Fetal Farming, Here We Come: UK Scientists Say to Use Aborted Fetuses as Sources of Organs
Tell me we aren't on the path to using human beings as mere produce: A UK bioethicist has called for using fetal organs from abortions in transplantation. From the story:
Kidneys and livers from aborted foetuses could be given to the desperately ill and ease the organ donor shortage, a leading scientist has claimed. Professor Sir Richard Gardner, an Oxford University stem cell expert, said foetal tissues may offer a more realistic solution to the lack of organs than other technologies being developed.Realize this would require later term abortions. But that's okay, according to another "expert:"
But Professor Stuart Campbell, who has argued for the abortion time limit to be lowered, had no ethical objections to the proposal. He said many babies were aborted quite 'and if they are going to be terminated, it is a shame to waste their organs'.Where have we heard that before? It sounds just like "these leftover embryos are going to be tossed out anyway, so we might as well get some use out of them."
Hey, I know: When a woman wants an early term abortion, we can pay her to gestate a couple of extra months so her fetus can be of societal use! And imagine the possibilities when artificial wombs are created: We can gestate fetuses to order.
The road to fetal farming is already being paved.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:07 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
AT LEAST A HUNDRED AN HOUR, LIKE CLOCKWORK, THIS MORNING AND TO NOW. Allowing for fewer when people are asleep it still comes out to AT LEAST ONE A MINUTE. THUS FAR.
Are they going to make purses out of them too? Wouldn't that just be the darlingest thing.
That is sick. ( Actually, it's evil, as "sick" implies the presence of some sort of mental or physical illness which has caused the action, which is not the case here.)That is just so wrong. What I find interesting is the pro life implications of such a policy. If fetal organs can be used in transplantation, than they were obviously working for the individual fetus, which strengthens the argument for the fetus as a separate entity with rights. But, these people don't care about that. I guess their attitude is that since we're killing fetuses and dumping them in the trash, we might as well put them to good use instead. Evil.
Wesley-- I know (hope?) you were being sarcastic at paying women to "gestate longer," but that would really be counter-productive for the fetal farming crowd. I suspect a lot of women who wouldn't think twice about a quiet first-trimester abortion, a "secret abortion," if you will, would have a much more difficult time doing so once she had begun to show, and most importantly, felt the baby's movement. It's much harder to write off something as a "clump of cells," when the "clump of cells" gets the hiccups on a near-daily basis and shows a proficiency for Kung Fu moves.
Next they'll be a food source. What with world population pressures and food shortages and all. What we do to other animals that is not right we end up doing to ourselves. Other animals don't eat their own species the way we make them do in pet food and livestock feed; how did anyone think that would end up affecting us.
We make humans that are not supposed to be via i.v.f. and we treat humans that are "not supposed to be" via abortion like this. And humans are exceptional? Inferior is more like it.
They would have an interesting time actually pulling this off. To look the evil suggestion in the face, it seems to me that this is what it would have to involve: (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) The abortion would have to take place in a way that did not dismember the child and at a stage of development when the organ in question was big enough and developed enough to be useful to an adult transplant recipient. This would mean late-term, intact infant abortions. Moreover, since the organs have to be oxygenated before transplant, I would _guess_ that they would be taking the intact infant's body and oxygenating it mechanically as they presently do in order to keep the organs (say, kidneys) fresh up until transplant. But then when happens when the child is born alive as a preemie? They will have trouble having it both ways--having a late-term enough child for the organs to be useful, not dismembering the child, and avoiding live birth. So what will they do? Perhaps just kill the child after live birth by taking its organs?
Lydia - it falls in line with the arguments they're having about when death actually happens. They would like to take organs from terminal patients waaaaay earlier and in order to do that they must redefine when "death" occurs.
Involved in this if the modification of language. Just change the definition of a word and obtain what you want by subterfuge.
And since Obambi is against caring for a baby born alive after an attempted abortion wouldn't it be much better to use this human rather than throw it in a bio-hazard bag to die? /sarcasm
Lydia: I think that(kill the child by taking its organs)is exactly what they'll do.
Well they just put a piece of a pig into Barbara Bush, and no one said anything. (Wait until she starts oinking; that kind of thing does happen, with transplants; the body and the soul etc. are not separate, which is why not to do these things...) What we do to and with non-human animals, we then do to humans. Of course, because experimentation results are extrapolated to us, right?
Somebody STOP these maniacs. It would be worth having NO doctors to shut them all down for awhile.
After all people who shouldn't and aren't supposed to and don't want to die are going to die with or without them. There's only so much Obamanation and his cronies can do if there are no doctors or scientists saying anything.
And in any event they need a chance to re-learn and re-group and learn to be doctors again. Meanwhile if the "administration" kept pushing the idea it would be even more obvious that there is no ethical medical backing for it -- not that there is now, just medicine the way it is. Things have to STOP and then restart in a proper direction. Including via impeachment. I don't understand why that issue hasn't come up yet -- just the number of executive orders is enough to start rumblings, and yet no one is jumping up and down about it in a way that can do anything about it yet. It's not even the policies; it's the number and frequency of executive orders.
Lanthe,
We once had a girl submit a creative paper she wrote to our pro-life organization in case we could use it in any way. Well, now I can. It was a spoof of Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," but instead of eating the poor Irish children, her spoof had us eating our unborn children. I guess she was more prophetic that we realized at the time!
Brave New World...
JustChris: Well you were on the right track in asking her to write/submit it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home