the husband.
HASTINGS CENTER ETHICAL CASE STUDY #477:
Intrafamilial Fetal Tissue Transplantation
The Problem
Mr. R., a twenty-eight year-old engineer, had been on dialysis for three years, and is growing desperate because of the restrictions it places on his life. He can not work regularly because of the amount of time he has to spend in a dialysis center, and he feels weak and is suffering from many of the debilitating side effects of the treatment.
Mr. R. has already investigated the possibility of obtaining a transplant. However, he had been adopted as an infant and does not know his natural family. In addition, tests show that he has a rare tissue type that makes it highly unlikely that a suitable cadaver kidney can be found.
Mr. R.'s physical and mental state continue to deteriorate and his wife suggests a solution to the transplant surgeon. She will, she says, become pregnant, and after five or six months, have an abortion. The kidneys from the fetus could then be transplanted in her husband.
The surgeon knows that technically such a transplant could be performed, and that the grafts would probably not be rejected. He also knows that Mr. R. has threatened to commit suicide if he has to remain on dialysis for an indefinite period.
Should he agree to transplant the kidneys of a deliberately conceived and aborted fetus?
'Bioethicist' Mary Ann Warren's Solution
Fetuses, especially those as old as five or six months, elicit our sympathy, and tempt us to endow them with moral rights, not only because they are potential people, but because they look disconcertingly like people; their physical features are recognizably human. But this sympathy is misplaced, unless there is a good deal more conscious activity in the fetal "mind" than we have any reason to suspect.
While a fetus of five or six months may, perhaps, possess some flickering of sensation or some capacity to feel pain, this is equally true and probably even more true of creatures like fish or insects, which few would doubt the propriety of killing in order to save human lives. In such cases, a proper respect for the right to life requires that it not be respected where it does not exist.
Reference: Mary Anne Warren. "Can the Fetus be an Organ Farm?" Hastings Center Report, October 1978.
As demonstrated in her 'solution' to the problem, Warren not only endorses the practice of using the organs from the babies who are aborted because they were products of unintended pregnancies she is recommending that women become pregnant specifically and intentionally for the purpose of growing babies for the sole purpose of harvesting their organs!
This type of cannibalization already occurs on an almost routine basis in some Mideastern countries. For example, in one case, an impotent Lebanese man had a testicle transplant from a preborn baby aborted at 25 weeks.[7]
All of the smoke and rhetoric thrown out by the pro-harvesting forces is an attempt to hide the central focus of the fetal tissue debate: That human babies must die in order to improve the quality of life for adults. However, some physicians do not allow their logic and their consciences to be willingly dulled by the siren song of convenience. As Dr. Ralph DeGeorgio says, "We must recognize why the use of human fetal tissue is being advocated in the first place: Precisely because it IS human.[8]
Objective: 'Progress.'
The primary objective of the 'expert panels' and bioethics think tanks, therefore, is to rubber-stamp various 'innovations' in death technology and lend them a veneer of respectability. It is the job of these groups to appear to agonize over the issue at hand, rend their shirts, tear out their hair, and then call a press conference to announce that the proposed 'advance' is "entirely appropriate and humane."
In short, it is the task of the bioethics panels to implement The First Immutable Law of Bioethics;
IF AN ATROCITY CAN BE COMMITTED,
IT MUST BE COMMITTED,
IN THE NAME OF ALMIGHTY PROGRESS.
I Need A Brain, Igor A SMALL Brain.
The Beginnings.
Of course, there is no real need for physicians to wait for the opinions of 'expert panels' before attempting to implement new and bizarre 'medical advances.'
The first fetal organ transplant took place in December of 1985 in Denver. Researchers Everett Spees and Kevin Lafferty transplanted fetal pancreatic tissue into the body of a 51-year old diabetic. These cells soon began to produce the needed insulin for the patient. This type of transfer had been performed about 15 times by the end of 1987.[9]
Further and Further.
In late 1988, researchers went one step further. Brain cells from an aborted seven-week old baby were transferred to an adult patient for the first time. The cells were implanted in an unnamed 55-year old male Parkinson's Disease victim by a surgical team led by Dr. Curt Freed and Dr. Robert Breeze at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center.[10]
Dr. Neil Rosenberg said that the patient had asked for the implant and the 'mother' of the donor had given her permission for her unborn child to be cannibalized (she almost certainly had merely signed the standard abortion mill "consent" form that agrees that the abortuary can dispose of "any tissue removed"). The experimental procedure was financed by private donors and was approved by the University of Colorado human subjects committee.[10]
Such transplants have also been performed in Sweden, Mexico, and Cuba.
One study performed by eight Swedish researchers was revealing in that it indirectly described how desirable late-term babies are for harvesting purposes: "Pancreatic glands of human fetuses obtained from 31 consecutive legal abortions were used. The abortions were induced by prostaglandin and carried out over a period of three months. The crown-heel lengths of the fetuses ... ranged from 12 to 34 cm."[11]
An unborn baby with a crown-heel length of 34 centimeters is at 28 weeks of development and, since deformed babies are not used for harvesting purposes, he or she would be the victim of a third-trimester convenience abortion.
In aid of such procedures, doctors have drawn up tables showing the suitability of fetal tissue for transplantation. These tables remind one strongly of the butcher-shop diagram of a steer (bereft of skin) with the various types of cuts illustrated for the public.
Figure 74-1 shows one example of such a ghoulish suitability chart.
How long will it be before the various parts of aborted preborn babies are tattooed "USDA Choice?"
FIGURE 74-1
"CLASSIFICATION OF POSTMORTEM EFFECTS IN ABORTUSES"
[A medium text size on your computer's 'view' setting is recommended, otherwise, the table may be discombobulated.]
Grade I Grade II Grade III
(Fresh) (Grossly Normal) (Macerated)
0-12 hours < 12 hours < 2-3 days
postmortem, postmortem postmortem, grey
glistening not grey or tan grey or tan
hydrated
Skin intact except for Some peeling of skin, Collapsed head
occasional neck tears slight posterior and chest
[swelling caused by nuchal edema
fluid accumulation]
Blood usually unclotted Blood clotted Old blood in tissues
(Bleyer et al., 1971) has greenish cast
Liver firm Liver soft Liver liquefied
Heart muscle irritable No heart irritability
Subcutaneous hemorrhage No subcutaneous
of vertex indicates viability hemorrhage if
at time of passage still birth
Extremities firm and of Rigor of extremities Soft, misshapen
normal configuration extremities
Mitotic figures in tissues of No mitotic figures Many necrotic
cortex of kidney and epen- cells
dymal zone of nervous
system
Reference: Thomas H. Shepard, Alan G. Fantel, and Philip E. Mirkes of the University of Washington. "Collection and Scientific Use of Human Embryonic and Fetal Material: 25 Years of Experience." Article contained in H. Kalter (editor). Issues and Reviews in Teratology (Volume 4). New York: Plenum Publishing, 1988, pages 129 to 162.
Going All the Way.
All of the above surgical procedures use dead aborted babies as organ donors. However, there are many who see no moral obstacle to using live, unanesthetized unborn babies as well!
In the February 1987 issue of the Hastings Center Report, 'ethicist' Mary Mahowald and researchers Jerry Silver and Richard Ratcheson of the Case Western Reserve School of Medicine stated that the cannibalization of live babies "... is morally defensible if dead fetuses are not available or are not conducive to successful transplants."
This, of course, is no limitation at all, because everyone knows that live fetuses are more "conducive to successful transplants" than dead ones.[12]
The California, New Jersey, and Ohio state legislatures have attempted to go one step further than this by trying to pass bills allowing the harvesting of all organs from live handicapped newborn babies!
The primary argument advanced in support of these atrocities is exactly the same one advanced by Nazi doctor Julius Hallervorden as a defense of his hideous medical experiments at the Nuremberg trials: "If you are going to kill all these [Jewish] people, at least take the brains out so that the material may be utilized."[2]
Such an argument was offensive and unacceptable then, and it is just as offensive and unacceptable now.
Expediency, the Highest Virtue.
Unfortunately, the easy availability of fetal tissue has retarded research into other promising areas. It seems that, if one solution presents itself, even if it is morally reprehensible, it is accepted as a boon while legitimate research into morally acceptable areas with great potential lags for want of attention.
Yet we occasionally hear of research that may eventually preempt even fetal tissue transplantation. In May of 1990, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine announced that they had cultured brain neuron cells of an 18-month old girl who had undergone brain surgery in 1986. This is a great breakthrough for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's research, and may eliminate the need for fetal brain tissue harvesting.[13]
The Connection Between Abortion and Fetal Organ Harvesting.
[President] Bush fears that if Congress were to permit fetal research with tissue taken from induced abortions, some idealistic women might deliberately get pregnant just to have an abortion. Such fears are fatuous. So farfetched a scenario strains credulity past the breaking limit...
Syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick.[3]
The Only Possible Source.
It is absolutely inevitable that aborted preborn babies will wind up as transplant donors, because so few miscarried and ectopic babies are suitable for this purpose. This fact was demonstrated recently by Frederick Bieber, a geneticist in Brigham and Women's Hospital pathology department, who examined the results of 1,025 miscarriages during a year and found that only 39, or 3.8 percent, produced a genetically normal baby that had not died two or three weeks previously and had thus been unusable for transplantation purposes. Of these 39 babies, most were infected in some manner and were therefore also unusable. During this same year, most of the babies who died as a result of 125 ectopic pregnancies that Bieber examined were also very tiny or unusable for transplant purposes.[14]
Merely A Matter of Business.
In future decades, the traditional business relationship that has been established between abortion mills and pregnant women may be reversed. If the unborn child's organs are determined to be valuable enough for transplant purposes (say, $500 to $1,000, which is within the realm of possibility), unethical women may deliberately become pregnant, grow their unborn children to the 'optimum' age (20 to 28 weeks), and then sell them to abortion clinics for 'parting out.'
There is no doubt that this hideous practice would be seen by the media as 'a compassionate response' to those suffering from diseases and conditions that would benefit from fetal tissue. The press would certainly canonize such women and vilify those who opposed the practice.
Farcical "Safeguards."
The general public assuages its collective conscience about such atrocities as fetal organ harvesting by convincing itself that the meaningless "safeguards" proposed by the bioethicists have some concrete substance. Thus, in the name of "progress" and "tolerance," the public and the medical 'community' continue their pas de deux of mutual deception.
Some of these proposals would be quaintly amusing if they were not so inherently evil.
In the 1988 hearings before the National Institutes of Health, one pro-fetal organ harvesting researcher insisted that "There should be no attempts to influence the women's decisions about having an abortion or persuading them to donate the [fetal] tissue."[15]
Minutes later, the same researcher acknowledged the unworkability of this concept by saying that, in Sweden, where fetal organ harvesting is commonplace, "The reaction from most women is that they are encouraged that at least something 'good' is coming out of this invariably negative experience of having an abortion."[15]
Go For the Money.
All of this is water under a very old bridge. The practice of selling aborted fetal tissue is already widespread, although the women who kill their children are rarely told of the practice. Abortionists alter the abortion procedure slightly so that they can obtain more intact fetuses or parts that are eminently salable on today's fetal organ market.
Abortionists have known that live-born aborted babies are much more profitable than those who are aborted dead. Therefore, in order to make a little more cash from their grisly trade, they have drawn up procedures for insuring that aborted preborn babies are either kept alive or killed in such a manner that their organs are not destroyed in the process.
The Fetal Pancreas Network, organized in 1984, recommends that the best 'abortion tissue' is obtained from 6-month babies killed by D&E abortion.
Dr. Kurt Hirschhorn of New York's Mt. Sinai Hospital says that "With prostaglandins, you can arrange the whole abortion so the fetus comes out viable in the sense that it can survive hours, or a day."[16]
The abortionists also assess "service charges" by providing dead unborn babies to labs that specialize in experiments requiring fetal tissue. The "service charge" currently averages about $25 per aborted baby.
Many of the most extreme atrocities perpetrated against living preborn babies are blandly reported in the mainline press and prestigious medical journals with wide circulation. It is a telling sign of our society's casual and meek acceptance of evil and atrocity that these reports meet with no outcry of outrage.
The New England Journal of Medicine of May 18, 1972 reported that "Most of the babies delivered by the latter method [i.e., hysterotomy, or Cesarian section], were still alive when they were dropped into a tissue grinder to be homogenized."
According to the April 15, 1973 Washington Post, Dr. Gerald Gaull, Chief of Pediatrics at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation "... injects radioactive chemicals into umbilical cords of fetuses ... While the heart is still beating, he removes their brains, lungs, liver and kidneys for study."
Honey, I Junked the Kid.
As always when immoral activities are concerned, privacy of the offending parties is paramount.
When a woman kills her child, she does so under the protection of a court-enforced umbrella of privacy. And when the abortionist sells the sad little body, he must also operate under the strictest privacy. In fact, he will usually be willing to forego his bloody "service charge" if there is any chance that his activities will be compromised.
This was recently proven by James S. Bardsley, president of the International Institute for the Advancement of Medicine, a grisly clearinghouse that provides hundreds of pounds of fetal tissue annually to researchers.
His company advertises for abortionists who use a specialized abortion suction technique that leaves the baby's head intact so its brains can be removed.
The company also advertises for the remains of second-trimester babies killed by dismemberment (D&E) rather than by salt poisoning, because in the former procedure, the baby is still alive when the abortion begins and the resulting aborted tissue is much fresher.[17]
Bardsley revealed just how important a role privacy plays in this heinous practice when he admitted that "All too often, the woman is not even told that the tissue will be used for medical research."
When his company insisted that abortion clinics tell the women that their unborn babies would be sold as biological "scrap," more than half of the clinics simply stopped supplying the tissue, despite the obviously lucrative nature of the practice.[17]
This refusal is very revealing; the abortionists recognized that women would detest the idea of having their babies 'parted out.'
What's Fair is Fair.
Another of the ubiquitous pro-abortion medical 'ethicists,' Marjorie Schultz, has suggested that, since doctors and companies may soon be making millions from selling fetal body parts, the "origin point" the woman should be able to profit as well.
After all, what's fair is fair.
Other writers are just as blatantly (and honestly) utilitarian. Harry Schwartz, a member of the New York Times editorial board, stated flatly that "If a poor woman wants compensation for the use of tissue from her aborted fetus, by all means let her have it if someone needs that tissue and is willing to pay for it."[18]
The media have not hesitated to advance the cause of these anti-life ghouls. Unscrupulous 'mothers' have already appeared on national television, insisting that such an approach is "rational and compassionate."
For example, Rae Leith appeared on ABC's "Nightline" program and announced that she wanted to grow a baby specifically to abort for the purpose of transplanting its brain tissue into her father, who suffered from Parkinson's disease.
As one writer has said, we are on the brink of "... a new form of surrogate motherhood, in which women get pregnant for the purpose of getting abortions and selling the victim's remains."
This is yet another potential way for abortion to exploit women. Some pro-aborts have already suggested that poor women turn to "tissue breeding" as a replacement for welfare or workfare.
How the Market Will Operate.
When (not if) fetal tissue harvesting becomes a widespread practice, many people who suffer from conditions that allegedly will be aided by fetal tissue transplantation will undoubtedly refuse to participate in the grisly business of 'parting out' preborns, even if such a principled stand would shorten their lifespans considerably.
However, as in all of their other endeavors, the killers of preborn babies are experts at persuasion and at sanitizing the various aspects of their filthy profession for public consumption. Therefore, it may be expected that as many as five million people will make use of fetal tissue products on a regular basis.
This means that the total amount of fetal tissue required to satisfy the demands of these 'neo-vampires' will be measured in the tons every year.
Since there are only about 120,000 second- and third-trimester abortions in the United States annually, this means that demand for fetal tissue will crushingly and inevitably overwhelm the available supply.
Under such market conditions regardless of the 'product' being considered a certain set of conditions invariably evolve. These include grossly inflated prices (so the poor will be shut out of the process); a thriving black market; the growing and selling of preborn babies for sale; the import of fetal tissue from poor and developing countries, which will inevitably lead to severe abuses in these countries; and entrepreneurs encouraging women to abort as late as possible for a monetary reward, thus increasing maternal deaths and complications due to the riskier late-term abortion procedures.[19]
Jack ("The Dripper") Kevorkian, the retired Michigan pathologist who helps people kill themselves, discusses the future complexion that trafficking in adult body organs may take; "It seems more compassionate and logical to have a certain number of wealthy persons dying of renal disease buy kidneys from a supply greatly expanded by their purchasing power and thus survive while a certain number of dying poor individuals succumb because of the inequality of affordability ... wealthy donees might prefer to buy very expensive, "high-quality" kidneys from donors in the upper strata of society and leave most or all of the freely donated or very low-priced, "low-quality" organs from "skid row" donors to the poor thereby actually enhancing quality."[20]
What Kevorkian foresees is a new trade in human body parts, which is precisely what one science fiction writer predicted twenty years ago as he described a class of 'organleggers.'
Since our country values adult human beings so much more than preborn children, Kevorkian's proposition will almost certainly become true in the arena of fetal tissue harvesting as well.
But Why Should We Stop At the Unborn?
'Little Monsters.'
As always, the pro-death ethic 'progresses' along its carcass-strewn trail one inevitable step at a time. If we don't want to waste the valuable tissue from dead aborted babies and from living aborted babies, we certainly don't want to waste the tissue from newborns who are going to die anyhow. Take, for example, what the American Atheists heartlessly call "little monsters," those babies born with no cerebral cortex.
This rare condition is known as anencephaly, and occurs in about one out of 30,000 births. The baby is born without the main (upper) mass of the brain, but does possess the brain stem, which controls basic body functions. The baby can breathe, move, feel pain, and cry. Anencephalic babies do not usually live more than three months. Mortality is about 90 percent at one week, although some live several years. One family in Connecticut has successfully raised two anencephalic children past the age of five.
Tiny Organ Farms.
As the babies slowly die, so do all of their organs. By the time they are declared 'brain dead,' their organs are not suitable for transplantation.
California's Loma Linda Hospital sees these little ones as a Heaven-sent opportunity for research and transplantation. This research center was at one point actually keeping these babies alive so that their organs would be fresh for removal when a suitable recipient was found. They would then be killed (painlessly, of course), and the organs would be removed from their little bodies.
Perhaps one reason these poor babies are such easy targets for harvesting is their unattractive appearance. Many anencephalic newborns have no skull above the eyebrows or have cranial extrusions of admittedly unusually appearance.
Just One Little Problem ...
Of course, there is one troublesome little detail (nothing really major actually): The babies are still alive.
Now what can we do to get around this irritating little obstacle? Why, we could just redefine "death" and then classify anencephalic newborns as "dead!"
And why not? Unborn babies are not alive, so now let's define others the same way!
At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Medical Association in Las Vegas, Dr. Mark Evans seriously proposed that there was a distinct favorable "... possibility of creating a new legal definition to permit physicians to declare anencephalic neonates 'brain absent' and therefore legally dead, so their organs might be harvested for transplantation."[21]
Notice the use of dehumanizing words by Evans: he does not call the babies "newborns;" they are "neonates."
Naturally, the lawyers are getting into this strange and terrible act as well. The first attempt to declassify anencephalic babies out of human existence occurred in February 1986, as California State Senator Milton Marks introduced Senate Bill 2018, which stated simply: "An individual born with the condition of anencephaly is dead."
After the harvesters have free rein to pillage the little bodies of anencephalic babies, they will inevitably target other groups of helpless babies. Neonatologist Dr. Jacquelyn Bamman, among others, acknowledges that the killing will never stop with anencephalic babies; once these little ones have been "harvested," other likely unwilling "donors" will include newborn babies with Tay-Sachs disease, Werdnig-Hoffman disease, hydrencephaly, grade IV intracranial hemorrhage, and Trisomy 13, 18, and 21.
We Have Traveled This Road Before.
The 'different' are always an easy target in society: Lepers, the handicapped, the retarded, blacks, Jews, and now poor babies that are born with an odd or alien appearance through no fault of their own.
At the Nuremberg War Criminal Trials, Dr. Julius Hallervorden defended himself by stating to the Court; "I heard that they were going to do that and so I went up to them: "Look here now boys, if you are going to kill all these people at least take the brains out, so that the material could be utilized."
Essentially identical language was used by the United States National Institutes for Health forty years later in their October 1988 Draft Report of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplant Panel; "Inasmuch as it is cadaver tissue [from abortions] we are concerned with, and inasmuch as it would ordinarily be disposed of; and inasmuch as research on this tissue holds the promise of saving countless lives and alleviating the suffering of countless others, we find the use of such tissues acceptable."
Senator Brock Adams [D.-Wa.] said "We can either use the tissue in what we know to be lifesaving research, or we can bury it. That is the choice." And syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick concluded that "Out of the sadness of abortion, which takes one potential life, at least we should salvage the saving of another."[3]
This language is frighteningly reminiscent of that used by Nazi 'doctors' in the concentration camp medical experimentation stations of World War II. Perhaps our latter-day medical professionals and politicians are so wrapped up in the glamorous propaganda of the anti-life movement that they cannot properly see either forward or into the past.
The Slippery Definition of "Death."
With great advances in life-support technology and organ transplantation, the dead today do indeed have much 'protein' to offer us in the form of organs and body parts. We are the 'Neo-cannibals.'
Kathleen Stein, Omni Magazine.[22]
Introduction.
The depths of the uncharted waters into which we have ventured, ill-prepared, are indicated by the fact that not even the words "life" and "death" have solid meanings anymore.
The term "death" has traditionally and logically meant the total and irreversible cessation of breathing and circulation. Loma Linda Hospital and other medical groups would now like to create a new definition, whereby human beings who are breathing and have heartbeats may be sustained for the sole purpose of ransacking their organs, yet still be classified as 'dead.'
This new definition, usually called 'brain death,' is the "... irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem," used "when respirators and other treatments render the traditional standard unreliable."
The "New Neomorts."
Loma Linda Hospital, other health care institutions, and many leading 'bioethicists' can now justify reclassifying anencephalic newborn babies and other infants who are breathing and whose hearts are beating as "dead." Therefore, there is absolutely no reason whatever why comatose adults meeting the same description may not also be relegated to the fate of the 'new unliving.'
The possibilities for Newspeak and misleading verbiage in this new field are almost unlimited.
In an article comically entitled "Proposals to Enlist the Dead in Research," Jim Detjen proposes the following 'daffynitions;'[23]
Neomort: A body sustained by artificial life support systems to be used for drug research, development of new surgical techniques, practice for new surgeons and as a storage place for blood and organs.
Neomortoriums: Places for the storage of brain-dead bodies because such storage places would solve the dilemma of storing certain organs outside of the bodies.
Willard Gaylin, former President of the Institute of Society, Ethics, and the Life Sciences (the "Hastings Institute"), would like to see comatose adult persons ("neomorts") stockpiled in special repositories ("bioemporiums") for the purposes of organ harvesting and live experimentation.[24]
Another author describes Gaylin's objectives;
Various illnesses could be induced in neomorts, and various treatments tried, thus protecting live patients from being "guinea pigs" in experimental procedures and therapies ... Neomorts would provide a steady supply of blood, since they could be drained regularly ... Bone marrow, cartilage, and skin could be harvested, and hormones, antitoxins, and antibodies manufactured in neomorts ... To do this, [Gaylin] notes, we would have to accept the concept of "personhood" as separate from "aliveness" for adults, as we do now with fetuses.[24]
Perhaps Dr. Robin Cook was influenced by the horrible nature of Gaylin's views when he wrote his bestselling medical thriller Coma.
American Council of Life Insurance speaker Ronna Klingenberg has said that by the year 2000 our country will have an abundance of "neomorts" because we will have the right to sell our organs after we die so that we may make money to enjoy life more now. She also said that soon people will have the right to "choose painless death with ample use of heroin and mind-control techniques" and that travel agencies will offer "adventure deaths." These would consist of people killing themselves heroically on an elaborately-staged set. Such scenarios would be planned by a "lifestyle engineer."[25]
Baby Parts Are Big Business.
The Death Dealers.
Whenever a morally dubious medical "advance" is publicized, medical professionals of questionable character flock around the new technology like vultures around a ripe carcass.
Since the profit potential of fetal organ harvesting is almost unlimited, it is inevitable that physicians and others with no particular regard for human life or medical ethics will use the opportunity to milk the babies for all the money they are worth.
And sometimes they are caught with their hands in the bloody cookie jar.
The Traffickers.
Flow Labs of Rockville, Maryland, is one of at least eight traffickers in fetal organ tissue in the United States. It receives its tissue from more than 250 suppliers in twelve different countries, mostly in the Third World. These nations include Haiti, Brazil, and South Korea. It is estimated that at least 100,000 domestic and foreign preborn babies are 'used' in this country each year for research purposes.[26]
Flow Labs has sold much of its fetal tissue to the United States Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Maryland. These cells are used by Army researchers in attempts to isolate the causes of a dozen diseases, including hemorrhagic fever.
One South Korean abortionist, Professor Lee Myung Bok of Seoul University's Medical Department, paid doctors to cut the kidneys out of more than 12,000 unborn babies immediately after they were killed, then pack them in ice and ship them to the United States. He grossed $180,000 for his efforts. The doctors and nurses who performed the abortions were paid with whisky, nylon stockings, and chewing gum. All of the mothers whose babies died signed permission slips.[26]
In 1976, The Washington Post revealed that the District of Columbia's General Hospital had been paid more than $68,000 for the organs of babies its abortionists had killed. The March 21, 1977 Village Voice reported that these abortionists had encouraged welfare mothers to wait and have late-term abortions because these preborn babies yielded more and better developed organs.[26]
The 'Artists.'
It is not enough for pro-abortionists to kill preborn babies by the millions; they must also laugh at those who mourn the slaughter by committing perhaps the ultimate degradation.
They transform their sad little victims into 'art.'
So the preborns, instead of being treated as the miraculous works of God that they are, are reduced to being objects of conversation and derision.
This is not a mere flight of fancy by a few rare sick minds; by making preborns into 'art,' the pro-aborts are laughing at pro-lifers and at God. They are saying, in effect, "You can't do anything to stop abortion, because it's legal. So we're going to go one step further and make these babies into earrings and paperweights to show just how helpless you really are."
During the time period 1985 to 1990, several self-proclaimed 'artists' create earrings and other forms of adornment that featured small preborn babies encased in plastic or plexiglass. These "works" were widely praised by art critics.
In 1989, the "Degenerate Art Show" received a symbolic $500 National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) subgrant from "Artist Space." This show featured an exhibit by Shawn Eichman (no relation to Adolph), called "Alchemy Cabinet," displaying her own dismembered second-trimester aborted baby next to the obligatory twisted wire coat hanger as a political statement.[27]
Another 'artist,' who calls himself Spider Webb, is a "skin engraver" who bought a late-term aborted baby from an abortion mill for $300, tattooed a heart on its chest, and displayed it at an 'art' show under the title "Q: Who is this? A: Tattooed Fetus."[28]
Individuals with twisted and sick minds are not the only people in the business of displaying the sad little bodies of aborted preborn babies for all to see. Some medical supply companies even turn a quick buck by turning them into (I am not making this up) paperweights!
The Turtox company, a division of the MacMillan Science Company, has issued a catalog entitled "Turtox '76: Turtox/Cambosco Life and Physical Science." Page 183 of this catalog, titled "Turtox Plastic Embedments," displays a four-month aborted baby encased in plastic with the explanation "These embryos range for [sic] 3 to 4 months in age. They have been bisected along the median, cleared and mounted naturally. Specify age or ages desired. [Catalog Number] D10.100, $97.50. NOTE: occasionally ages other than those listed above can be furnished. Please write us for current information."[29]
And the Supporters.
None of the atrocities described above could have occurred without a plethora of 'distinguished, mainline' organizations screaming for the blood (and body parts) of helpless preborn babies.
The following organizations, which represent more than three-quarters of the country's physicians, have submitted testimony before Congress in favor of fetal experimentation and organ harvesting.
ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT FETAL ORGAN HARVESTING AND FETAL EXPERIMENTATION
Alzheimer's Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Cancer Society
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
American College of Physicians
American Diabetes Association
American Heart Association
American Lung Association
American Medical Association
American Medical Women's Association
American Paralysis Association
Aplastic Anemia Foundation of America
Association of American Medical Colleges
Association of American Universities
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
Epilepsy Foundation of America
Huntington's Disease Society of America
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
National Association of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges
National Hemophilia Foundation
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Parkinson Foundation
National Spinal Cord Injury Association
Parkinson's Disease Foundation
United Parkinson Foundation
Reference: Judie Brown. "Fetal Tissue Research: Cannibalizing Our Children." American Life League reprint, 1991. Order from American Life League, Post Office Box 1350, Stafford, Virginia 22555 for 10 cents.
The Ultimate Abomination has Already Arrived!
It was absolutely inevitable that we would eventually move far beyond the harvesting of dead and alive aborted babies and handicapped newborns, but we seem to be tripping all over ourselves in our eagerness to get to Hell as soon as possible.
As reported in the August 9, 1988 Italian paper Il Tempo and the December 10, 1988 issue of America, six Paraguayan men were arrested in July of 1988 for plotting to sell seven male newborn infants from three to six months old for organs in the United States. The infants had already been "collected" from various sources, and were merely awaiting slaughter. The men testified that they had been doing this for years, and that the practice is "common."
These men merely sold the babies to middlemen, who transported them to the United States in the arms of women hired to act as their 'mothers' (the babies flew free, by the way), and then they were delivered to unnamed firms in the United States. According to the men, there was certainly no shortage of demand in the United States for live, healthy, unwanted babies.
Shades of Auschwitz! Mengele lives here, in the land of the free!
But what society can effectively argue against this and other 'advanced' practices, when the same society has given its blessing to the harvesting of newborn anencephalic babies? The inevitable progression down the slope to damnation could not be clearer, and we are already almost there, as shown below.
THE ROAD TO AUSCHWITZ
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
1973: ABORTION FOR ANY REASON
\ /
1986: HARVESTING ABORTED BABIES
\ /
1987: HARVESTING ANENCEPHALIC NEWBORNS
\ /
1988: HARVESTING HEALTHY NEWBORNS
\ /
1995?: HARVESTING HANDICAPPED ADULTS?
If the last step seems a little far-fetched, consider that Jack ("The Dripper) Kevorkian has advocated harvesting the organs of criminals. And syndicated pro-abortionist Ellen Goodman, who is always ready and eager to pounce on the helpless, wrote that
Indeed, one of the most striking new impressions from the [PVS] conference is how the language of "disability" is being applied to those in a persistent vegetative state. It's being used in courtrooms against families who want to stop treatment of the unconscious and let them die. It's being used by advocates such as James Bopp of the National Legal center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, who accuse families like Ryan [Amerman]'s and Christine [Busalacchi]'s of "discounting, devaluing life based on disability.
There is something not only deceptive in this, but cruel. To describe a PVS patient as disabled is, as ethicist George Annas put it, "to describe a Minnesota blizzard as precipitation." To use funds intended for those who can benefit on those who cannot is somewhere between perverse and immoral.
There are indeed slippery slopes. But patients in a persistent vegetative state are not people with a reduced quality of life. They are people with no quality of life. We have to look squarely at this reality.
To apply the language of disability to permanently unconscious people is not to strengthen but to cheapen that language and that cause. It makes a mockery of our best intentions ...[30]
Goodman, like all of her peers, looks upon human life purely from a utilitarian "quality of life" viewpoint, and paints those who value all human life as "cruel," "deceptive," "perverse," and "immoral." She and others who share her inhumane philosophy would certainly not object to harvesting the organs of the "persistently vegetative" in order to increase the quality of life of "real" human beings.
The Fetal Collagen Debate.
There is a persistent lie told by certain anti-abortion groups that a substance called "collagen" is made from fetuses sold by abortion clinics to cosmetic companies.
Planned Parenthood.[31]
The Situation in the United States.
From time to time, the allegation surfaces that abortion mills are selling fetal bodies to major cosmetic companies so that they may be "rendered" for their collagen. This rumor is persistent and seems to have a life of its own, but there is no proof of such a practice at least, not in the United States.
No American cosmetic company in its right collective mind would risk the horrendous publicity resulting from such practices just for the dubious privilege of including the words "fetal collagen" on its ingredient list, particularly when other sources provide a much larger volume of collagen at a much cheaper price.
For instance, human placental extract is used in many cosmetics, but there is nothing immoral about this admittedly rather weird practice. Hospitals commonly sell placentas for about a dollar apiece to pharmaceutical companies and cosmetic companies who then extract hormones and proteins for use in products such as TiaZolin Placenta, a hair-care product.[32]
Even stranger is the practice of 'placentaphagia,' the act of eating a newborn baby's placenta. According to those who have tried this rather exotic dish, placentas can be boiled in saltwater, fried in butter and garlic, stir fried with vegetables, or sauteed in wine or spices. For those who really want to know, a human placenta smells like liver when it is cooking and tastes like liver or kidney.[32]
The FDA Responds.
In a 1985 response to the National Right to Life Committee, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated that
We have received numerous inquiries from concerned individuals and organizations about the use of collagen in cosmetics. Although several of these inquiries have alleged that the source of collagen in cosmetics is from aborted fetuses, none of the inquiries have been able or willing to provide specific concrete information to indicate that this is, in fact, the case. We have no other indication that human fetal material is used as a source of either placental extract or collagen.
There is no reason to doubt the FDA's word regarding this matter. Dr. Jack Willke, president of the National Right to Life Committee, says that not a single properly-documented case of this practice has surfaced to date in this country.[33]
The French Connection.
In terms of medical ethics, as California goes, so goes the rest of the United States.
But even California goes as Europe has gone before.
In April of 1980, guards at the Swiss-French border intercepted a Central European truck loaded with hundreds of pounds of frozen aborted preborn babies which, according to the accompanying bills of lading, were destined for several French cosmetics factories for processing into expensive cosmetics.
The French newspaper explained that such trafficking in fetal remains is brisk, because they are used in "... beauty products used in rejuvenating the skin, sold in France at high prices."[29] One seller, Madame Renne Ibry, advertises that her beauty products which include fetal collagen are "absolutely natural."[34]
The actual brochure boasts about how the use of fetal collagen can "rejuvenate" skin and is translated from the French as shown below. This glossy advertisement, which is displayed in many European beauty salons, speaks eloquently for itself.
TEXT OF ADVERTISEMENT CIRCULATED BY FRENCH COMPANY USING ABORTED PREBORN BABIES IN COSMETICS
TARIF [PRICE LIST] AU 1ER AVRIL 1980
CALIFORNIE ESTHETIQUE
[California Beauty]
Registre des Metiers
697210 169 RM 06
Registre de Commerce
72 A 16
CENTRE
HENRI CHENOT
Madame RENEE IBRY
85 avenue Marechal-Juin
06400 CANNES
Tel.43.85.54
BEAUTY BY COLD
This revolutionary treatment of cellular regeneration uses cold technology. Because of the labors of Dr. Alexis Carrel, we know that young cells applied to old tissues are able to regenerate them. These cells are all the more effective if they are living. This technique consists of 'splintering' or 'chipping' fresh cells, the DNA and RNA life carriers.
Taken exclusively from human fetuses, these cells, no longer independent, do not carry antibodies under any circumstances. This reduces to a minimum any risk of allergic reaction.
Absolutely natural, this product is made for use at home.
Red stick: placenta of the fetus and fetal spleen, liver, and thymus.
White stick: liquid polyvalent [drawn from intestinal membranes].
In the box: red or white bottles
PRICES
For the face: 180 Francs
For the bust: 160 Francs
For the hair: 120 Francs
References: Fetal Organ Harvesting.
[1] Dr. Leonard Bailey, quoted in David H. Andrusko. "A Time to Stop." National Right to Life News, March 10, 1988, pages 2 and 10.
[2] Nazi doctor Julius Hallervorden, Nuremberg trials, 1945. Quoted in William Brennan. The Abortion Holocaust: Today's Final Solution. Order from Landmark Press, Post Office Box 13547, 1461 Dunn Road, St. Louis, Missouri 63138, or Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. 1983, 237 pages.
[3] Syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick. "Fetal Tissue Issue Will Haunt Bush." The Oregonian, April 26, 1992, page B4.
[4] Richard John Neuhaus. "The Return of Eugenics." Commentary, April 1988, pages 15 to 26.
[5] Robert J. White, M.D. "Data Mostly From Rats." Letter to The New York Times, May 8, 1991, page A22.
[6] Keith Crutcher, Ph.D., at his February 1991 Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life banquet speech. Quoted in Judie Brown. "Fetal Tissue Research: Cannibalizing Our Children." Four-page pamphlet available from American Life League, Post Office Box 1350, Stafford, Virginia 22554.
[7] Nick Thimmesch. "Strange Tales of Fetal Life and Death." Human Life Issues, January 1983, page 4. Also see Bettina Conner. "World Trade in Human Embryos." Elements, May 1976, page 4.
[8] Ralph DeGeorgio, M.D. Tissue and Organ Donation By Aborted Preborn and Anencephalic Infants: Medical Aspects of Human Fetal Transplantation. University of Southern California School of Medicine, 1990, page 226.
[9] "Aborted Baby's Brain Cells Implanted in Parkinson's Victim." The Wanderer, November 24, 1988, page 1.
[10] J.C. Willke, M.D. "Loma Linda's Lethal Transplants." National Right to Life News, March 10, 1988, page 3.
[11] Sandler, Andersson, Swenne, Petersson, Hellerstrom, Bjorken, Christensen and Groth. "Structure and Function of Human Fetal Endocrine Pancreas Before and After Cryopreservation." Cryopreservation of Human Fetal Pancreas. Huddings, Sweden, 1982. Page 230.
[12] Leslie Bond and Dave Andrusko. "More Medical Facilities Preparing to Make Jump Into Fetal Brain Transplants." National Right to Life News, April 7, 1988, page 1. Also: Leslie Bond and Dave Andrusko. "Harvesting Anencephalic Babies: Controversy Grows in Intensity." National Right to Life News, February 25, 1988, page 1.
[13] Washington Post, May 4, 1990.
[14] Richard Saltus, The Boston Globe. "Brain Implants of Fetal Tissue Show Promise." The Oregonian, June 13, 1992, page A5.
[15] Jeffrey Rubin. "Grim Reapers: Medical "Harvesters" of the Abortion Holocaust." ALL About Issues, November/December 1988, page 28.
[16] National Observer, April 21, 1973.
[17] David Andrusko. "Essential Information." National Right to Life News, October 17, 1990, pages 2 and 14.
[18] USA Today, February 21, 1990, page 10A.
[19] Bernard Nathanson, M.D. "The Buying and Selling of an Obscene Harvest." Concerned Women, July 1988, pages 18 and 19.
[20] Jack Kevorkian. "The Last Fearsome Taboo: Medical Aspects of Planned Death." Medicine and Law 7 (1988).
[21] This proposal was also published in the October 1-14, 1990 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology News.
[22] Kathleen Stein. "Last Rights." Omni Magazine, September 1987, page 34.
[23] Jim Detjen. "Proposals to Enlist the Dead in Research." Philadelphia Enquirer, August 12, 1986.
[24] "Fetuses in War Testing." Mother Jones, June 1977, page 5.
[25] William Lambdin. Doublespeak Dictionary. Los Angeles: Pinnacle Books, 1979. Page 174.
[26] World Trends and Forecasts. "Recycling Human Bodies to Save Lives." The Futurist, April 1976, page 108.
[27] "American Liberty Upside Down Aborted Fetus As Art is Censored." ALL About Issues, February 1984, pages 28 and 29.
[28] "Horror Show." The Village Voice, January 22, 1979, page 32.
[29] As described in Nick Thimmesch. "Fetuses and Cosmetics: The French Connection." Los Angeles Times Syndicate, 1982. Also described in John W. Whitehead's The Stealing of America. Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1987, page 56.
[30] Ellen Goodman. "Doctors Won't Draw Line in New Medical Dilemma: 14,000 People Trapped in a Persistent Vegetative State." The Oregonian, December 11, 1992, page E9.
[31] "Let's Tell the Truth About Abortion." Pamphlet distributed by Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood. 1985, 22 pages. Fight Back Press, Post Office Box 61421, Denver, Colorado 80206. Page 13.
[32] Karen Janszen. "Meat of Life." Science Digest, November/December 1980, pages 78 and 79.
[33] Dr. Jack Willke, president of the National Right to Life Committee, quoted in "Are Fetal Bodies Used in Cosmetics?" National Right to Life News, August 22, 1985, page 3.
[34] Claude Jacquinot. Gazette du Palais, Numbers 98 and 99; Wednesday, April 8th, 1981, and Thursday, April 9th, 1981.
Further Reading: Fetal Organ Harvesting.
Alzheimer's Disease Treatment and Family Stress: Directions for Research.
This book includes 19 comprehensive research reports on issues related to Alzheimer's Disease, including family research, caregiver stress, treatment and management, and mental health services research. Fetal tissue transplantation is also discussed. Serial Number 017-024-01365-0, 1989, 498 pages. Order by mail from Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by telephone from (202) 783-3238.
The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Inc. CTFA Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary.
The CTFA, 1110 Vermont Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Updated periodically, about 200 pages. This book will answer the questions of any pro-lifer (or animal rights activist) as to where the ingredients in any cosmetic comes from. Information includes other names for each cosmetic and their definitions, structures, registry numbers, empirical formulas, trademarks, trade names, CTFA cross-indexed names, and supplier indexes. Information on regulatory procedures is also supplied.
Greenhaven Press. Biomedical Ethics: Opposing Viewpoints.
Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1987, 216 pages. Each section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue. The questions asked are: "Is Genetic Engineering Ethical?;" "Are Organ Transplants Ethical?;" "Should Limits Be Placed On Reproductive Technology?;" "Should Animals Be Used in Scientific Research?;" and "What Ethical Standards Should Guide the Health Care System?" Authors include Tibor R. Macan, Malcolm Muggeridge, and the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Greenhaven Press. Science and Technology: Opposing Viewpoints.
Volume I. Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1989, 440 pages. Each section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue: Creationism in the schools, current artificial birth technologies, genetic engineering, organ transplants, animal experimentation, and the Strategic Defense Initiative are just a few of the topics whose main pro- and con arguments are thoroughly covered in this excellent 440-page volume. This topic is covered by a series of books, beginning with a basic set of essays entitled Sources and continuing with an additional and updated annual series of essays. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.
Jack Kevorkian. Prescription: Medicide: The Goodness of Planned Death.
Prometheus Books, 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228. 1991, 262 pages. Jack ("The Dripper") Kevorkian gives us some of his revolutionary ideas in the area of human beings putting other human beings to death. He primarily addresses the suitability of those condemned to death row as "organ farms," organ harvesting, and medical experimentation. Kevorkian refers to any limits on his activities as "stone-age," and rejects out of hand any kind of Christian morality whatever. This is a fascinating book for anyone who wants the goals of the euthanasia movement clearly outlined, because Kevorkian seems to be the only person on the pro-euthanasia side who is honest enough to speak of them truthfully.
Peter McCullagh. The Foetus As Transplant Donor: Scientific, Social and Ethical Perspectives.
Allan Liss, Inc., Publishers. 1987, 215 pages. Reviewed by Joseph R. Stanton, M.D., on page 46 of the June-July 1988 ALL About Issues. Complicated issues addressed by the author include the establishment of fetal brain death, fetal sentience, fetal pain, and tissues used for culture and transplantation.
United States Government. Alzheimer's Disease Treatment and Family Stress: Directions for Research.
This book includes 19 comprehensive research reports on issues related to Alzheimer's Disease, including family research, caregiver stress, treatment and management, and mental health services research. Fetal tissue transplantation is also discussed. Serial Number 017-024-01365-0, 1989, 498 pages. Order by mail from Superintendent of Documents, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by telephone from (202) 783-3238.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League.
