The Daily Skirmish – Baby Parts Researchers Can’t Justify Themselves, Try As They Might

Documents suggest the university knows some aborted babies’ hearts may still be beating when their organs are harvested for the University’s scientific research.  Why stop with babies? 

The Chinese kill adults for their organs; maybe we should, too.  The documents also show the University has racial quotas for baby parts purchases.  I wonder what Malcolm X would have thought about that.  It all sounds “ethical” to me. 

Hey, but it’s all perfectly legal, right?

Nice try.  Want to try again? 

How about this one:   Former NIH Director Francis Collins claims baby parts research is “moral and beneficial” and U.S. taxpayers should fund it.  He starts off by saying abortion is legal – not the strongest start, as we have seen.  Actually, he admits to being “troubled” by abortion, but plows straight ahead:  The material is discarded, another weak proffer. 

Actually, pro-lifers correctly call the discarded material “human remains” and want them given a dignified burial, just like everybody else gets.  Collins winds up by saying fetal tissue research “can be extremely valuable in understanding how life works, how development happens, and how to treat certain diseases like Parkinson’s disease, for instance.”  There you have it – lifeboat ethics when we’re not even in a lifeboat.  Just look at all the great things we can get from these people if we can just kill them, like creating “humanized mice”.  Again, I go back to the Chinese:  they kill adults for their organs because it finances and benefits the Chinese Communist Party.  Benefitting from the death of others is hardly a justification for killing them, is it?

Benefits – nice try.  Want to try again?  Collins and others cite consent of the mother to donate baby parts to science.  What would you think of a mother who found her 5-year-old ‘inconvenient’ and gave you permission to kill her child and use the body parts for science?   You might see a difference, but I don’t. 

Nice try.  Want to try again?  The plucky New York Times gets around the moral question of using hearts in baby parts research by denying it’s really a heart and it’s not really beating.  That’s just “embryonic pulsing”, got it?  Get with the lingo, here.  Actually, scientists have already established a baby’s heart starts beating after just 21 days in the womb, sometimes before.  So, as you can see, the New York Times doesn’t really have a heart, either.  That’s just ‘idiotic pulsing’ from ideologues who don’t want to follow the science. 

Nice try.  Want to try again? 

The NIH did not, when recently asked about the grotesque experiments on baby parts at the University of Pittsburgh.  The NIH refused to answer questions. 

What’s up with that? 

If baby parts research is so great and has so many benefits, wouldn’t you want to tell the world?  

The NIH also refused to investigate, saying the University’s conclusion it is “fully compliant” with the law is good enough for the feds – see no evil.  Lawmakers posing the questions said the NIH’s position is deficient because the research is “unethical and completely repulsive, [and] contrary to federal law. We need answers.”  Well, they won’t get any answers from the feds. Baby parts research apologists have retreated to the only argument they have left – stonewalling. 

After all, there’s money to be made.  The Biden administration will spend $88 million on baby parts research this year.  That’s a lot of chopped liver and chardonnay, and you’re paying for it.  The administration disbanded an ethical review board that had previously rejected the more outrageous projects, so now anything goes in this research. 

Want to put human fingers onto mice just to see what happens? 

Go right ahead, there’s nothing stopping you, but spare me your phony justifications, please.