Fetal Experimentation: Frankenstein Revisited
ShareCHAPTER 73 — FETAL EXPERIMENTATION: FRANKENSTEIN REVISITED
American Life League
Imagine that you yourself are building an edifice of human destiny that has the ultimate aim of making people happy and giving them finally peace and rest, but that to achieve this, you are faced inevitably and inescapably with torturing just one tiny baby, say that small fellow who was just beating his fists on his chest, so that you would be building your edifice on his unrequited tears would you agree to be its architect under those conditions? Tell me, and don't lie!
Dostoevski, The Brothers Karamazov.[1]
Anti-Life Philosophy.
Fetal experimentation is a myth: A horror-story concoction dreamed up out of thin air by anti-choice activists in a failed attempt to shock the public, which has the common sense to know better. Since they cannot curtail women's rights through the courts or legislators, anti-choicers are resorting to pure fabrications and outright lies.
As Ann Landers said in her July 16, 1985 syndicated advice column on this subject, "Never in my 30 years of writing this column have I run into such half-baked distortions, complete lies and twisted facts contrived to make a story sound believable."[2]
Introduction.
And so I looked and saw a kind of banner rushing ahead, whirling with aimless speed as though it would not ever take a stand; behind it an interminable train of souls pressed on, so many I wondered how death could have undone so great a number.
Dante, The Inferno, Canto III: 52-57.
Ann Landers and other fanatic pro-abortion media types know for a fact that, if they allow the details about fetal experimentation and other abortion-related horror stories get to the public, the result would be incredibly damaging to the elaborately-constructed veneer of civility cultivated by the abortion pushers.
So, like all other pro-aborts, she simply ignores any and all evidence and denies that such acts are happening, all the while screaming "lies!" and "fabrications!"
The Psychology of Fetal Experimentation.
Our continuing disagreements on fetal research, abortion or the nontreatment of seriously handicapped newborns result not from a lack of facts or want of shared principles, but from diverging visions of what it means to be human and of the nature and purpose of human life.
Ethicist Hans Tiefel.[3]
The Role of Guilt.
Fetal experimentation is merely one relatively small outgrowth of the anti-life mentality, which is driven by guilt because no matter how deep its adherents try to bury it, their consciences continue to plague them. They know that killing is wrong, and the fetal experimenters feel a little better if they can extract some good from the appalling carnage that the abortionists are wreaking. As Paul Ramsey has said so correctly, "We are determined to wrest by our scientific works some good out of guilt-laden harmfulness to fetal life."[4]
William Gaylin and Marc Laape (president and associate for biological sciences at the Hastings Institute), displayed this nagging sense of guilt when they claimed that
Since we know we are going to destroy, dismember and discard the fetus in a procedure known as abortion, it seems a small indignity to expose it to rubella vaccine just prior to that termination. The medical ethic 'do no harm' would, of course, be violated but we have already violated that principle when we accepted the concept of abortion. The ultimate harm of destroying the fetus trivializes that which precedes it.[5]
And Dr. Jerald Gaull, chief of pediatric research at New York State Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation on Staten Island, says "Rather than it being immoral to do what we are trying to do, it is immoral it is a terrible perversion of ethics to throw these fetuses in the incinerator as is usually done, rather than to get some useful information."[6]
Contrast this type of attitude to that of Dr. Andre E. Hellegers, Professor of Obstetrics and Director of Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute for the Study of Biomedical Ethics, who has identified the attitude that researchers with any morals should have;
No one can give consent for research on an aborted fetus. To ask a mother who is seeking an abortion to consent to an experiment on the abortus is meaningless. It would be like asking consent from a parent who had abandoned or battered a child. To me, it's like a Nazi saying, 'Since we're going to put all those Jews in the gas chamber anyway, let's get some good out of them by doing medical experiments first.'[7]
Of course, Nazi doctors did say these things in their own defense during the Nuremberg trials. Dr. Julius Hallervorden testified that he said that "If you are going to kill all these [Jewish] people, at least take the brains out so that the material may be utilized."[8]
This guilt has grown enormously in scale as the death toll mounts into the tens of millions, and only more and newer promises of "beneficial" experimentation will soothe it. Of course, such guilt grows exponentially. Researchers search desperately for new uses for living fetal tissues; Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, spinal cord and brain injuries; juvenile diabetes, retinoblastomas, and so on. There are at least five million cases of the above diseases and injuries in the United States today. Even though there is no solid evidence that fetal tissue transplantation will help anyone, just the possibility of helping all of those people helps assuage the massive guilt somewhat.
The Biological 'Slippery Slope.'
The "slippery slope" has never been more vividly demonstrated as in fetal experimentation. Bioethicist Mary B. Mahowald of the Hasting Center says that;
As with many troublesome ethical issues, the slippery slope argument is applicable to transplantation of fetal tissues. For example, we may initially permit only the transplantation of tissues from dead fetuses. If this does not prove successful or adequate, we may then transplant tissue from nonviable but living fetuses. Routinization of the practice could lead to transplantation of larger and larger portions of the brain, to transplantation of entire brains from viable fetuses, or to harvesting organs from other donors who are not dead, but are dying or chronically ill.[9]
We began the process of sabotaging our fertility with artificial contraception, of course, and proceeded to 'garden-variety' abortion. Then, we tried to extract good out of the situation by harvesting organs from dead preborn babies. It was not long before we began to experiment on live preborn babies. We are now harvesting organs, not only from live preborn babies, but from newborn infants as well!
Therefore, fetal tissue experimentation and transplants have already led to infanticide. They, in concert with the bizarre visions of the euthanasiasts, will soon surely demand direct adult euthanasia.
Medical Experimentation on Living Preborn Babies.
The very probability that we may be faced with a human person in the full sense constitutes, in my opinion, an absolute veto against any type of [fetal] experimentation.
Bioethicist Bernard Haring.[10]
Introduction.
Many pro-lifers (and all pro-aborts) scoff at stories of fetal experimentation that seem to be derived from class 'B' horror flicks. But the horror is real, and is described not on the wide screen, but in prestigious medical journals.
If these atrocities are proudly displayed and described in the world's medical publications, we can only wonder what hideous practices are being carried out in secret!
A few examples of published experiments on living preborn babies are listed below.
Late-Term Tortures.
In the mid-1970s, researchers from four British medical schools began experimentation on live, late-term aborted babies. Dr. Ian Donald, the British gynecologist who first applied ultrasound to obstetrics, told Father Paul Marx of Human Life International that he had personally witnessed experiments being performed on near-term alive aborted babies at Sweden's Karolinska Institute. The babies, who were not even afforded the mercy of anesthetic, writhed and cried in agony, and when their usefulness had expired, they were executed and discarded as garbage.[11]
This is the inhuman legacy of abortion.
Decapitation and Experimentation.
At the University of Helsinki in Finland, Dr. Peter Adam of Case Western Reserve University participated in experiments on unborn babies of up to 21 week's gestation who were aborted by hysterotomy (Cesarean-type abortion). The babies were kept alive and then their heads were cut off (the researchers thought that such a term was too grisly to use, so they employed the Newspeak classic "isolating surgically from the other organs").[12]
This was the same type of 'research' performed by Russian lab workers who had kept "surgically isolated" dog heads alive in the early 1950s.
The alleged purpose of this "research," as described in the June 1973 issue of Medical World News, was to ascertain the chemical-processing capability of live fetal brain cells. The cranial tissues were kept alive for up to 30 minutes by pumping fluids through the brain.
Dr. Adam later presented the results of his experimentation at an American Pediatric Society symposium, and also published his conclusions in the Transactions of the American Pediatric Society and the Acta Paediatrica Scandinavica.
The August 8, 1975 Federal Register noted the details of this particularly ghastly experiment, which echoed very strongly those performed in Nazi hospitals;
To learn whether the human fetal brain could metabolize ketone bodies as an alternative to glucose, brain metabolism was isolated in 8 human fetuses (12-17 weeks gestation) after hysterotomy abortion by perfusing the head separated from the rest of the body. This study, conducted in Finland, demonstrated that the human fetus, like previously studied animal fetuses, could modify metabolic processes to utilize ketone bodies.[12]
When colleagues criticized him for his ghastly experiments, Dr. Adam replied that "Once society's declared the fetus dead, and abrogated its rights, I don't see any ethical problem ... Whose rights are we going to protect once we've decided the fetus won't live?"[12]
Ransacking Bodies.
The March 15, 1973 Washington Post reported that Dr. Gerald Gaull, Chief of Pediatrics at the New York State Institute of Basic Research in Mental Retardation, "... injects radioactive chemicals into fragile umbilical cords of fetuses freshly removed from their mother's womb in abortions. While the heart is still beating, he removes their brains, lungs, livers, and kidneys for study."[13]
Notice how this ghoul didn't wait even a month after Roe v. Wade in order to conduct his grisly experiments!
God's Finest Works: "Just Garbage."
Representative Mark Siljander (R-Michigan) testified before Congress about how one university professor "... performed an experiment involving the severed heads of 12 fetuses obtained by abdominal hysterotomy. The fetus was not injected with an anesthetic when doctors sliced open his stomach; the doctors maintained that this was of little concern to the experimenters because, as the 'doctors' put it, "An aborted baby is just garbage.""[13]
Precious Monkeys.
An Australian legislator asked a genetics researcher why he used human fetuses in his experiments rather than monkey fetuses, and the researcher said that "Monkey fetuses were more precious, as there were fewer of them available than human fetuses."[14]
So now we have been reduced to assessing the total worth of a living human being based purely upon its scarcity in comparison to animals.
Other Horrors.
The above grisly examples of experimentation on preborn babies are not isolated aberrations. Whenever abortionists and other pro-death doctors can find a secret niche in which they can hide their repulsive activities from the public, they will commit horrors almost beyond belief.
Virtually any abomination that can be committed against the preborn is being committed against them in a dozen major American cities.
Other examples of grisly fetal experiments that have been uncovered include the following;
• In March of 1972, Wilhamine Dick, who was speaking before the Pennsylvania Shapp Abortion Law Commission Hearings, stated that abortionists at McGee Women's Hospital packed late-term aborted babies in ice while they were still alive and shipped them to laboratories for experimentation.[15]
• In May of 1972, The New England Journal of Medicine reported on an experiment to see whether or not rubella vaccine viruses administered to pregnant women was capable of infecting their babies. After the mothers were 'inoculated,' the late-term babies were aborted to see what effects the vaccine had upon them. According to the Journal, "Most of the samples, obtained by hysterotomy, were delivered to the laboratory still surrounded by intact membranes."[16]
• In March of 1973, Connecticut's Attorney General testified before the United States Supreme Court that, at Yale-New Haven Hospital, a living, viable aborted baby boy had been dissected without anesthesia until he finally died.[15]
• A certain Dr. Kekomaki would take late-term aborted babies and, while they were still alive, would slice them open and ransack their organs without even giving them an anesthetic. A nurse observed one case and said that "They took the fetus and cut its belly open. They said they wanted its liver. They carried the baby out of the incubator and it was still alive. It was a boy. It had a complete body, with hands, feet, mouth and ears. It was even secreting urine." Asked to explain the reasons for this atrocious 'experiment,' Kekomaki replied that "An aborted baby is just garbage."[17]
The Congressional Response.
Spurred into action by the lurid details of experiments like those listed above, Congress, on September 30, 1982, approved an amendment prohibiting the National Institutes of Health from conducting or supporting in any way; "... research or experimentation in the United States or abroad on a living human fetus or infant, whether before or after induced abortion, unless such research or experimentation is done for the (sole) purpose of insuring the survival of that fetus or infant."[18]
Not That Old Chestnut Again!
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.[19]
Play It Yet Again, Sam ...
If a particular strategy works for anti- lifers in one area, they will be certain to employ it in related fields in order to advance their causes. This is only logical, and is to be expected of any group of experienced strategists.
One of the most effective ploys used by pro-abortionists to obtain abortion on demand was the old "separation of church and state" allegation. This phrase (which is invariably aimed at the Catholic Church) essentially holds that, if any government agency or private organization endorses or promulgates any policy that happens to coincide with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, then the policy must be scrapped because it is "forcing one religious view on the populace at large," and is therefore "an impermissible violation of the curtain of separation between church and state."
It never seems to occur to the 'gynecrats' that their own policies and points of view also reflect religious teachings that of the ultraliberal sects such as the Universalist Unitarians, the United Church of Christ, and, of course, the Humanist religion itself.
The 'Experts' Speak.
As early as 1977, several law professors published articles asserting that any existing limitations on fetal experimentation whatsoever should be scrapped, because they are based on a "Judeo-Christian premise," and that there was "no extrinsic secular justification" for protecting the unborn.[20]
Shortly thereafter, the Dean of the Stanford University Law School stated that, if legislation were passed restricting fetal experimentation, in-vitro fertilization, or genetic manipulation of humans in any way, such regulations would be challengeable on the grounds that they violated the Constitutional separation of church and state.[21]
It remains to be seen if these 'distinguished' scholars would support an attempt to throw out laws against rape and murder because they are based on a "Judeo-Christian premise."
The Humanist View of Baby Humans.
Since Humanists really have no use for a human soul, they naturally look upon human beings as just another species of animal, which can be bred or aborted or genetically tampered with at will.
'Bioethicist' Michael Lockwood reports that
From my point of view, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with experimenting on human embryos, given that there is no intention of reimplanting them, and therefore no particular point, ethically speaking, in looking for alternatives ... I should have thought that, from any sane point of view, it was far preferable to experiment on a near-microscopic blob of unfeeling protoplasm than a feeling, caring being, albeit of a different species.[22]
In 1974, the FDA approved a prostaglandin Prostin F2 Alpha, for use in second trimester abortions. The use of this compound often results in the delivery of a live baby in the late second and early third trimester which can then be used in experiments. Dr. Durt Hirshhorn of New York's Sinai Hospital enthused that "... with prostaglandins, you can arrange the whole abortion so [the baby] comes out viable in the sense that it can survive hours, or a day ... It is not possible to make this fetus into a child, therefore we can consider it as nothing more than a piece of tissue."[23]
Chimeras: Another Step Down the Slope.
As gradually improving techniques permit fetal growth to later and more mature stages, then the issue of disposal will be met head-on in form of the following presently unresolved questions: When do fetuses acquire the status of protectable humanity? ... If brought to term, will they finally be admitted into the human community or will they still be considered material appropriate for further experimentation? ...
Bioethicist Robert S. Morison.[24]
Introduction.
This complete disregard for moral limits in fetal experimentation has led to entirely predictable results. Some of the experimentation on preborn babies and fertilized eggs now taking place has led to horrors that seem almost Satanic in their scope and execution.
Our scientific community is at the point where the search for arcane 'knowledge,' no matter how bizarre or utterly useless, is paramount, and no other consideration can be allowed to even begin to limit this headlong rush in any meaningful way.
One of the truly horrific specters that now haunt some pro-lifers include the invention of actual chimeras, genetic combinations with both human and animal characteristics. These represent a new (and, according to the experimenters, 'extremely promising') field of study.
Mating Men and Hamsters.
The new chimeral technology is already being widely used to test male fertility. According to the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) of the United States Congress, men can learn whether or not their sperm are infertile by having them penetrate hamster eggs;
Hamster-egg penetration assay: The husband's sperm are incubated with hamster eggs and watched for signs of fertilization. While penetration of the ova by a sperm is a sign of normal sperm, the reliability and significance of the test is controversial. Food for thought: conception between an animal and a man takes place during this laboratory procedure. Average cost: $275 ($35-390).[25]
The 'Humanized Mouse.'
San Francisco General Hospital's Dr. J. Michael McCune has created what the news media immediately tagged the "humanized mouse."
McCune was unwilling to experiment with the AIDS virus by injecting it into human adults, and, in light of the fact that AIDS only infects humans, he took what would seem to some as a logical step.
An October 1990 New York Times report explains that "Animals, whose organ tissues are derived from those of human fetuses, provide a singular opportunity to gauge the effectiveness of various antiviral drugs."[26]
The article went on to describe how McCune, whose research was funded by the National Institutes for Health, removes the thymus, liver, and lymph nodes from aborted human babies of up to 22 weeks gestation, and proceeds to divide them into hundreds of rice-sized pieces.
These he implants under the kidneys of young mice, and, within a matter of days, the mouses's blood vessels move into the human tissue and support it as it grows. After a month or so, the rice-sized pieces develop into tiny complete human organs about a centimeter across which can then be experimented on.
And You Thought Pit Bulls Were Bad ...
According to his autobiography, one of famous heart surgeon Christian Barnard's greatest dreams was to "... take a baboon and cool him down, wash out his blood with water, then fill him up with human blood."
Another project that he wished he had the time and resources to do was to graft a second head onto a dog.[27]
And They Dream On ...
We must recognize why the use of human fetal tissue is being advocated in the first place: precisely because it IS human.
Ralph DeGeorgio, M.D.[28]
Perverse Fantasies.
Many scientists, drunk with the euphoria of treading where no human has dared go before, are plunging headlong into lines of research that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. In addition to arcane knowledge, they have also acquired a dangerous elitist attitude. As one leading researcher boasted, "[Scientists] have the right to exercise their professional activities to the limit ... as lay attitudes struggle to catch up with what scientists can do."[29]
In other words, ethics and morals, along with judgment, have been sacrificed in order to advance the mad dash for knowledge. This philosophy has destroyed all limits, so that now the rule is, quite simply, if it can be done, it must be done, and damn the consequences.
For example, if researchers continue along current lines of inquiry, it will soon be possible for a woman to conceive and bear her own (younger) identical twin sister; it will be possible to allow human embryos to gestate in apes of various species (or even in bovines) in order to bypass the legal barriers now springing up against surrogate motherhood; and it may well soon be possible to fulfill the long-standing homosexual fantasy of male pregnancy.
Where Are We Being Led?
The noted French biologist Dr. Jean Rostand wrote in all seriousness a few years ago that
Here and now Homo Sapiens is in the process of becoming Homo Biologicus, a strange biped that will combine the properties of self-reproduction without males, like the green fly; of fertilizing his female at long distance, like the nautiloid mollusk; of changing sex, like the xiphores; of growing from cuttings, like the earthworm; of replacing his missing parts, like the newt; of developing outside his mother's body, like the kangaroo; and of hibernating, like the hedgehog.[30]
These are not the mad pipe dreams of some isolated quack. Many leading scientists have advocated the creation of chimeras part-human and part-animal or plant creatures whose usefulness for various purposes would be enhanced by their new 'qualities.'
Dr. Robert C. Gesteland, an associate professor of biological sciences at Northwestern University in Illinois, has suggested (1) crossing man with plants, so all we'd need for food would be water and sunlight; (2) developing a servant class of supersmart apes; and (3) best of all, breeding a race of humans only four inches tall, which would lessen pollution and conserve natural resources.
Watch Out for Leo the Housecat!
It's funny how educated people often don't think about the practical aspects of their hopes and dreams. Presumably, if Gesteland's dreams came true, (1) we could pass up a McDonald's and simply graze at the side of the road, (2) we would create and enslave another species, and (3) we would shrink ourselves to the point where pigeons would become our predators and housecats would be comparatively as large as elephants.
Dr. George Haldane (the late British geneticist) predicted that we might breed a race of legless humanoid mutants with prehensile tails or feet for space travel. Other scientists would like to see women laying eggs that could be hatched or eaten (i.e., use our own young as a gourmet food source); human beings with gills to facilitate underwater travel; and people with two sets of arms and hands, one for heavy work, the other for lighter tasks.[31]
We are already most of the way down Gerald Leach's "Ladder of Unnaturalness." Herds of prime cattle embryos are flown across the Atlantic Ocean in the wombs of female rabbits. Lesbians are now making men superfluous with sperm banks. The exploitation of women as 'wombs-for- hire' is the first step towards parthenogenesis and actual extracorporeal gestation.
Joseph Fletcher's Last Word.
The Humanistic foundation for chimeral and other exotic research using preborn babies perhaps inevitably sprang from the fevered mind of the most outspoken and radical 'bioethicist' of all time, Joseph Fletcher, who asserted that
If the greatest good of the greatest number (i.e., the social good) were served by it, it would be justifiable not only to specialize the capacities of people by cloning or by constructive genetic engineering, but also to bio-engineer or bio-design para-humans or "modified men" as chimeras (part animal) or cyborg-androids (part prostheses). I would vote for cloning top-grade soldiers and scientists, or for supplying them through other genetic means, if they were needed to offset an elitist or tyrannical power plot by other cloners a truly science-fiction situation, but imaginable. I suspect I would favor making and using man- machine hybrids rather than genetically designed people for dull, unrewarding or dangerous roles needed nonetheless for the community's welfare perhaps the testing of suspected pollution areas or the investigation of threatening volcanos or snow-slides.
People who appeal to Brave New World and Nineteen Eighty-Four and Fahrenheit 451 forget this, that the tyranny is set up first and then genetic controls are employed.
Coital reproduction, is, therefore, less human than laboratory reproduction more fun, to be sure, but with our separation of baby making from lovemaking, both become more human because they are matters of choice, and not chance. This is, of course, essentially the case for planned parenthood. I cannot see how either humanity or morality are served by genetic roulette.
To be men we must be in control. That is the first and the last ethical word. For when there is no choice, there is no possibility of ethical action. Whatever we are compelled to do is a-moral.
Rights are nothing but a formal recognition by society of certain human needs, and as needs change with changing conditions, so rights should change too. The right to conceive and bear children has to stop short of knowingly making crippled children and genetics gives us that knowledge ... It is human need that validates rights, not the other way around.[32]
References: Fetal Experimentation.
[1] Dostoevski, The Brothers Karamazov. As quoted in Babette Francis. "In Vitro Fertilization and the Feminist Dilemma: "This is Jenny."" Fidelity Magazine, April 1987, page 23.
[2] Richard Glasow. "Ann Landers Grossly Distorts Facts About Experimentation on Babies Born Through Abortion." National Right to Life News, August 22, 1985, page 10.
[3] Ethicist Hans Tiefel. "Fetal Experimentation in Conflicting Perspectives." Bioethics Reporter, January 1984.
[4] Paul Ramsey. The Ethics of Fetal Research. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 1975.
[5] William Gaylin and Marc Laape (president and associate for biological sciences at the Hastings Institute). "Fetal Politics: The Debate on Experimenting with the Unborn." Atlantic Monthly, May 1975.
[6] Dr. Jerald Gaull, chief of pediatric research at New York State Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation on Staten Island, quoted in "Operations on Live Fetuses." San Francisco Chronicle, April 19, 1973, page 20.
[7] Dr. Andre E. Hellegers, Professor of Obstetrics and Director of Georgetown University's Kennedy Institute for the Study of Biomedical Ethics. Quoted in "'Live' Abortus Research Raises Hackles of Some, Hopes of Others." Medical World News, October 5, 1973, pages 32, 33, and 36. Available as Reprint #611 from the Institute of Society, Ethics, and Life Sciences, Hastings-on-Hudson, New York 10706.
[8] 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.
[9] Mary B. Mahowald, Jerry Silver, and Robert A. Ratcheson. "The Ethical Options in Fetal Tissue Transplants." The Hastings Center Report, April 1987.
[10] Bernard Haring. Ethics of Manipulation. New York: Seabury Press, 1975. Pages 198 and 199.
[11] Father Paul Marx, O.S.B. Confessions of a Pro-Life Missionary. Gaithersburg, Maryland: Human Life International, page 111.
[12] "Post-Abortion Fetal Study Stirs Storm." Medical World News, June 8, 1973, page 21. Also see Peter A.J. Adam, N. Ratha, E. Rohiala, et al. "Cerebral Oxidation of Glucose and D-Beta Hydroxy, Butyrate in the Isolated Perfused Human Head." Transactions of the American Pediatric Society, 309:81, 1973.
[13] Joan Wester Anderson. "Beyond Abortion Fetal Experimentation, New Upjohn Drug Delivers Perfect Fetus for Laboratory Use." Our Sunday Visitor, April 13, 1975, page 1. Also reported in the Washington Post, April 15, 1973.
[14] Mark Kahabka. "Eugenics Revisited." Fidelity Magazine, July/ August 1988, page 13.
[15] Donald DeMarco. In My Mother's Womb: The Catholic Church's Defense of Natural Life. Manassas, Virginia: Trinity Communications. 1987. Page 133.
[16] Anttis Vaheri, Time Vesikari, et al. "Isolation of Attenuated Rubella-Vaccine Virus From Human Products of Conception and Uterine Cervix." New England Journal of Medicine. May 18, 1972, Volume 286, Number 20, pages 1,071 to 1,074.
[17] Our Sunday Visitor. "Cardinal Relates Horror Story About Human Fetuses." March 29, 1987, page 23.
[18] Robert W. Lee. "How Planned Parenthood Uses $30 Million in Tax Money to Promote Abortion." National Federation for Decency Journal. July 1987, pages 4 to 7.
[19] 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.
[20] Jane Friedman. "The Federal Fetal Experimentation Regulations: An Establishment Clause Argument." Minnesota Law Review, June 1977.
[21] As described in Charles J. Sykes. "Medical Nightmares: German Doctors/American Doctors." Milwaukee: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, 1987, page 14.
[22] Michael Lockwood. "The Warnock Report: A Philosophical Appraisal." Moral Dilemmas in Modern Medicine (Oxford, 1985). Pages 167 and 168.
[23] National Observer, April 21, 1973. Also described in Donald DeMarco. In My Mother's Womb: The Catholic Church's Defense of Natural Life. Manassas, Virginia: Trinity Communications. 1987, page 134.
[24] Robert S. Morison. "The Human Fetus as Useful Research Material." Hastings Center Report, April 1973, pages 8 to 11. Available as Reprint #609 from the Institute of Society, Ethics, and Life Sciences, Hastings-on- Hudson, New York 10706.
[25] Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress. Infertility: Medical and Social Choices. Publication OTA-BA-358. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, May 1988, page 141.
[26] Sandra Blakeslee. "New Medical Research Tool: Human Tissues in Lab Mice." New York Times, October 30, 1990. Also described in Mary Meehan. "Unborn Victims." National Catholic Register, January 6, 1991, pages 1 and 7.
[27] Dr. Christian Barnard, in his autobiography entitled One Life. Quoted in Malcolm Muggeridge. "The Humane Holocaust." Human Life Review, Winter 1980, pages 13 to 22.
[28] 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.
[29] As described in International Life Times, November 7, 1980. Page 9.
[30] Paul Ramsey, Ph.D. "On In Vitro Fertilization." Human Life Review, Winter 1979, pages 17 to 30.
[31] R.G. Edwards and D.J. Sharpe. "Social Values and Research in Human Embryology." Nature 231:87-91(1971).
[32] Joseph Fletcher. "Ethical Aspects of Genetic Controls." New England Journal of Medicine (285:776-783, 1971). Available as Reprint #104 from the Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences, Hastings- On-Hudson, New York 10706.
Further Reading: Fetal Experimentation.
Donald DeMarco, Ph.D. In My Mother's Womb: The Church's Defense of Natural Life.
Hardcover, paperback. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586- 4898. An eloquent defense of the Catholic Church's defense of human life. An examination of abortion's languages and perspective, the unborn, contraception and bio-engineering. Also covered are the Church's perspective on new technologies, including in-vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, fetal experimentation, and genetic engineering. See especially Chapter 1, "Abortion and Church Teaching," pages 7 to 25, "Abortion and Bio-Engineering," pages 82 to 88, and "In Vitro Fertilization," pages 143 to 159.
Eugene F. Diamond, M.D. This Curette for Hire.
Published by the ACTA Foundation, 4848 North Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois 60640. 1977, 141 pages. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. The author discusses the deterioration of medical ethics and the critical role of the doctor in all anti-life activities: Abortion, fetal experimentation, sterilization, euthanasia, infanticide, sex therapy, abortifacients, and more.
Debra Evans. Without Moral Limits: Women, Reproduction, and the New Medical Technology.
Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1989. 288 pages. See especially Chapter 5, "Egg Harvesting and Embryo Experimentation: Lab-Oriented Concepts," pages 68 to 81, and Chapter 6, "Infertility Diagnosis and Treatment: To Catch a Falling Star," pages 84 to 97; Chapter 7, "In-Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer: Sex in a Dish?," pages 100 to 117; and Chapter 8, "Embryo Transplants: The By- Products of Manufactured Conception," pages 120 to 137.
Sean O'Reilly, M.D. Bioethics and the Limits of Science.
Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom College Press, 1980. 176 pages. Reviewed by Robert E. Joyce, Ph.D. in the Fall 1980 issue of the International Review of Natural Family Planning, pages 274 to 276. Recommended for college students in a Christian context.
Suzanne M. Rini. Beyond Abortion: A Chronicle of Fetal Experimentation.
Magnificat Press, 315 Main Street, Post Office Box 365, Avon, New Jersey 07717. 1988, 212 pages. Detailed review by Paul J. Reynolds in the July/August 1988 Fidelity Magazine. Mrs. Rini documents the role of the medical community, including the National Institute of Health and March of Dimes, in live, non-therapeutic experimentation of preborn children. She exposes the international network of fetal experimenters, which include abortion mills, geneticists, medical laboratories, government agencies, public health officials, and private foundations.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist’s Encyclopedia published by American Life League.
