Commentary on Abortion Procedures: A New Dark Age?

[HammerStone]

http://buchanan.org/blog/a-new-dark-age-16287

Did we think that these abortions were almost all painless, like some sick pet being put to sleep, euthanized? Did we not know that the abortionist stabs the baby in the womb, or tears it to pieces coming out? And the more developed the baby, the greater the pain and the suffering and the bloodier the inescapable death?

But if one believes an unborn baby is not a human being, not a human life, why object to selling its body parts?

Trash haulers and garbage men find uses for what they pick up. Scrap metal collectors find folks who want to buy it. Conservation they call it. Why would we think that abortionists, who regard fetuses as human tissue, not human beings, were any different?

We have long known and praised family members of the victims in auto accidents who volunteer the organs of their loved ones to save or extend the lives of others.

What makes this tape so different, so appalling, is that, at some level, there a sense in all of us, which ideological indoctrination cannot wholly suppress, that, morally, something terrible is happening here.

I could not help but think of Colossians 1 as I read this article. It's interesting to me that a number of the defenses I've seen of this incident is that the interviewers were deceptive in their practices and that nothing illegal was taking place. Is this issue finally removing the cover the abyss that is our collective heart? It seems that debates no longer deal with morals or ethics, but the value is only now defined by the legality of something. That's a scary place to be, and I've heard many political figures on both sides refer to our country as a nation of laws.

What happens when the law is evil or ineffective?

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on our souls!

 

[heretoeternity]

The human race has indicated how low it can sink into depravity, and has completely abandoned the bounds of human decency and compassion by the wilful aborting of babies...this is so sickening it defies words or description....if the human race cannot protect life at the earliest, most vulnerable stages, then ALL life is fair game for the evil, monstrous, heinous, satanic practices against all humanity...life has become disposable..at the whim of some individuals, who are obviously so satan possessed by death, greed, and the dark side they want to drag the human race down to their cesspool of existence...the sad part is they account for most of the politicians, and what is slowly becoming the majority of the dumbed down public....sad, sad, sad.....Jesus we await your return to straighten out this terrible mess on planet earth, and deliver your kingdom and rule to planet earth..

 

[DogLady19]

It appears that now children are paying for their own executions... They posthumously have their body parts auctioned off to fund the next child's execution... sick sick sick!

But I have to wonder how many anti-abortion people would be willing to save their lives, or the life of a loved one, using treatments that derived from aborted human body parts. I shudder at the thought. Is there some duplicity that needs to be exposed here?

How many pro-lifers would give their autistic children medicines derived from aborted fetal tissue? Or give their elderly loved ones relief from Alzheimer's that came from aborted fetal tissue? What about saving someone's life from AIDS? What about injecting aborted baby cells into your body to counteract a degenerative condition?

Personally, I think using medicine that comes from the sacrifice of helpless slaughtered children is paramount to saying that abortions benefit mankind.

I don't think our Creator looks at it that way...

 

[DPMartin]

The culture that once agreed to the ways of the Lord, is no more in agreement with the ways of the Lord. And in most western cultures of today it is not required. This society is a result of the Roman empire, and it’s unrealistic to expect it to be any different. It’s a culture that once was without Christian concepts and then was for quite some time, about a thousand years, and then that began to erode as time passed. Kings back in the day would give the Church reverence, even if it was for a public image. Because most of their peasantry and or subjects were Church members and believed the Priests. But if the rulers of the day see that the Church has no influence with their citizenry, then their law making is going to reflect that.

For example, the rule in the US is the majority rules, even though what seems to be minority of the public, it’s really the majority of the law makers. And that does rule. So what is good for those who have the most influence in the eyes of those who have the most influence with the law maker, is the law of the land. Its not about morals at all, except the corruption of a people and a nation for self interests.

 

[DogLady19]

The culture that once agreed to the ways of the Lord, is no more in agreement with the ways of the Lord. And in most western cultures of today it is not required. This society is a result of the Roman empire, and it’s unrealistic to expect it to be any different. It’s a culture that once was without Christian concepts and then was for quite some time, about a thousand years, and then that began to erode as time passed. Kings back in the day would give the Church reverence, even if it was for a public image. Because most of their peasantry and or subjects were Church members and believed the Priests. But if the rulers of the day see that the Church has no influence with their citizenry, then their law making is going to reflect that.

For example, the rule in the US is the majority rules, even though what seems to be minority of the public, it’s really the majority of the law makers. And that does rule. So what is good for those who have the most influence in the eyes of those who have the most influence with the law maker, is the law of the land. Its not about morals at all, except the corruption of a people and a nation for self interests.

Good post, but with one clarification. The US has never been "majority rules"... that is a straight democracy... We are a republic which means it has always been the "majority of lawmakers rule" and lawmakers are chosen from the citizenry itself... the citizenry, by majority vote, elects those lawmakers... if the citizenry was concerned about morals, they would not be electing immoral lawmakers.

 

[Barrd]

The doctor says:
It appears that now children are paying for their own executions... They posthumously have their body parts auctioned off to fund the next child's execution... sick sick sick!

But I have to wonder how many anti-abortion people would be willing to save their lives, or the life of a loved one, using treatments that derived from aborted human body parts. I shudder at the thought. Is there some duplicity that needs to be exposed here?

How many pro-lifers would give their autistic children medicines derived from aborted fetal tissue? Or give their elderly loved ones relief from Alzheimer's that came from aborted fetal tissue? What about saving someone's life from AIDS? What about injecting aborted baby cells into your body to counteract a degenerative condition?

Personally, I think using medicine that comes from the sacrifice of helpless slaughtered children is paramount to saying that abortions benefit mankind.

I don't think our Creator looks at it that way...
"This medicine will help your baby."
The parents aren't going to ask whether the medicine is derived from aborted fetuses...it isn't going to occur to them.
Besides, there are other ways to harvest stem cells than by murdering infants in the womb.

Suppose, though, that my child's life is hanging in the balance, and I know very well that the only medicine that will save him comes from aborted infants? Those babies are already dead...my child's death will not bring them back. Should I let my baby die for a principle?

I don't know about you, but I will use the medicine and save my baby. I'll worry about how guilty I am while he's choosing which college he'll go to...

 

[Barrd]

Good post, but with one clarification. The US has never been "majority rules"... that is a straight democracy... We are a republic which means it has always been the "majority of lawmakers rule" and lawmakers are chosen from the citizenry itself... the citizenry, by majority vote, elects those lawmakers... if the citizenry was concerned about morals, they would not be electing immoral lawmakers.

You know, it's funny.
I will be 65 in a couple of months.
When I was a kid in school I was taught that the U.S. was a democracy.
I was taught that it was a Christian nation, founded by Christians and based on Christian principles.
And I was taught that Pluto was the ninth planet in our Solar System.

Turns out, none of these things are true.... :wacko:

 

[DogLady19]

The doctor says:
...

I don't know about you, but I will use the medicine and save my baby. I'll worry about how guilty I am while he's choosing which college he'll go to...

The DogLady says... I'm not a doctor. I'm an informed person who does not exploit victims of violence... I would NOT use the parts of a murdered baby to save my own child's life... and yes, I ask before accepting any medicine... And I won't feel guilty now or 20 years from now for my decision.

 

[DogLady19]

You know, it's funny.
I will be 65 in a couple of months.
When I was a kid in school I was taught that the U.S. was a democracy.
I was taught that it was a Christian nation, founded by Christians and based on Christian principles.
And I was taught that Pluto was the ninth planet in our Solar System.

Turns out, none of these things are true.... :wacko:

Actually, two of those things is true. Our nation was indeed founded on Christian principles. One of those principles was to never allow gov't to persecute someone for their religious beliefs.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." -Patrick Henry

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." John Quincy Adams

And Pluto is still a planet... it's just a dwarf planet... and it's still the 9th planet out... there are now three other dwarf planets known to be beyond that, but Pluto has not change its position from the sun.

 

[Barrd]

The DogLady says... I'm not a doctor. I'm an informed person who does not exploit victims of violence... I would NOT use the parts of a murdered baby to save my own child's life... and yes, I ask before accepting any medicine... And I won't feel guilty now or 20 years from now for my decision.

I think it's too easy to say what one might or might not do, when faced with such a question.
Until you've been told that your child is dying, maybe it would be better not to judge the decisions that other parents in such a situation have made.
Spend a couple of afternoons at the Ronald McDonald house, talking to parents of terminal children...then get back to me on this one.

See, I know what it is like to be the parent of a terminal child. My sister's baby died of cancer when she was just a toddler...two of my grandsons died of some rare genetic thing that passes from mother to son...and another grandson died when he was still an infant of something called "crib death". Another grand daughter was born with a heart defect that required surgery. She is sixteen now. The prognosis is that she will not live much beyond 25. So, please do not tell me what it is like to have a dying child, because I do know.

BTW, I am as adamantly opposed to abortion as anyone I know...I've spent the past thirty or more years of my life fighting for life.
I have been a volunteer in abortion alternative clinics, in Arizona, Alabama, and in Florida.

I have taken young women in crisis pregnancies into my own home, and some of those babies still call me "Nana"....I count them among my grandchildren.

And I have counseled with women who have had abortions. Some of their stories would break your heart. They have broken mine, many times.

 

[DogLady19]

I think it's too easy to say what one might or might not do, when faced with such a question.
Until you've been told that your child is dying, maybe it would be better not to judge the decisions that other parents in such a situation have made.
Spend a couple of afternoons at the Ronald McDonald house, talking to parents of terminal children...then get back to me on this one.

...

And I have counseled with women who have had abortions. Some of their stories would break your heart. They have broken mine, many times.

Perhaps you assume I have not had to make such decisions for my own child... perhaps you assume that I do not minister to women who face such decisions... perhaps you assume my opinion is not founded in personal experience.

Expressing my opinion is not passing judgment on anyone... but I know that God condemns abortion. I can neither judge nor save anyone from the judgment of God. I can, however, call sin a sin, and hope that women consider that God has a better way to heal their dying children. God has a better plan than abortion.

If no one aborted their babies, those medicines made with aborted babies would not exist... Then what would you say to the parent of a dying child?

 

[Barrd]

Perhaps you assume I have not had to make such decisions for my own child... perhaps you assume that I do not minister to women who face such decisions... perhaps you assume my opinion is not founded in personal experience.

Expressing my opinion is not passing judgment on anyone... but I know that God condemns abortion. I can neither judge nor save anyone from the judgment of God. I can, however, call sin a sin, and hope that women consider that God has a better way to heal their dying children. God has a better plan than abortion.

If no one aborted their babies, those medicines made with aborted babies would not exist... Then what would you say to the parent of a dying child?

I know what I would say to medical science.
I would say that there are other ways to harvest stem cells than by murdering helpless infants in the womb.
We can still have these life-saving medicines, and nobody has to be aborted in order to provide them.

No one's child has to die for lack of these miracle medications, nor does anyone's child have to be aborted to provide them. The research has been done.


As for what you may or may not have had to deal with in your life, you are right....I do not know.
However, I'm fairly sure that, like Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden by law to turn down life-saving medical procedures for their child, so would it also be for someone turning down life-saving medication on the grounds that it was made with stem cells from aborted fetuses. I very much doubt that you or anyone else has actually made this decision...if you had the ACLU would have been all over it. They do love a good fight with a Christian...
Yes, it is tragic. Yes, God condemns abortion. Yes, yes, yes, we need to fight it with our very last breath, if necessary.
However, letting another child die for a principle is not the way to do it.
I'm pretty sure God would condemn that, as well.

 

[DogLady19]

I know what I would say to medical science.
I would say that there are other ways to harvest stem cells than by murdering helpless infants in the womb.
We can still have these life-saving medicines, and nobody has to be aborted in order to provide them.

No one's child has to die for lack of these miracle medications, nor does anyone's child have to be aborted to provide them. The research has been done.


As for what you may or may not have had to deal with in your life, you are right....I do not know.
However, I'm fairly sure that, like Jehovah's Witnesses are forbidden by law to turn down life-saving medical procedures for their child, so would it also be for someone turning down life-saving medication on the grounds that it was made with stem cells from aborted fetuses. I very much doubt that you or anyone else has actually made this decision...if you had the ACLU would have been all over it. They do love a good fight with a Christian...
Yes, it is tragic. Yes, God condemns abortion. Yes, yes, yes, we need to fight it with our very last breath, if necessary.
However, letting another child die for a principle is not the way to do it.
I'm pretty sure God would condemn that, as well.

I do not believe that the ACLU is going to come after a parent who decides to turn down drugs derived from aborted fetuses. If you know of any such cases, I would love to see them. The law says all competent people have the right to refuse ANY life-saving treatment.

I take issue with your statement "letting another child die for a principle," because refusing to benefit from the sale of body parts from innocent murder victims goes beyond principle. It's about morality, not some stiff-necked sense of self-righteousness, that a parent would make such a choice.

I only have one person in my life who made a related decision. She refused aborted fetal stem cells to treat her teenaged son who was having strokes from a congenital heart defect. She had to do her own research to find out that is what they were prescribing for her son, and even more research to find a supplier of stem cells from adult donors... No one fought her on this even though treatment was delayed while she researched.

 

[Barrd]

I do not believe that the ACLU is going to come after a parent who decides to turn down drugs derived from aborted fetuses. If you know of any such cases, I would love to see them. The law says all competent people have the right to refuse ANY life-saving treatment.

I take issue with your statement "letting another child die for a principle," because refusing to benefit from the sale of body parts from innocent murder victims goes beyond principle. It's about morality, not some stiff-necked sense of self-righteousness, that a parent would make such a choice.

I only have one person in my life who made a related decision. She refused aborted fetal stem cells to treat her teenaged son who was having strokes from a congenital heart defect. She had to do her own research to find out that is what they were prescribing for her son, and even more research to find a supplier of stem cells from adult donors... No one fought her on this even though treatment was delayed while she researched.

I think the operative term there is "competent people". A child is not a "competent person".
As for your friend, I am very happy that she found a source for stem cells from adult donors. Good for her.
Fortunately, her son lived till she found this source...and I do hope the repeated strokes didn't cause too much damage.

Still, I would hesitate to judge another woman in that same situation who chose to use the medicine presented. If refusing it would bring those poor little babes back to life, or even keep one single living infant from being aborted, that would be different.
But it won't. But it could cost another innocent child his or her life.

Did you know that it is possible to harvest stem cells from the umbilical cord and placenta?
Some families are "banking" this tissue...expensive, but if you have a child who needs this kind of treatment, oh, so worth it...

 

[DogLady19]

I think the operative term there is "competent people". A child is not a "competent person".
As for your friend, I am very happy that she found a source for stem cells from adult donors. Good for her.
Fortunately, her son lived till she found this source...and I do hope the repeated strokes didn't cause too much damage.

Still, I would hesitate to judge another woman in that same situation who chose to use the medicine presented. If refusing it would bring those poor little babes back to life, or even keep one single living infant from being aborted, that would be different.
But it won't. But it could cost another innocent child his or her life.

Did you know that it is possible to harvest stem cells from the umbilical cord and placenta?
Some families are "banking" this tissue...expensive, but if you have a child who needs this kind of treatment, oh, so worth it...

1) Yes, I am quite excited about umbilical cord and placenta harvesting... I know several people who have banks for their children. Their own body parts may some day save their lives... and someone was born vs being murdered to do it.

2) The "competent person" for a child is his/her parent. I know you know that...

3) What if we decided we could use body parts of unwanted children in orphanages? A doctor can euthanize them, and sell their body parts to the pharmaceutical companies so they can make life-saving treatments for dying children who are loved.

In God's eyes, there is no difference between the unborn baby and the unwanted orphan... right???

 

[Barrd]

1) Yes, I am quite excited about umbilical cord and placenta harvesting... I know several people who have banks for their children. Their own body parts may some day save their lives... and someone was born vs being murdered to do it.

2) The "competent person" for a child is his/her parent. I know you know that...

3) What if we decided we could use body parts of unwanted children in orphanages? A doctor can euthanize them, and sell their body parts to the pharmaceutical companies so they can make life-saving treatments for dying children who are loved.

In God's eyes, there is no difference between the unborn baby and the unwanted orphan... right???

You and I are totally in agreement on most of these issues.
Except the part about letting a living child die when the means to save his life exist.
I am pro-life all the way...not only for the child in the womb, but for the child with a genetic disease that might be cured with stem cells, even if they do come from aborted fetuses.
I mourn the passing of those little ones...however, I see no reason why their deaths must be in vain if another child might be given life.
Now, I am no happier than you are about how these means came about...but the fact is that the means do exist, and the aborted babies are dead. Letting another child die will not bring them back.

The only drawback I can see would be the idea that we need to keep aborting babies in order to obtain this tissue...but we see that this is not an issue.

 

[DogLady19]

The only drawback I can see would be the idea that we need to keep aborting babies in order to obtain this tissue...but we see that this is not an issue.

It was never an issue... these medicines should have never existed in the first place...

 

[LaDela]

The DogLady says... I'm not a doctor. I'm an informed person who does not exploit victims of violence... I would NOT use the parts of a murdered baby to save my own child's life... and yes, I ask before accepting any medicine... And I won't feel guilty now or 20 years from now for my decision.

I absolutely agree. This nation is becoming a nation of "well meaning" cannibalism. People are looking for adequate enough reasons to do evil. Profiting from the murder of a child's life in any way is horrific and immoral. People elevate their own selfish feelings, forgetting that God is alive, when making these kinds of decisions. "As long as it saves my child's life....." Translation; 'I'm going to aid in the murder of someone innocent because I believe that since it's MY child; another child can suffer.' As long as people provide a market for the profit of murder, children are going to continue to be murdered. Principles do not matter anymore. People are becoming cold hearted and satan is counting on it.

 

[Barrd]

I absolutely agree. This nation is becoming a nation of "well meaning" cannibalism. People are looking for adequate enough reasons to do evil. Profiting from the murder of a child's life in any way is horrific and immoral. People elevate their own selfish feelings, forgetting that God is alive, when making these kinds of decisions. "As long as it saves my child's life....." Translation; 'I'm going to aid in the murder of someone innocent because I believe that since it's MY child; another child can suffer.' As long as people provide a market for the profit of murder, children are going to continue to be murdered. Principles do not matter anymore. People are becoming cold hearted and satan is counting on it.

All of this would be true, if anyone were advocating continuing to murder helpless infants in order to obtain stem cells for medical treatment.
No one is.

The whole point of the pro-life movement is to save the lives of children. I am often asked why pro-life people only seem to care about infants in the womb, and don't seem to be worried about what happens to kids AFTER they are born.
And here we have a case in point. These terminally ill children are no longer in the womb...so, evidently saving their lives is no longer an issue? I disagree.
NO child should have to die. Letting a child die when the means exist to save him is just as evil as abortion....and I do believe it is against the law, as well.

http://resources.lawinfo.com/insurance/health-insurance/when-can-a-parent-deny-medical-treatment-to-a.html

State laws typically give much leeway to parents and allow them to make medical decisions for their own children unless their decisions endanger the life of a child. Many courts will allow a state child protection agency to make medical decisions for a child if:

1. The medical community is in agreement about the appropriate course of treatment for the child;
2. The expected outcome of that treatment is a relatively normal life with a reasonably good quality of life;
3. The child would die without the treatment; and
4. The parent is refusing consent for the treatment.

A parent who denies his or her child necessary medical care could face the following consequences:
· Loss of custody. The state may find that the parent is neglecting the child and place the child in state custody in order to protect the child.

· Criminal charges. The parent may face child abuse, child neglect and / or assault charges for failing to provide the necessary medical care for the child.

A good parent will not deny medical treatment to a dying child. Parents who would do so deserve to lose their children, and face criminal charges. It is difficult to believe that someone who is pro-life would allow their own child to die when the means exist to save him.
Rather than sacrifice our own children on the altar of "PRINCIPAL" let us instead fight for medical treatments that use stem cells harvested from other sources than aborted infants.

And I repeat what I said before.
It is all too easy to say what you would do when it is not your child who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness.
I refuse to judge those parents whose children are alive because they accepted this medical treatment.
You may label these parents "cannibals"and call them "evil" and "immoral". Until you've been called on to walk through that particular storm, all you are doing is showing your own lack of compassion.
I would say that the one who is truly "evil" and "immoral" is the one who can stand by and watch their baby die. If a person can do that in order to prove a point, that one is as guilty as any mom who has had an abortion, and maybe more so, since he/she claims the higher moral ground. That person is nothing more, and nothing less, than a murderer.
Just the fact that a person would be willing to let someone else's child die, marks them as a murderer...

 

[LaDela]

All of this would be true, if anyone were advocating continuing to murder helpless infants in order to obtain stem cells for medical treatment.
No one is.

The whole point of the pro-life movement is to save the lives of children. I am often asked why pro-life people only seem to care about infants in the womb, and don't seem to be worried about what happens to kids AFTER they are born.
And here we have a case in point. These terminally ill children are no longer in the womb...so, evidently saving their lives is no longer an issue? I disagree.
NO child should have to die. Letting a child die when the means exist to save him is just as evil as abortion....and I do believe it is against the law, as well.

http://resources.lawinfo.com/insurance/health-insurance/when-can-a-parent-deny-medical-treatment-to-a.html

State laws typically give much leeway to parents and allow them to make medical decisions for their own children unless their decisions endanger the life of a child. Many courts will allow a state child protection agency to make medical decisions for a child if:

• The medical community is in agreement about the appropriate course of treatment for the child;
• The expected outcome of that treatment is a relatively normal life with a reasonably good quality of life;
• The child would die without the treatment; and
• The parent is refusing consent for the treatment.

A parent who denies his or her child necessary medical care could face the following consequences:
· Loss of custody. The state may find that the parent is neglecting the child and place the child in state custody in order to protect the child.

· Criminal charges. The parent may face child abuse, child neglect and / or assault charges for failing to provide the necessary medical care for the child.

A good parent will not deny medical treatment to a dying child. Parents who would do so deserve to lose their children, and face criminal charges. It is difficult to believe that someone who is pro-life would allow their own child to die when the means exist to save him.
Rather than sacrifice our own children on the altar of "PRINCIPAL" let us instead fight for medical treatments that use stem cells harvested from other sources than aborted infants.

And I repeat what I said before.
It is all too easy to say what you would do when it is not your child who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness.
I refuse to judge those parents whose children are alive because they accepted this medical treatment.
You may label these parents "cannibals"and call them "evil" and "immoral". Until you've been called on to walk through that particular storm, all you are doing is showing your own lack of compassion.
I would say that the one who is truly "evil" and "immoral" is the one who can stand by and watch their baby die. If a person can do that in order to prove a point, that one is as guilty as any mom who has had an abortion, and maybe more so, since he/she claims the higher moral ground. That person is nothing more, and nothing less, than a murderer.
Just the fact that a person would be willing to let someone else's child die, marks them as a murderer...

I'm sorry but I really wasn't asking you for a book report of justifications and rationalizations. You cannot transfer how you would react in that position onto someone else. You have already given your excuses as to why you think it is perfectly fine to keep murders in business. There are always alternatives in medical treatments but you have to want to explore them. I simply agree with those who do not feel it's ok to profit off of someone else's death. If you have a problem with that, I cannot help you.