garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (05/27/85)
The following is an article by Olga Fairfax, Ph.D., director of Methodists United for Life, found in the Nov. ?? 1984 issue of a paper called "Love Express" (I have a photocopy, which is why I am not sure of the date.) The topic is what happens to aborted fetuses. If you don't want to know, don't read any farther. The presentation is highly emotional, and I ask readers to look past the rhetoric to the actual incidents described. In fact, I anticipate three classes of negative response: (1) Too emotional. Yes, I know; neutrality is well nigh impossible with this topic. (2) Irrelevant. An opinion which I do not share. What happens to aborted fetuses shows a lot about the attitudes of those performing abortions. (3) It's all lies. I will post substantiation when I receive it (see my closing note). Anyone who wishes to convince me that these things aren't happening is welcome to provide contrary evidence. Except for deleting the author's address at the end, the article is unchanged. ---------------- 101 Uses For a Dead (or Alive) Baby When I saw the first ad on TV advertising collagen- enriched cosmetics I was speechless. We'll be apologizing to Hitler, I thought; at least he didn't kill for money! Collagen is the gelatinous substance found in connective tissue, bone and cartilage. Nick Thimmesch's syndicated column, "Our Grisly Human Fetal Industry," documents that amniotic fluid and collagen can come from fetal material, since the Food and Drug Administration does not require pretesting or the identification of cosmetic ingredients. A glance through a local drug store revealed that the leading 12 shampoos and five hand creams all contained collagen. Check your beauty products and you may be shocked! Unless your beauty product specifies animal collagen or bovine collagen, the product probably contains human collagen. The drug company should be challenged at once. Even collagen taken from human placenta raises questions about respect of life and ownership of the placenta. A letter from Mary Kay Cosmetics emphasizes that their collagen all comes from animals. A similar letter from Hask has also been received. Since there are 1.5 million abortions every year, there is an abundant source of fetuses for commercial use. There's a triple profit to be had. The first is from the abortion (estimated at a half billion dollars a year by Fortune magazine). The second profit comes from the sale of aborted babies' bodies. The third profit is from unsuspecting customers buying cosmetics. Babies' bodies are sold by the bag, $25 a batch or up to $5,500 a pound. The sale of late-term elective abortions at D.C. General Hospital brought $68,000 between 1966 and 1976. The money was used to buy a TV set and cookies and soft drinks for visiting professors. Personally, I hope that they choked on the Kool-Aid! Call your local abortuary and hospital and ask them some pointed questions about the disposal and possible sale of fetuses. Would an abortionist who kills a baby think twice about selling its body? One prenatal killer said, "A baby is becoming property. We kill, keep, or sell the property." In the Pittsburgh Women's Health Service there's a sign in the lab areas asking doctors not to carry dead fetuses without wrapping them since it disturbs the patients. TREATED LIKE TRASH What have abortuaries done with fetuses in the past before they realized that they could make another profit out of them? Well, "Richmond's shame" marked a new low in disposal of wastes. An abortion center there filled a long bin on the rear of its property with the remains of its day's nefarious doings. Its trash compactor neatly mashed 100 babies' bodies which were then tied up in plastic bags and thrown on top of the bin. "The hungry dogs came along and dragged the bags away. There were frequent fights and the contents of the bags would be strewn up and down the streets until the dogs separated the gauze, sponges, and pads, and devoured the placenta, bones, and flesh of the babies," said a mother. She went to the police, health department, and city hall and felt that she got nowhere; but the bags of warm human babies' mutilated parts disappeared from the streets even though the clinic increased its abortions from 25 to 150 a week. They've since moved to larger quarters. The Jacksonville, Florida, Womens' Center for Reproductive Health, which is run and owned by the Clergy Consultation Service, advertises "celebrating a decade of service." NOTHING TO CELEBRATE What they don't advertise is that they leave aborted babies out for the trash pickup. Rev. Marvin Lutz, the director, explained that the practice of leaving the remains out was perfectly legal and approved by the "good housekeeping" Judases, the National Abortion Federation and the Florida Abortion Council. Dr. Jeronimo Dominguez of New York wrote that "on any Monday you can see about 30 garbage bags with fetal material in them along the sidewalks of several abortion clinics in New York." In Odessa, Texas, city ordinance 69-91 forbids placing a dead animal in a dumpster. But that didn't stop one abortionist from depositing large brown plastic bags full of sock-like gauze bags into the city dumpster prior to closing every night. A Baptist minister opened the bags and to his horror found little "perfectly formed hands and feet of a 13-week old baby and the complete body, in pieces, of a 17-week old baby. Everything except one foot was there: the rib cage, sexual organs, head, finger nails, and toe nails." He nearly died of shock. I nearly did, too, reading about it. THEY BURN BABIES, DON'T THEY? Babies used to burned on the altar to Baal; now they're burned in furnaces at the sites of their deaths. In Cincinnati, a prenatal killer allowed dense smoke to emanate from his chimney. When firemen were called they were told, "They're burning babies," as if that was routine. One wonders how life-saving firemen could continue their dedication amid such a contradiction! One pro-lifer overheard her children (ages 5 and 7) discussing the infamous picture of the babies in the trash can the first time they saw it. "It's dolls. It has to be dolls," said the kindergartener. "No," said his pre-school sister, "it's babies." The older child couldn't believe it. "It has to be dolls," he insisted. "Why would anyone throw away babies?" When there mother explained to them that it was babies, both children grew very quiet. Silently they studied the picture and then recalled the times they had gone on trips to the city dump with the family. "Will the rats eat the babies when they take them to the dump?" the boy asked. ANIMALS FARE BETTER A wounded American eagle was found in Maryland recently and rushed to emergency treatment but it was too late. He died. A $5,000 reward was offered for the arrest of its killer. Similarly, the Izaak Walton League's ethics fund has spent nearly $60,000 in the last 1 1/2 years to enhance outdoor ethics. It is illegal to ship pregnant lobsters (regardless of which trimester!) to market. There's a $1,000 fine and year's jail term as a penalty. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that goldfish cannot be awarded as prizes in games of chance. This violates the state's anti-cruelty law to protect the "tendency to dull humanitarian feelings and corrupt the morals of those who observe them." This same court upheld mandatory state funding of abortions! If the human fetus were an animal, its welfare might be entrusted to the Department of Agriculture or the Fish and Wildlife Service where it would be safer than at the mercy of the Health Department. The hackles of the SPCA would rise at the physical treatment that it received. THE NEW LABORATORY RAT Some researchers insist that the reason they must do research on human fetuses is because they are human, not animal. In an it-shouldn't-happen-to-a-dog story, 47 senators voted in 1974 to protect dogs from experimentation with poisonous gas, but then voted down Sen. Jesse Helms's amendment to prevent federal funds from being used for abortion. One liberal, pro-abortion senator gave an emotion-laden speech to protect dogs. Man's best friend came out better than man himself! Who is pressing for the "right" to experiment? No one less than the National Institutes of Health. A stacked national commission gave them the "right" and this experimentation is funded by you, the taxpayer! This is another sequel to the erosion of the value of human life. Abortion, fetal experimentation, infanticide, and euthanasia are four walls of the same coffin. Even Planned Parenthood's anti-life lawyer Harriet Pilpel was shocked. "What mother (sic) would consent to an experiment on her fetus?" she asked. A FEW CHOICE EXAMPLES Some of the more shocking facts that will give you heart palpitations include: * The young couple who wanted to conceive a child to be aborted so that the father-to-be could use the baby's kidneys for a transplant that he needed himself. * In California, babies aborted at six months were submerged in jars of liquid with high oxygen content to see if they could breathe through their skins. They couldn't. * The hysterotomy -- aborted fetus in the seventh, eighth and ninth months is removed intact (translation: the baby is alive). The trade in fetal tissue is about $1 million annually. The high prices may encourage unnecessary abortions on welfare patients as the surest way of getting "salable tissue." * Dr Robert Schwarz, chief of pediatrics at the Cleveland Metropolitan Hospital, said that, "After a baby is delivered, while it is still linked to its mother by the umbilical cord, I take a blood sample, sever the cord, and then as quickly as possible remove the organs and tissues." * Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh packed aborted babies in ice for shipment to experimental labs. * Newsday reported than Ohio medical research company tested the brains and hearts of 100 fetuses as part of a $300,000 pesticide contract. THE MODERN SCALP DISPLAY? * Human embryos and other organs have been encased in plastic and sold as paperweight novelty items. * The Diabetes Treatment Project at UCLA depends for its existence on the availability of pancreases from late-term aborted fetuses. * A rabies vaccine is produced from viruses grown in the lungs of aborted children, according to FDA. A polio vaccine was also grown with cells from aborted fetuses. * Brain cells would be "harvested" from aborted babies for transplant. * Tissue cultures are obtained by dropping still-living babies into meat grinders and homogenizing them, according to the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. * The Village Voice reported estimates seven years ago that 20,000 to 100,000 fetuses are sold to drug companies each year in the U.S. * A $600,000 grant from N.I.H. enabled one baby (among many others in the experiment done in Finland) to be sliced open without an anesthetic so that a liver could be obtained. The researcher in charge said that the baby was complete and "was even secreting urine." He disclaimed the need anesthetic, saying an aborted baby is "just garbage." Don't tell God! * A study on the severed heads of 12 babies delivered by C-section who were kept alive for months. * Even the baby's placenta is sold for 50 cents to drug companies. Ever heard of Placenta Plus shampoo? And the atrocities go on. Will the unborn be regarded as handy little organ sources? Will our preborn brothers and sisters become a source of spare body parts? Listen to the newscasters -- they are already pleading nationwide for organs. It's enough to make you tear up your organ donor card! At least adults can consent to being inventorized like a body shop's spare parts department but Little Bugger cannot! After reading that aborted babies' fat is being used to make soap in England and the fact that the former head of federal Centers for Disease Control abortion surveillance branch proposed that abortions should be charged for the length of the baby's foot, are we surprised that babies are treated this way in the Year of the Child or the Year of the Disabled? After reading the above, if your heart is still beating, run, don't walk, to your nearest prayer closet and start praying. EDITOR'S NOTE: Everything you've read is true. For 40 pages of documentation, please send a donation to Dr. Olga Fairfax, [address deleted]. Thank you! ----------------- End of article. Note: I have requested the mentioned documentation. When I receive it, I will post, as requests warrant, documentation of selected items (I don't really want to type in all 40 pages). Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (05/28/85)
Once again, Samuelson is determined to bludgeon our sensabilities until we at last scream "yes, anything you say, only shut up!" Our society (as most do) tends to hide dead and bloody things. Most of us would be as revolted by surgery or slaughter of animals as we are by graphic descriptions of dead fetuses and their disposal. This is not because they are inherently wrong: it is a matter of conditioning (and perhaps even a fear we develop spontaneously, like fear of snakes.) Personally, I don't care what happens to dead human flesh, my own included. You're all welcome to eat my body after I've died, use it for experiments, use it in perfumes, makeups, or shampoos. And most people really don't care what happens to dead fetuses: they just want them out of sight. Perhaps Samuelson has a better method of disposal in mind. Should they be flushed the way millions of spontaneous abortions are? Why isn't Gary indigant about that? Should he require that women use little dip nets to remove the body and give it a Christian burial? :-( A really good example of the ridiculous lengths he goes to is questioning the destiny of the placenta. What does Gary want to do with it? Why is the placenta of an abortion any different than the placenta of a normal birth? The placenta is essentially the only disposable, renewable organ humans can develop. Does Samuelson want to bronze them, eat them, or provide them full funeral rites? In summary, I'm nauseated: and not by the subject so much as the tactics Gary is using. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/28/85)
> Collagen is the gelatinous substance found in connective > tissue, bone and cartilage. Nick Thimmesch's syndicated > column, "Our Grisly Human Fetal Industry," documents > that amniotic fluid and collagen can come from fetal > material, since the Food and Drug Administration does > not require pretesting or the identification of cosmetic > ingredients. > A glance through a local drug store revealed that the > leading 12 shampoos and five hand creams all contained > collagen. > Check your beauty products and you may be shocked! > Unless your beauty product specifies animal collagen or > bovine collagen, the product probably contains human > collagen. The drug company should be challenged at once. > Even collagen taken from human placenta raises questions > about respect of life and ownership of the placenta. ... > Babies' bodies are sold by the bag, $25 a batch or up to > $5,500 a pound. Uh, excuse me, but *why* would a comsmetics manufacturer pay $5+K/lb for aborted fetuses when they could extract collagen just as easily from animal carcasses which can be had for $0.50/lb? I find it hard to believe that a business would do something so expensive (and potentially disastrous PR-wise) for no apparent reason. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "You can be in my dream if I can be in yours." - Dylan
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (05/29/85)
> > The topic is what happens to aborted fetuses. If you don't > want to know, don't read any farther. > > The presentation is highly emotional, and I ask readers to > look past the rhetoric to the actual incidents described. > In fact, I anticipate three classes of negative response: > (1) Too emotional. Yes, I know; neutrality is well nigh > impossible with this topic. (2) Irrelevant. An opinion > which I do not share. What happens to aborted fetuses > shows a lot about the attitudes of those performing > abortions. (3) It's all lies. > The article goes on to say that fetuses are used to make collangen, something found in cosmetics. So what do you want to do with them? I'm with John Pryne. "Don't bury me in the cold, cold ground, cut me up and pass me all around." It is a lot better to use them in cosmetics that save them in a garage or something. I understand they are hell on trash compactors. Fertlizer might be another good use for them. What do the animal control officials do with animal corpses the find by the roadside? Fetuses are like other dead animal material. They smell real bad after a few days in the sun, they attract digusting insects, and are unarguably refuse to be disposed of (as we will all be some day). I would say that your submission is irrelavant. I disagree that it shows anything about my attitude about abortion. It is an indication of how I feel about recycling as a way of acheiving a relatively homostatic ecosystem. pesnta!idsvax!steiny twg!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (05/29/85)
> The following is an article by Olga Fairfax, Ph.D., director > of Methodists United for Life, found in the Nov. ?? 1984 > issue of a paper called "Love Express" (I have a photocopy, > which is why I am not sure of the date.) > > The topic is what happens to aborted fetuses. If you don't > want to know, don't read any farther. > > The presentation is highly emotional, and I ask readers to > look past the rhetoric to the actual incidents described. > In fact, I anticipate three classes of negative response: > (1) Too emotional. Yes, I know; neutrality is well nigh > impossible with this topic. (2) Irrelevant. An opinion > which I do not share. What happens to aborted fetuses > shows a lot about the attitudes of those performing > abortions. What does an article about disposal of human remains have to do with th ethics of abortion? Would a capital punishment argument be somehow clarified if we knew what happened to the alleged criminals' corpses? I also would like to see the documentation. Also, what is Ms. Fairfax's Ph.D. in? To pick one point at random, collagen is readily available from established sources at slaughterhouses. It is abundant and cheap. Why would anybody bother to use human fetuses? Especially since the inevitable negative PR would kill sales? Mike Gray
jjm@faust.UUCP (05/29/85)
oh my god. i'm in tears. beautiful world we live in, eh?
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/30/85)
> Collagen is the gelatinous substance found in connective > tissue, bone and cartilage. Nick Thimmesch's syndicated > column, "Our Grisly Human Fetal Industry," documents > that amniotic fluid and collagen can come from fetal > material, since the Food and Drug Administration does > not require pretesting or the identification of cosmetic > ingredients. I am not sure what this sentence means. Unless I am seriously mistaken, amniotic fluid is the fluid in which fetuses develop. It is external to the fetus, just like the placenta. Depending on how one defines "fetal material" amniotic fluid is either fetal material or not. The sentence "amniotic fluid can come from fetal material" is utterly meaningless. > In the Pittsburgh Women's Health Service there's a > sign in the lab areas asking doctors not to carry dead > fetuses without wrapping them since it disturbs the > patients. > While the ethics of selling human parts is certainly an important issue, I really do not see what is objectionable with the practise mentioned above. What would you like them to do? make the women carry them? > TREATED LIKE TRASH > What they don't advertise is that they leave aborted > babies out for the trash pickup. Rev. Marvin Lutz, the > director, explained that the practice of leaving the > remains out was perfectly legal and approved by the > "good housekeeping" Judases, the National Abortion > Federation and the Florida Abortion Council. Obviously, leaving aborted embryos in a garbage can on trash sites is not a good idea, if only simply for sanitary reasons (the reasons for which dead animals are not allowded). It would seem more reasonnable to me to dispose of them the same way we dispose of dead people, or animals by burying them or incinerating them. > THEY BURN BABIES, DON'T THEY? > Babies used to burned on the altar to Baal; now > they're burned in furnaces at the sites of their deaths. > In Cincinnati, a prenatal killer allowed dense smoke to > emanate from his chimney. When firemen were called > they were told, "They're burning babies," as if that was > routine. This part of the article is the one that irks me the most. The sentence "they're burned at the site of their death" clearly indicates that they are already dead when they are burned. Therefore they are simply being incinerated like any human who is not buried would be. What is objectionable to this? This obviously shows that the author does not really care about what happens to aborted fetuses, but is more interested in grossing people out. It is pretty stupid, the incineration of fetuses does not produce more smoke than the incineration of other human bodies. > One wonders how life-saving firemen could continue > their dedication amid such a contradiction! What contradiction? the article clearly states that the fetuses were dead before they were burned. Firemen are not there to rescue bodies, but people who are alive. Firemen are not called to the scene of other incinerations. What is the point of all this? it is just empty rethoric. > One pro-lifer overheard her children (ages 5 and 7) > discussing the infamous picture of the babies in the trash can > the first time they saw it. > "It's dolls. It has to be dolls," said the kindergartener. > "No," said his pre-school sister, "it's babies." > The older child couldn't believe it. "It has to be dolls," > he insisted. "Why would anyone throw away babies?" > When there mother explained to them that it was > babies, both children grew very quiet. Silently they > studied the picture and then recalled the times they had > gone on trips to the city dump with the family. "Will the > rats eat the babies when they take them to the dump?" > the boy asked. I really wonder about the parenting skills of anybody, be they pro-life or not, who would consider disturbing her children so much in order to prove a point. It would have seemed more reasonnable to me to explain to them that the fetuses were in the trash can because there were no proper facilities set up to bury them. THEN when they were a bit older, like a teenager, and she might still want to prove her point, she could still have brought the subject up. Since it obviously disturbs people so much to see fetuses in garbage cans, it is probably not a good idea to dispose of them in that way. I suggest burial or incineration. > > THE NEW LABORATORY RAT > Some researchers insist that the reason they must do > research on human fetuses is because they are human, > not animal. > Who is pressing for the "right" to experiment? No one > less than the National Institutes of Health. A stacked > national commission gave them the "right" and this > experimentation is funded by you, the taxpayer! > This is another sequel to the erosion of the value of > human life. Abortion, fetal experimentation, infanticide, > and euthanasia are four walls of the same coffin. > Even Planned Parenthood's anti-life lawyer Harriet > Pilpel was shocked. "What mother (sic) would consent to > an experiment on her fetus?" she asked. Unfortunately, the author did not specify a very important point: whether the fetuses being experimented on were still alive or not. Experimenting on dead fetuses is not more immoral than experimenting on dead people. > A FEW CHOICE EXAMPLES > Some of the more shocking facts that will give you > heart palpitations include: > * The young couple who wanted to conceive a child to be > aborted so that the father-to-be could use the baby's > kidneys for a transplant that he needed himself. Yes, there are sick people around. From the phrasing of the sentence, it seems as though this didn't happen. I wonder why... could it be that no doctors accepted to perform this procedure? if this is the case, it should be more reassuring than anything. > * In California, babies aborted at six months were > submerged in jars of liquid with high oxygen content to see if > they could breathe through their skins. They couldn't. Yes, that's disgusting and immoral. Let's stop this kind of experimentation. > * The hysterotomy -- aborted fetus in the seventh, eighth > and ninth months is removed intact (translation: the > baby is alive). The trade in fetal tissue is about $1 million > annually. The high prices may encourage unnecessary > abortions on welfare patients as the surest way of getting > "salable tissue." A hysterotomy involves the removal of the mother's uterus. It is usually performed when there is something REALLY wrong with the uterus that will endanger the mother's life. Usually if the mother has cancer of the uterus or in some cases if the fetus is dead and has caused some incurable infection in the uterus. Hysterotomies are never performed for elective abortions. Somehow, it is assumed that there is a connection between the fact that hysterotomies can be performed and the trade in fetal tissue. This premise is completely ridiculous. Anybody with any sense would see that if they wanted to make a living producing and selling dead embryos, they's probably be more successful if they kept their uterus! > * Dr Robert Schwarz, chief of pediatrics at the > Cleveland Metropolitan Hospital, said that, "After a baby > is delivered, while it is still linked to its mother by the > umbilical cord, I take a blood sample, sever the cord, and > then as quickly as possible remove the organs and > tissues." This is the description of a delivery, not an abortion. If this person is removing the organs and tissues of the baby, he is a murderer and should be emprisonned; if he is removing the placenta, then he is doing the minimum an obstetrician should do at a delivery. I certainly wouldn't trust an obstetrician who didn't help remove the placenta. > * Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh packed aborted > babies in ice for shipment to experimental labs. > * Newsday reported than Ohio medical research company > tested the brains and hearts of 100 fetuses as part of > a $300,000 pesticide contract. Were they dead already? this significant detail has once again been overlooked. > > THE MODERN SCALP DISPLAY? > * Human embryos and other organs have been encased > in plastic and sold as paperweight novelty items. where? > * The Diabetes Treatment Project at UCLA depends for > its existence on the availability of pancreases from late-term > aborted fetuses. > * A rabies vaccine is produced from viruses grown in the > lungs of aborted children, according to FDA. A polio vaccine > was also grown with cells from aborted fetuses. > * Brain cells would be "harvested" from aborted babies > for transplant. > * The Village Voice reported estimates seven years ago > that 20,000 to 100,000 fetuses are sold to drug companies > each year in the U.S. These seems like a very useful use of dead fetuses (what is an aborted child?). I hope they gave the remainders of the bodies a good burial. > * Tissue cultures are obtained by dropping still-living > babies into meat grinders and homogenizing them, according > to the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. Where? > * A $600,000 grant from N.I.H. enabled one baby (among > many others in the experiment done in Finland) to be > sliced open without an anesthetic so that a liver could be > obtained. The researcher in charge said that the baby was > complete and "was even secreting urine." He disclaimed > the need anesthetic, saying an aborted baby is "just > garbage." Don't tell God! This researcher is a torturer and should be emprisonned. > * A study on the severed heads of 12 babies delivered by > C-section who were kept alive for months. C-section is used in deliveries, not abortions. The babies were probably kept alive because their mothers wanted them alive. > * Even the baby's placenta is sold for 50 cents to drug > companies. Ever heard of Placenta Plus shampoo? The placenta is the mother's not the baby's. Placentas are removed after abortions AND regular deliveries as they do not serve any more purpose. > And the atrocities go on. Will the unborn be regarded as > handy little organ sources? Will our preborn brothers and > sisters become a source of spare body parts? These are valid questions. It is very unfortunate that it is buried in the drivel above. I think the author would have done the questions more justice if he had addressed them instead of having recourse to the useless stupid and often false rethoric above. I would never discuss such an issue with the author of this paper because I would doubt very much he would be able to graps the complexity of the problem. This issue should probably be discussed along with the more general issue of the selling of organs and blood, a practise which is becoming quite common in certain developping countris. > Listen to the newscasters -- they are already pleading > nationwide for organs. It's enough to make you tear up > your organ donor card! At least adults can consent to being > inventorized like a body shop's spare parts department > but Little Bugger cannot! What selfishness. I think that the author has a problem accepting death in general. > After reading that aborted babies' fat is being used to > make soap in England and the fact that the former head > of federal Centers for Disease Control abortion surveillance > branch proposed that abortions should be charged for the > length of the baby's foot, are we surprised that babies > are treated this way in the Year of the Child or the Year > of the Disabled? References please? > After reading the above, if your heart is still beating, > run, don't walk, to your nearest prayer closet and start praying. That's the best part of this article. PRAYING?!?!?!?!?!? how is that going to solve the problem? If indeed some of the atrocities suggested above are actually true, the problem of disposal of live aborted fetuses should be discussed. > > EDITOR'S NOTE: > Everything you've read is true. For 40 pages of > documentation, please send a donation to Dr. Olga Fairfax, > [address deleted]. Thank you! I wonder what the "Dr" in front of her name means. I certainly wouldn't trust someone with such a bizarre knowledge of basic medicine with MY body! > > ----------------- > End of article. > > Note: I have requested the mentioned documentation. > When I receive it, I will post, as requests warrant, documentation > of selected items (I don't really want to type in all 40 pages). I would be interested in seeing references to the items for which I asked for references. I think that they are the ones which are objectionnable. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/30/85)
> Collagen is the gelatinous substance found in connective > tissue, bone and cartilage. Nick Thimmesch's syndicated > column, "Our Grisly Human Fetal Industry," documents > that amniotic fluid and collagen can come from fetal > material, since the Food and Drug Administration does > not require pretesting or the identification of cosmetic > ingredients. I am not sure what this sentence means. Unless I am seriously mistaken, amniotic fluid is the fluid in which fetuses develop. It is external to the fetus, just like the placenta. Depending on how one defines "fetal material" amniotic fluid is either fetal material or not. The only information conveyed by the sentence "amniotic fluid can come from fetal material" is that the writer obviously doesn't know what he is talking about. > In the Pittsburgh Women's Health Service there's a > sign in the lab areas asking doctors not to carry dead > fetuses without wrapping them since it disturbs the > patients. While the ethics of selling human parts is certainly an important issue, I really do not see what is objectionable with the practise mentioned above. What would you like them to do? make the women carry them? > TREATED LIKE TRASH > What they don't advertise is that they leave aborted > babies out for the trash pickup. Rev. Marvin Lutz, the > director, explained that the practice of leaving the > remains out was perfectly legal and approved by the > "good housekeeping" Judases, the National Abortion > Federation and the Florida Abortion Council. Obviously, leaving aborted embryos in garbage bags on trash dumps is not a good idea, if only simply for sanitary reasons (the reasons for which dead animals are often not disposed of that way). It would seem more reasonnable to me to dispose of them the same way we dispose of dead people or animals, by burying them or incinerating them. > THEY BURN BABIES, DON'T THEY? > Babies used to burned on the altar to Baal; now > they're burned in furnaces at the sites of their deaths. > In Cincinnati, a prenatal killer allowed dense smoke to > emanate from his chimney. When firemen were called > they were told, "They're burning babies," as if that was > routine. This part of the article is the one that irks me the most. The sentence "they're burned at the site of their death" clearly indicates that they are already dead when they are burned. Therefore they are simply being incinerated like any human who is not buried would be. What is objectionable to this? This obviously shows that the author does not really care about what happens to aborted fetuses, but is more interested in disgusting people. Mentioning the amount of smoke produced by the process is pretty stupid as the incineration of fetuses does not produce more smoke than the incineration of other human bodies. This seems to me that a question should be raised about where incinerations should be allowed to be performed, but these matters are municipal and quite unrelated to abortion. > One wonders how life-saving firemen could continue > their dedication amid such a contradiction! What contradiction? the article clearly states that the fetuses were dead before they were burned. The duty of fire fighters is not to rescue bodies, but people who are alive. It is for this reason that firemen are usually not involved in other properly performed incinerations. I suspect that in this particular case, fire fighters were called to the scene because there was some question about the potential fire hazzard caused by performing regular incinerations. I am sure most cities have municipal by-laws regulating such activities. > One pro-lifer overheard her children (ages 5 and 7) > discussing the infamous picture of the babies in the trash can > the first time they saw it. > "It's dolls. It has to be dolls," said the kindergartener. > "No," said his pre-school sister, "it's babies." > The older child couldn't believe it. "It has to be dolls," > he insisted. "Why would anyone throw away babies?" > When there mother explained to them that it was > babies, both children grew very quiet. Silently they > studied the picture and then recalled the times they had > gone on trips to the city dump with the family. "Will the > rats eat the babies when they take them to the dump?" > the boy asked. I really wonder about the parenting skills of anybody, be they pro-life or not, who would consider disturbing her young children so much in order to prove a point. It would have seemed more reasonnable to me to explain to them that the fetuses were in the trash can because there were no proper facilities set up to bury them. There is always plenty of time later on to discuss these matters when children are more grown up. Do 5 year olds really have to know the full details of the decomposition of dead bodies? Since it obviously disturbs people so much to see fetuses in garbage cans, it is probably not a good idea to dispose of them in that way. Burial and incineration are good, sanitary alternatives. > THE NEW LABORATORY RAT > Some researchers insist that the reason they must do > research on human fetuses is because they are human, > not animal. > Who is pressing for the "right" to experiment? No one > less than the National Institutes of Health. A stacked > national commission gave them the "right" and this > experimentation is funded by you, the taxpayer! > This is another sequel to the erosion of the value of > human life. Abortion, fetal experimentation, infanticide, > and euthanasia are four walls of the same coffin. > Even Planned Parenthood's anti-life lawyer Harriet > Pilpel was shocked. "What mother (sic) would consent to > an experiment on her fetus?" she asked. Unfortunately, the author did not specify a very important point: whether the fetuses being experimented on were still alive or not. Experimenting on dead fetuses is not more immoral than experimenting on dead people. > A FEW CHOICE EXAMPLES > Some of the more shocking facts that will give you > heart palpitations include: > * The young couple who wanted to conceive a child to be > aborted so that the father-to-be could use the baby's > kidneys for a transplant that he needed himself. Yes, there are sick people around. From the phrasing of the sentence, it seems as though this didn't happen. I wonder why... could it be that no doctors accepted to perform this procedure? if this is the case, it should be more reassuring than anything. > * In California, babies aborted at six months were > submerged in jars of liquid with high oxygen content to see if > they could breathe through their skins. They couldn't. Yes, if this is true, it is disgusting and immoral. Let's stop this kind of experimentation. > * The hysterotomy -- aborted fetus in the seventh, eighth > and ninth months is removed intact (translation: the > baby is alive). The trade in fetal tissue is about $1 million > annually. The high prices may encourage unnecessary > abortions on welfare patients as the surest way of getting > "salable tissue." Hysterotomies (cesarians) are rarely performed for elective abortions. Most late abortions are done using saline injections. Cesarians are used mainly if the fetus is already dead and endangering the mother's health. Late elective abortions are also quite rare, and if they happen, are usually more a case of bad management of the whole process creating unnecessary delays than the actual desire of the mother to sell fetal tissue. > * Dr Robert Schwarz, chief of pediatrics at the > Cleveland Metropolitan Hospital, said that, "After a baby > is delivered, while it is still linked to its mother by the > umbilical cord, I take a blood sample, sever the cord, and > then as quickly as possible remove the organs and > tissues." This is the description of a delivery, not an abortion. If this person is removing the organs and tissues of the baby, he is a murderer and should be emprisonned; if he is removing the placenta, then he is performing his duty as an obstetrician. > * Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh packed aborted > babies in ice for shipment to experimental labs. > * Newsday reported than Ohio medical research company > tested the brains and hearts of 100 fetuses as part of > a $300,000 pesticide contract. Were they dead already? this significant detail has once again been overlooked. > THE MODERN SCALP DISPLAY? > * Human embryos and other organs have been encased > in plastic and sold as paperweight novelty items. References please. > * The Diabetes Treatment Project at UCLA depends for > its existence on the availability of pancreases from late-term > aborted fetuses. > * A rabies vaccine is produced from viruses grown in the > lungs of aborted children, according to FDA. A polio vaccine > was also grown with cells from aborted fetuses. > * Brain cells would be "harvested" from aborted babies > for transplant. > * The Village Voice reported estimates seven years ago > that 20,000 to 100,000 fetuses are sold to drug companies > each year in the U.S. These seems like very useful uses of dead fetuses (what is an aborted child?). I hope they disposed of the remainders of the bodies well. > * Tissue cultures are obtained by dropping still-living > babies into meat grinders and homogenizing them, according > to the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. References please. > * A $600,000 grant from N.I.H. enabled one baby (among > many others in the experiment done in Finland) to be > sliced open without an anesthetic so that a liver could be > obtained. The researcher in charge said that the baby was > complete and "was even secreting urine." He disclaimed > the need anesthetic, saying an aborted baby is "just > garbage." Don't tell God! Again the vital detail of whether the fetus was alive or not has been overlooked ("complete" != "alive"). Urine can be secreted by dead bodies. > * A study on the severed heads of 12 babies delivered by > C-section who were kept alive for months. C-section is usually used in deliveries, not abortions. The babies were probably kept alive because their mothers wanted them alive. What did the studies involved? How did the heads get severed? Were the studies done on the live babies or after their death? > * Even the baby's placenta is sold for 50 cents to drug > companies. Ever heard of Placenta Plus shampoo? The placenta is the mother's not the baby's. Placentas are removed after abortions AND regular deliveries as they do not serve any more purpose. > And the atrocities go on. Will the unborn be regarded as > handy little organ sources? Will our preborn brothers and > sisters become a source of spare body parts? These are valid questions. It is very unfortunate that it is buried in the drivel above. I think the author would have done the questions more justice if he had simply addressed them instead of using the disgusting rethoric he did. > Listen to the newscasters -- they are already pleading > nationwide for organs. It's enough to make you tear up > your organ donor card! At least adults can consent to being > inventorized like a body shop's spare parts department > but Little Bugger cannot! What selfishness! it seems to me that the author has a problem accepting recycling of bodies in general. > After reading that aborted babies' fat is being used to > make soap in England and the fact that the former head > of federal Centers for Disease Control abortion surveillance > branch proposed that abortions should be charged for the > length of the baby's foot, are we surprised that babies > are treated this way in the Year of the Child or the Year > of the Disabled? References please? > After reading the above, if your heart is still beating, > run, don't walk, to your nearest prayer closet and start praying. That's the best part of this article. PRAYING?!?!?!?!?!? how is that going to solve the problem? If indeed some of the atrocities suggested above are actually true, the problem of disposal of live aborted fetuses should be definitely brought into the open, so that abortions are performed for the sake of the mother rather than for the doctors' profit. > EDITOR'S NOTE: > Everything you've read is true. For 40 pages of > documentation, please send a donation to Dr. Olga Fairfax, > [address deleted]. Thank you! > ----------------- > End of article. > > Note: I have requested the mentioned documentation. > When I receive it, I will post, as requests warrant, documentation > of selected items (I don't really want to type in all 40 pages). I would be interested in seeing references to the items for which I asked for references. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
liz@tove.UUCP (Liz Allen) (05/31/85)
In article <891@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (Jeff Sonntag) writes: > Uh, excuse me, but *why* would a comsmetics manufacturer pay >$5+K/lb for aborted fetuses when they could extract collagen just >as easily from animal carcasses which can be had for $0.50/lb? I >find it hard to believe that a business would do something so >expensive (and potentially disastrous PR-wise) for no apparent >reason. That's actually pretty easy to answer. Supposedly, the collagen from a human fetus has all sorts of special rejuvenating capabilities -- and we all know how important it is to have youthful looking skin! Listen to the advertizing more carefully -- then check out the products with the "special rejuvenating formulas"... :-( -- Liz Allen U of Maryland ...!seismo!umcp-cs!liz liz@tove.ARPA "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all" -- 1 John 1:5
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/01/85)
Well, this time readnews and I blew it. I tried cancelling the first
followup I posted to Gary Samuelson's article but that didn't work.
My apologies to anybody who tried to make sense of my first followup.
Most of it was very badly written, and some of it was simply stupid.
I guess I should have calmed down before hitting my "f" key. Anyway,
my second one was relatively more intelligent.
--
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophiegarys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/08/85)
I have received the documentation regarding the disposition of aborted fetuses, and will now post some excerpts, as promised. Because of the amount of material, this artcle contains some introductory material and references on fetal experimentation. A future article will deal with the use of fetuses in drugs, cosmetics, and art. Before getting to the references, I'd like to make a few comments regarding the responses I received. Several people wondered why I think the disposition of aborted fetuses is an important (or even relevant) topic. I thought that the fact that I was bringing up an aspect of abortion rarely mentioned was enough to warrant posting to this newsgroup. But more than that, if there is money to be made with aborted fetuses, this presents a colossal conflict of interest to physicians. It is already more lucrative for a doctor to perform abortions than to take care of mother and child through a complete pregnancy. The aftermarket for fetuses compounds what is already a conflict of interest. Some asked what I thought ought to be done with the fetuses. That's too easy; I think they ought to be allowed to live. I object to what happens to aborted fetuses because such "useful purposes" will lead (have led?) to more unnecessary abortions. Many also wondered why I would be concerned with what happens to the placenta. Clearly, compared to the issue of the fetus, the placenta is not so important, and I am not going to press the issue of what happens to placentae. I was not equally impressed by everything in the article (some people apparently didn't read it well enough to notice that I didn't write it; par for the course, I suppose). -------Personals--------- To Mike Huybensz: What do you mean, "Once again, Samuelson is determined to bludgeon our sensibilities..." ? This implies that I have attempted to "bludgeon" your sensibilities before; to what articles of mine do you refer? To Jeff Sontag: Regarding the $5500/lb for fetuses: this is clarified in the followup material. That price is for a particular protein extracted mostly from placentae, not for unprocessed fetuses. I regret the unclear passage in the article. To Don Steiny: "Fetuses are like other dead animal material" -- except that they aren't dead before they're put to some of the uses mentioned in the article, and they aren't animal; they are human. To Mike Gray: I don't know why anybody would use human fetuses as a source of cosmetic ingredients; but they do. I am not convinced that the negative PR would kill sales, but I hope so. To Sophie Quigley: Thanks for reading the article. Of those who responded publicly, you may be the only one who did so. Now, on to the references. (Some of the citations are incomplete; sometimes this is because my copies are very blurry in spots). ----------Fetal Experimentation---------- Exclusive to Life Times (no date): The U.S. government has been funding some gruesome experiments on live aborted babies that are kept alive for the sole purpose of medical experimentation. The live aborted babies were purchased from a Helsinki hospital with funds supplied by the U.S. government. This money was funneled into Finland by an American medical researcher, Dr. Peter Adam of Cleveland, Ohio. Adam, 44, dies just recently of a brain tumor. His widow, Dr. Katherine King, a pediatrician, said that her husband had long ago severed all ties with his Finnish colleagues and that money from the U.S. government no longer was being used to finance the experimentation on live aborted babies. Finland was selected for these experiments because of its extremely liberal abortion laws, which allow a physician to legally abort a fetus as old as five months. Many of the unborn babies survive the abortion procedure. The babies that survived were kept alive in an incubator in a Helsinki hospital and then were transported to a Turku hospital, where the gruesome experiments were conducted by Finnish researcher Dr. Mariti Kekomaki. One of Kekomaki's reports about the experiments reveal their horrendous nature: "They took the fetus and cut its belly open. They said they wanted his liver." Kekomaki added: "They carried the baby out of the incubator and it was STILL ALIVE [emphasis mine -GMS]. It was a boy. It had a complete body, with hands, feet, mouth, and ears.: It was even secreting urine. ... A very disturbing feature of these fetal experiments is that the mothers of the live aborted babies never were informed that their babies lived through the abortions and that they were used for experiments. Explained Kekomaki: "We don't ask the mothers for their permission because, naturally, they would not allow it." ... From an article by Joan Wester Anderson (I don't know where or when it was published): "The occassional delivery of a fetus with a heartbeat suggests that ... (these)fetal tissues might be suitable for organ transplants ... and for basic research." [Note: elisions are Ms. Anderson's] [The above statement] was printed in the May 15, 1974 edition of the _American Journal of Obstetrics-Gynecology_, and details experiments now being done on infants aborted by a chemical called Prostin F2 Alpha. ... Aborted infants are often sent to a hospital's pathology lab or anatomy department where they may be used for research purposes. Wilhamine Dick, testifying at the Sharp Abortion Law Commission Hearing of March 14, 1972, said Pittsburgh's Magee Women's Hospital packed aborted babies in ice while STILL MOVING [emphasis mine - GMS] and shipped them to experimental labs. ... According to the _Washington Post_ (April 15, 1973), Dr. Gerald Gaull, chief of pediatrics at New York State Institute for Basic Research in Mental Retardation "injects radioactive chemicals into umbilical cords of fetuses ... WHILE THE HEART IS STILL BEATING [emphasis mine - GMS], he removes their brains, lungs, liver, and kidneys for study." ... Tissue cultures have also been obtained from fetuses aborted by hysterotomy. The _New England Journal of Medicine_ reported (May 18, 1972) that "most of the babies delivered by the latter method were still alive when they were dropped into a tissue grinder to be homogenized. From an uncited article: A magazine called "The Elements," May 1976, says: "The best fetal research tissue is obtained from the least commonly performed abortion technique -- hysterotomy. The hysterotomy-aborted fetus is removed intact ... so all the fetal cells and organs are fully functioning." (Translation: the baby is alive.) It goes on to estimate total trade in "fetal" tissue at about $1 million annually. and notes that "high prices paid for fetuses may encourage ... unnecessary hysterotomies on welfare patients as the surest way of getting 'salable tissue'" [Elisions not mine - GMS] On March 14, 197[368] (blurred copy), the Attorny General of Connecticut presented to the U.S. Supreme Court an affidavit regarding an incident at the Yale New Haven Medical Center where a healthy baby was surgically removed from his mother and immediately dissected, living and without anesthetic. From a pamphlet published by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, a photograph captioned: _The Last Hours of an Aborted Baby_. Dr. Lawrence Lawn, of Cambridge University's Department of Experimental Medicine at work experimenting on a living, legally aborted, human fetus. Some British doctors have been vigorously defending their experiments on live aborted babies after a storm of protest blew up in England when a Member of Parliament told the press that private abortion clinics had been selling live aborted babies for research. Dr. Lawn was quoted in the _Cambridge Evening News_ as saying, "We are simply using something which is destined for the incinerator to benefit mankind ... Of course we would not dream of experimenting with a viable child. We would not consider that to be right." The Langham Street (abortion) Clinic admitted sending aborted fetuses to the Middlesex Hospital (The People, May 17, 1970). A spokesman for the clinic said that the fetuses "were aged betweed eighteen and twenty-two weeks ... Our doctor had to give some special attention to the operation. He did this at his own expense and dispatched the fetuses to his colleagueat the Middlesex Hospital. It had to be done pretty promptly, but the hospital is only a couple of minutes away. In the _News of the World_, for the same date, this same man, Mr. Philip Stanley, is also quoted as saying, "The position is quite clear. A fetus has to be 28 weeks to be legally viable. Earlier than that it is so much garbage. [Elisions not mine - GMS] ------------Still to come: Fetuses in cosmetics, drugs, and art------
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/09/85)
> > To Don Steiny: "Fetuses are like other dead animal material" -- > except that they aren't dead before they're put to some of > the uses mentioned in the article, and they aren't animal; > they are human. => Gary Samuelson Humans are not animals? Yikes! Things have changed since I took biology in high-school. Are we plants now? Protoza? Prions? As far as I am concerned, quality of life is more important than quanity of life. If you dismiss any quality that might have been bestowed on humans by Gods, daemons, ghosts, or other magical creatures then humans are like any other animal. We have no predators (outside ourselves) and year by year more diseases are loosing their power to control population. It is a wonderful thing that humans have the intelligence to understand what the results of unrestrained population growth would be. I think abortion can be useful and appropriate. It is probably better to perform experiments with fetuses than dogs, they are closer to humans. I am glad they are using them in cosmetics. No reason to let anything go to waste.
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (06/10/85)
[] From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) in <863@bunker.UUCP>: > >[...] > But more than that, if there is money to be >made with aborted fetuses, this presents a colossal conflict >of interest to physicians. It is already more lucrative for >a doctor to perform abortions than to take care of mother >and child through a complete pregnancy. False. Abortions cost around $250. Hospital birth *alone* is reported to cost at least $1000, to say nothing of pre-natal visits, post-partum checkups, etc. Your conflict of interest is a straw man. Experimentation on live aborted fetuses is wrong and should be stopped. But that does not imply that abortion should be stopped also. -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/10/85)
Among the pile of documentation on fetal experimentation was a reply to one of the items, which I had intended to include in my previous article, but I was in a hurry to get done so I could get home. The item in question is the following: Tissue cultures have also been obtained from fetuses aborted by hysterotomy. The _New England Journal of Medicine_ reported (May 18, 1972) that "most of the babies delivered by the latter method were still alive when they were dropped into a tissue grinder to be homogenized." The response, quoted in A.L.L. About Issues, Sep. 1984. (A.L.L. is American Life Lobby, Inc.): Dr. Arnold S. Relman, editor of the prestigious _New England Journal of Medicine_, called us and read us the pertinent paragraph from the article, and requested we make a clarification. He read to us: "Pregnancy was terminated in 30 cases by hysterotomy. After repeated washings with balanced salt solution, these 'surgical specimens' were homogenized in a tissue grinder." Dr. Relman pointed out that the article referred to fetuses of one to four months gestational age and noted there is no reference in the article itself as to how long the fetuses were separated from the placenta in the course of the experiment, from abortion, to walking the tissue to the lab, washing them, grinding them, and so on. Dr. Relman correctly state, "...It (the fetus) could hardly survive a few moments away from the mother's circulation... They talk of numerous washings... Any reasonable person would draw the reasonable conclusion that the fetuses were long dead (prior to being ground up). Dr. Relman also pointed out that it was highly unlikely that the entire fetus was ground up. We agree that it was most likely that the baby was carved up, a small portion ground up for the purpose of the experiment, and the balance of the baby discarded. Humanely, we trust. It was also pointed out to us that the entire experiment was done under the auspices and supervisors of the National Board of Health at the University of Helsinki in Finland. Dr. Relman emphasized that the women involved were already certified for legal abortions by the same National Board of Health and that they all volunteered to be a part of this scientific experiment after a full explanation. Further, Dr. Relman felt we should emphasize that this took place in Finland -- not in the United States. ---end of quote. I am sure it will be no small comfort to readers of this group to know that the fetuses *probably* died before being dismembered and ground up. And the fact that it took place in Finland means we can close our eyes to the issue, for a few more years, perhaps. Or can we? The Journal article was printed in 1972. Is it there- fore, by reason of time, a dead issue? Or has there been time for fetal experimentation to become even more "acceptable"? I wish that I could believe the former, but I fear that the latter is more likely to be true. I also would like to believe that "it can't happen here," but I can't believe that either. Unless, of course, I, and others, work at making sure that it can't. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/10/85)
> > > > To Don Steiny: "Fetuses are like other dead animal material" -- > > except that they aren't dead before they're put to some of > > the uses mentioned in the article, and they aren't animal; > > they are human. > => Gary Samuelson > > Humans are not animals? Yikes! Things have changed since > I took biology in high-school. Are we plants now? Protoza? Prions? Why do people deliberately misinterpret others? There are several definitions of the word animal. I guess I need to quote the dictionary more often. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: animal 1. any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living beings typically differing from plants in capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor response to stimulation. 2a: one of the lower animals as distinguished from man. 2b: Mammal. 3: A human being considered chiefly with regard to his physical nature. 4: Animality. Since I said "not animal ... human" it should be obvious, even to Don Steiny, that I had in mind a definition like 2a, above. But how come you didn't say anything about the first part of the statement? About the fact that fetuses are sometimes alive when experiments begin? That must be why you deliberately misinterpreted me; to divert the discussion (?) from the topic. Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/11/85)
> From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) in <863@bunker.UUCP>: > > > >[...] > > But more than that, if there is money to be > >made with aborted fetuses, this presents a colossal conflict > >of interest to physicians. It is already more lucrative for > >a doctor to perform abortions than to take care of mother > >and child through a complete pregnancy. > > False. Abortions cost around $250. Hospital birth *alone* is > reported to cost at least $1000, to say nothing of pre-natal > visits, post-partum checkups, etc. Your conflict of interest > is a straw man. The conflict of interest is quite real, and it ain't hay. The figures you mention are the costs to the *patient*; what I am talking about is how much a *physician* can make. I know that *one* hospital birth costs *the patient* more than *one* abortion. However, the *physician* can perform several abortions in the same time it takes to attend one birth. Furthermore, the hospital charges for birth are divided among more people than the abortion fee. For example, during my wife's pregnancy, her doctor charged a fee of between $600 and $700, which covered prenatal care and delivery. There was an initial visit after the pregnancy was confirmed, visits every 4 weeks until the 6th month, every 3 weeks for the next 9 weeks, every other week for the next 4 weeks, and every week for the last 4 weeks. That totals 13 pre-natal visits, plus the delivery. Let's be conservative and say that each pre-natal visit took about half the amount of time as a suction abortion, as far as the doctor was concerned. That means he could have performed 6 or 7 abortions instead of seeing my wife during her pregnancy. Furthermore, he could have performed several abortions -- say 4 or 5 -- instead of attending the labor and delivery. So at a minimum, assuming your $250 figure is accurate, he could have made $2500 performing abortions instead of the $600 to $700 he made. Therefore, for the individual physician, performing abortions is about *four times* more lucrative than caring for a pregnant woman through a full term pregnancy. But is the market large enough to supply the volume required? At 1.6 million abortions per year in this country -- about 1 abortion for every 2 live births -- the market is there, for those who want it. > Experimentation on live aborted fetuses is wrong and should be > stopped. But that does not imply that abortion should be stopped > also. I am glad you agree that the experimentation on live aborted fetuses should be stopped. But it seems inconsistent; if the fetus truly has no rights, is not a person, and so forth, why do you oppose such experimentation? > Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
steiny@idsvax.UUCP (Don Steiny) (06/13/85)
> > > > > > To Don Steiny: "Fetuses are like other dead animal material" -- > > > except that they aren't dead before they're put to some of > > > the uses mentioned in the article, and they aren't animal; > > > they are human. > > => Gary Samuelson > > > > Humans are not animals? Yikes! Things have changed since > > I took biology in high-school. Are we plants now? Protoza? Prions? > > Why do people deliberately misinterpret others? There are several > definitions of the word animal. I guess I need to quote the dictionary > more often. > > Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: > > animal 1. any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living beings typically > differing from plants in capacity for spontaneous movement and > rapid motor response to stimulation. 2a: one of the lower animals > as distinguished from man. 2b: Mammal. 3: A human being considered > chiefly with regard to his physical nature. 4: Animality. > > Since I said "not animal ... human" it should be obvious, even to > Don Steiny, that I had in mind a definition like 2a, above. What distinguishes them? In the Bible there is a distinction, but the Bible is self-serving. I don't believe in souls, fetuses have little intelligence, what is so special about them? You say "but they are human!" BFD - there are billions of humans. > > But how come you didn't say anything about the first part of the > statement? About the fact that fetuses are sometimes alive when > experiments begin? That must be why you deliberately misinterpreted > me; to divert the discussion (?) from the topic. > Gary Samuelson > ittvax!bunker!garys I did. I mentioned that the whole notion of what constitutes life is an iffy one. The discovery of Prions have shown us that there is much we have yet to learn. A 12 week old fetus is about as alive as a prion, despite the movie. If there is no good reason to experiment on fetuses that are "alive" I suppose that they should stop so that people will feel better. Life is for the living! pesnta!idsvax!steiny Don Steiny - Computational Linguistics 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0832
ir278@sdcc6.UUCP (Paul Anderson) (06/16/85)
I admit that I myself am a bit unnerved by this idea, but... There are a lot of complaints about what is being done with aborted fetus for purposes of cosmetics and medical research. Isn't this a bit hypocritical considering what is done with full-grown animals for the same purposes? Also, when I die, if I can ever find where to get a donor card, much of my body will be used for medical purposes, donations and research. Is this any different? What should be done with an aborted fetus? Bury it? What good is a grave for nobody is the fetus never lived to become somebody? Open for input, Paul Anderson UC San Diego
garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/17/85)
> I admit that I myself am a bit unnerved by this idea, but... > > There are a lot of complaints about what is being done with > aborted fetus for purposes of cosmetics and medical research. > Isn't this a bit hypocritical considering what is done with > full-grown animals for the same purposes? In the first place, the topic for this newsgroup is abortion. You are trying to divert attention from the issue at hand. In the second place, you are assuming that I approve of whatever it is you have in mind (about which you are pretty vague), an assumption which is totally unsupported. And, no, I don't want to discuss it in this newsgroup -- this is net.abortion. > Also, when I die, > if I can ever find where to get a donor card, much of my > body will be used for medical purposes, donations and research. > Is this any different? Yes, it is your choice what happens to your body. The fetus is not given a choice in an abortion. > What should be done with an aborted fetus? "When did you stop beating your wife?" I think the fetus should be allowed to live; it should not be aborted in the first place. But in many cases of abortion, even those fetuses who manage to survive the abortion are not allowed to live. > Bury it? What good is a grave for nobody if the fetus never lived > to become somebody? The fetus did live, for a little while at least. But you are saying that the fetus is "nobody" -- how are you able to tell when a fetus becomes "somebody"? Graves do not benefit the dead in any case (personal opinion). This looks like another attempt to divert the discussion, but I'll give you my two cents worth: Graves, funerals, etc. are for the benefit of the living. It is a way for the living to show their respect for the deceased. Therefore, to bury an aborted fetus would show respect for the individual which died -- respect which is lacking in a lot of people. > Open for input, > Paul Anderson > UC San Diego Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/19/85)
> > What should be done with an aborted fetus? > > "When did you stop beating your wife?" I think the fetus should > be allowed to live; it should not be aborted in the first place. > But in many cases of abortion, even those fetuses who manage to survive > the abortion are not allowed to live. > OK, then, let's rephrase the question: "what should be done with the results of miscarriages?" You cannot give the same reply to this since there is no way miscarriages can completely be prevented. So whatever your response is to that question it applies to dead fetuses in general, no matter how they died. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (06/28/85)
> > > What should be done with an aborted fetus? > > > > "When did you stop beating your wife?" I think the fetus should > > be allowed to live; it should not be aborted in the first place. > > But in many cases of abortion, even those fetuses who manage to survive > > the abortion are not allowed to live. > > > OK, then, let's rephrase the question: > "what should be done with the results of miscarriages?" > > You cannot give the same reply to this since there is no way miscarriages > can completely be prevented. So whatever your response is to that question > it applies to dead fetuses in general, no matter how they died. > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie First, I do not concede that my response applies to dead fetuses in general. Whatever is done with the "results of miscarriage" should be done for the primary purpose of assuaging the grief of the mother (and anyone else hurt by the loss). Perhaps some kind of memorial service would be in order; perhaps even a burial, if that's what the aggrieved desire. (Someone told me that, at least in some places, it is not legal to have a funeral for an aborted fetus -- I wonder why?) Gary Samuelson ittvax!bunker!garys
ir278@sdcc6.UUCP (Paul Anderson) (06/29/85)
In article <525@bunkerb.UUCP> garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: >> There are a lot of complaints about what is being done with >> aborted fetus for purposes of cosmetics and medical research. >> Isn't this a bit hypocritical considering what is done with >> full-grown animals for the same purposes? >In the first place, the topic for this newsgroup is abortion. >You are trying to divert attention from the issue at hand. What is done with an aborted fetus is very valid to net.abortion and being discussed under other subject headers already. If some rich old lady gets to wear a coat made from the hides of a dozen senselessly slaughtered minks when she could wear wool or cotton, for which nothing died, then it is equally justified for an aborted fetus to be ground into an expensive facial cream to be used by the same old lady. Aren't humanity and sensible morals the theme of the abortion disputes? >In the second place, you are assuming that I approve of whatever >it is you have in mind (about which you are pretty vague), an >assumption which is totally unsupported. And, no, I don't want >to discuss it in this newsgroup -- this is net.abortion. I am repeating what has been and still is discussed on and outside the net. Fetuses thrown into trash compactors. Fetuses used in far-reaching scientific and medical experiments. Parts of fetuses being used in European facial creams. Fetuses being varnished and used as hood ornaments (just kidding). Take your pick. If the baby is expected to die, it may as well serve some useful purpose. It may even save another infant's life. Suppose a doctor uses a live aborted fetus to see how long it can stay alive exposed. Later a baby is born prematurely far from a hospital. When the medics arrive (or the baby at the hospital), they will know from the fetus experiment whether or not the infant can still be sustained, when before they might have already given up and assumed it was too late. >> Also, when I die, much of my >> body will be used for medical purposes, donations and research. >> Is this any different? >Yes, it is your choice what happens to your body. The fetus is >not given a choice in an abortion. A fetus cannot make a choice. Ever see a baby complain about the color of its pajamas? However, a pregnant 16-year old girl whose body cannot withstand bearing a child will certainly be able to make a choice between bad injury and stopping someone who doesn't make any difference in the world, even to himself, from being born. >> What should be done with an aborted fetus? >"When did you stop beating your wife?" I think the fetus should >be allowed to live; it should not be aborted in the first place. >But in many cases of abortion, even those fetuses who manage to survive >the abortion are not allowed to live. This was not a no-win question. Most aborted fetuses do not live. If those who can survive are to be sustained, it is the responsibility of the mother who had it aborted to see to this, as she chose to have it aborted. It is not my responsibility nor yours. >> Bury it? What good is a grave for nobody if the fetus never lived >> to become somebody? >The fetus did live, for a little while at least. But you are saying >that the fetus is "nobody" -- how are you able to tell when a fetus >becomes "somebody"? That's right, the fetus is nobody. It knows no one, has no name, matters to no one, is not aware of anyone, and has no reason to care. It never made any difference by its own volition in the world, hence it is nobody. >Graves do not benefit the dead in any case (personal opinion). >This looks like another attempt to divert the discussion, but >I'll give you my two cents worth: Graves, funerals, etc. are for >the benefit of the living. It is a way for the living to show >their respect for the deceased. Therefore, to bury an aborted >fetus would show respect for the individual which died -- respect >which is lacking in a lot of people. This is not an attempt at a diversion, I have tried no such thing. "Bury it" was an example of what someone might suggest. Some people obviously thought putting parts of them into cosmetics was a good idea. Living? You yourself said that the only living an aborted fetus does is for a little while; this is composed of such dynamic actions as: divide, shuffle, kick. Again by my "nobody" argument, there is no individual to respect. The fetus never developed into an individual. >Gary Samuelson >ittvax!bunker!garys Paul Anderson sdcsvax!sdcc6!ir278
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/08/85)
> > "what should be done with the results of miscarriages?" > > > > You cannot give the same reply to this since there is no way miscarriages > > can completely be prevented. So whatever your response is to that question > > it applies to dead fetuses in general, no matter how they died. > > > Sophie Quigley > > First, I do not concede that my response applies to dead fetuses in > general. Why not? > > Whatever is done with the "results of miscarriage" should be done for > the primary purpose of assuaging the grief of the mother (and anyone > else hurt by the loss). Perhaps some kind of memorial service would > be in order; perhaps even a burial, if that's what the aggrieved desire. > (Someone told me that, at least in some places, it is not legal to > have a funeral for an aborted fetus -- I wonder why?) > > Gary Samuelson Well, it seems to me that the best answer in the case of abortions would be to do anything that will assuage the grief of the mother (it is not because the mother chooses to abort that she does not experience grief). I believe that it is not legal to have funerals for miscarried fetuses either. Maybe it should be. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie