<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, June 06, 2005

CANNIBALIZING HUMAN’S FOR ‘ENLIGHTENED MEDICAL APPLICATIONS’



Washington Journal, on the morning of Monday, June 6, 2005, had as their guest Robert Klein, a leader in the drive to fund and promote embryo stem cell harvesting and experimentation in California. It was a disturbing episode on several levels, mostly because of false assertions from Mister Klein and several supporting callers.



There is fundamental mischaracterization, a big lie, at the foundation of Mister Klein’s assertions regarding the efficacy of killing embryos for their stem cell body parts, and that foundational lie deceives many in the public because of their lack of factual data regarding the nature of embryo-aged human beings … alive human beings whether in a petri dish or a woman’s body. Let’s examine that fundamental mischaracterization, quickly, before it carries the argument and America embraces cannibalism of very young humans … the lie will be pivotal in gaining public support for ‘therapeutic cloning’ in the on-the-horizon near future.



Mister Klein repeatedly characterized alive, fourteen-day old embryos (blastocysts) as undifferentiated cell masses. That is a dissembling lie formulated from a predetermined assumption that is false. It is a scientific fact that the embryo builds both the placenta and the body of other organs for survival in the air world. At fourteen days from conception, an inner cell mass that is building the stem cell mass to become a body of lungs, heart, limbs, and brain has already been differentiated from the cell mass building the first organ for survival, the placenta and amniotic sac.



Characterized as ‘merely a blastocyst’ at this age in a lifetime already begun at conception, the guest and several supporting callers dehumanized this early human age by falsely asserting that the blastocyst is a mass of undifferentiated cells, thus ‘it’ is fair game for killing and harvesting. Yet it is the differentiated inner cell mass which is the target of the cannibalization! If the embryo-aged human life was actually undifferentiated, the ‘harvesters’ would have to wait until the inner and outer cell masses were differentiating: to avoid taking placental cells for embryonic stem cell experiments. Experiments in China using embryo stem cells tragically injected at least one placental stem cell made by the embryo cannibalized for a treatment and the result was death to a Parkinson’s patient due to unnatural cell growth in the patient’s brain!



The lie, that an early embryo at blastocyst age is as yet merely undifferentiated cell mass, is touted and succeeds as argument because most folks are not aware that even at the blastocyst age, the embryonic human life has begun differentiating the cells for survival, already assigning some cells to grow the placenta and others to become the body of organs for survival outside the woman’s body. Additionally, the blastocyst has already differentiated an inner and outer cell mass because to implant the embryo must have a distinct organ under construction which will accomplish the ‘attachment process’ without disturbing the inner cell mass tasked with building the body of organs for later survival outside the water world of the uterus (or artificial uterus, as in Japanese research which already has kept a goat fetus alive for fourteen weeks in an artificial womb).


Harvesting, killing and exploiting the stem cell body parts of embryo-aged human life is cannibalism as surely as if the embryos were served on melba toast at tea time. To sell this cannibalism to the unaware public, the cannibals use lies and exploit public ignorance.

Sunday, April 11, 2004

Musings From My Quiet Porch: Swatting at flies to satisfy the Bob Kerreys of this nation



My home is on a cattle farm. Flies visit my porch after hatching in the fields, and I tend to swat the more determine beasties that irritate. My swattings do nothing to end the proliferation of flies born from the dung out in the fields. Bob Kerrey wanted to know from Dr. Rice ‘just what flies President Bush had tried to swat.’ It was, of course, a partisan hack attack aimed at casting doubt on this administration’s efforts to fight terrorism foreign and domestic. Let’s dissect the foolishness of Kerrey’s assault, before the likes of Chris Mathews, Andrea Mitchell, Ambassador Holbrooke, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather have the opportunity to make B2 bombers out of imaginary flies (yes, imaginary, since Kerrey implied Rice alluded to actions taken, when she was in fact addressing the president’s desire for change in policy).



The 9/11 Commission is tasked with discovering ways to better coordinate American policy in combating current and future terrorist efforts against the U.S. and our allies. Discovering where the pre-9/11 policies failed to prevent a homicidal attack is precisely what Dr. Rice swore an oath to address. Swatting at foreign flies with cruise missiles didn’t work. The Clinton administration tried that swatter to no avail, and perhaps even aided in the birth of more flies as the dung was scattered. Could that administration have done a better job? Doubtful … but it is not the fault of the Clinton administration, per se. Why? … Because, as Dr. Rice admirably pointed out, our pre-9/11 domestic bureaucracy prevented adequate cooperation between FBI, CIA, and local law enforcement. The crucial difference now as opposed to ‘then’ has direct bearing on the foolish notion posed by Bob Kerrey regarding fly swatting … different policy approaches set the course of the previous administration.



Kerrey asked, quite foolishly, ‘what flies did Bush swat?’ The foolishness arises from the meaning of the President’s wording: rather than continue to swat at flies --as the Clinton administration did in their effort to respond tit-for-tat, to avoid a broader engagement on foreign soils with U.S. troops that would in their opinion have prevented their re-election, the current administration took a profoundly different road in engaging the source of the flies. Allow me to illustrate with my porch problem. I could continue to swat the flies that visit my sanctuary, or I could go into the fields and treat the source of the flies. This administration has chosen (quite rightly, in this one man’s opinion) to go into the fields and address the fly problem, rather than continue the previous administration's policy of swatting once irritated.



The partisan Democrat hit-men, like Chris Mathews and company, will seek to focus the nation’s attention upon the title of a memorandum, a presidential daily briefing paper, rather than have us look more closely at the content of the document and the broader picture. Why? … Because looking at the broader picture supports going into the fields to address the source of flies, and these partisan hacks want to promote the former approach as a means to support the notion that administration change is needed, that election of a Democrat president will ‘put US back on the right track in fighting terrorism'. Nothing could be further from the truth. This nation lacks enough fly swatters to deal with the proliferation of menacing flies as they arrive to do their evil in our country. We must go to the sources and exterminate.



It is no secret that the Democrats in Congress want to generate a ‘Watergate-esque’ commission in this election year, to cast false doubts upon this administrations effectiveness in countering terrorism. There is a fundamental difference in philosophy between Democrat notions and this administration’s methods. Sadly, we have 9/11 to prove the Democrat’s approach is feckless. Even more sadly, it appears that with the concerted effort of hacks like Mathews and the networks wishing to impugn this administration, the effort to obfuscate the realities has a chance of succeeding … unless the fly swatting approach is decisively exposed as foolishness. Thanks to Bob Kerrey, that may be possible now! Preemption is deterrence. Swatting flies is reaction after the catastrophic fact.

Friday, February 13, 2004

Borrowed from a friend

Every time a pro-abortion dolt (like Governor Granholm, or John Kerry, or Teddy Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer, or Tom Harkin, or Diane Feinstein, or Frank Lautenberg, or Hillary Clinton and/or her deviant husband) says we don’t know when life begins, the following should be tattooed on their forehead.

Is the following a secular enough agreement!!??

When does life begin? http://www.roevwade.org/upl39.html

* In 1981, a US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Speaking on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

* "The Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence. Human life began at conception "

* Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

* Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

* Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion."

* Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

In Steinberg v. Brown (1970) a three-judge federal district court upheld an anti-abortion statute, stating that privacy rights "must inevitably fall in conflict with express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

After relating the biological facts of fetal development, the court stated "those decisions which strike down state abortion statutes by equating contraception and abortion pay no attention to the facts of biology."

"Once new life has commenced," the court wrote, "the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state the duty of safeguarding it."


Pro-Choice Advocates Agree that Abortion Kills Humans.
http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/casey/ch3.html#S4

Many abortion advocates have agreed that abortion kills human life: A 1963 Planned Parenthood brochure says that life begins at conception: This is a direct quote "An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

Former Planned Parenthood President Faye Wattleton admits that the preborn are alive in her 1986 book:

"There are many sperm cells in the [seminal] fluid. If one of them meets an egg cell inside the mother, new life can begin to grow... If one of your friends is pregnant, ask her to let your child 'feel the baby move.' ... A baby grows in a special place inside the mother, called the uterus -- not in her stomach. In nine months it is born."

Similarly, Dr. Mary Calderone, former director of Planned Parenthood has stated that "[a]bortion is the taking of a human life" and Dr. Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood and founder of the Guttmacher Institute, the research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, has stated "[f]ertilization has then taken place; a baby has been conceived." While many abortion defenders readily concede that abortion kills human life, it is necessary to expound on this point because examining the nature of the unborn human being at the point of conception shows the inherent dignity that we all share from our biologic beginnings that are hidden from eyes of the world.

Not only have representatives from the nations largest abortion provider agreed that life begins at conception, but others who support abortion have agreed that abortion is murder. Dr. Magda Denes who performed two years of research in an abortion facility and compiled her results told a Chicago newspaper "There wasn’t an (abortion) doctor who at one time or another in the questioning did not say ‘this is murder.’"

This so called “Women’s Right to Choose…to abort her baby” has as its foundation, three main points:

1. It must ignore universally acknowledged biological facts,

2. It denies federal and state laws that clearly identify the unborn as a person with rights.

3. It promotes a blatant lie that “It’s” a woman’s body” When clearly “IT” is her baby

Thursday, February 05, 2004

Here’s an excerpt from an excellent essay regarding cloning. Google this man Smith for more great reading. The complete essay is available for reading at http://www.nrlc.org/news/2004/NRL01/pro_biomedical.htm or Click Here



PRO-LIFE CHALLENGE


Biomedical Ethics

The Radical Depth and Scope of the Cloning Agenda
By Wesley J. Smith

Ever since embryonic stem cells were first extracted from human embryos in 1998, biotechnologists, abetted by a compliant media, have promised they would soon lead to miraculous medical cures for degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

First, we were told, all that would be needed were stem cell lines extracted from "surplus" embryos "left over" from in vitro fertilization procedures, a procedure that destroys the embryo. Then, when fears were raised about auto-immune tissue rejection, we were told that what we really need is so-called "therapeutic cloning."
(Proponents insist this be distinguished from "reproductive cloning," cloning from which a baby would be brought to term and delivered. But both use an identical technique. The only difference is that laws promoting "therapeutic cloning" mandate that the new human life be destroyed.)

The premise of this dubious argument: because the DNA of the cloned embryo and patient will be almost identical, once biotechnologists learn to make cloned embryos of patients, the clones can be destroyed for their cells and tissues for use in medical treatments without worrying about rejection.

What hokum. There is a myriad of practical and ethical obstacles that almost surely make "therapeutic cloning" a pipe dream.

Scientists haven't yet been able to successfully clone a human embryo to the one-week stage where stem cells would be sufficiently developed for extraction. Moreover, it is completely unsafe at this time to use embryonic stem cells derived from any source in human subjects because they tend to cause tumors.

More importantly - - and this is the great story that the Establishment Media insists on all but ignoring - - adult stem cells and other non-embryonic tissue therapies continue to advance toward human use at a breathtaking pace. Indeed, not only have the animal studies been remarkable, but human patients have also already been treated successfully with their own stem cells in medical trials.

Consider this very partial list of adult and other non-embryonic stem cell success stories that you probably didn't read in your local newspaper:

* Brain function in five human patients with advanced Parkinson's disease was partially restored using a natural body chemical known as glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF). One year after the infusion of GDNF, all patients had clinical improvement of motor function and the ability to perform activities of daily living.

* In another Parkinson's case, a patient treated with his own brain stem cells appears to have experienced a substantial remission with no adverse side effects. Dennis Turner was expected by this time to require a wheelchair and extensive medication. Instead, he has substantially reduced his medication and rarely reports any noticeable symptoms of his Parkinson's. Human trials in this technique are due to begin soon.

* It now appears that cells taken from a patient's own bone marrow or blood are able to restore cardiac function. In Michigan, sixteen-year-old Dimitri Bonnville, who was shot through the heart with a nail and suffered a heart attack, has experienced marked improvement in his heart's ability to pump blood after being treated with his own blood stem cells. (This was such big news that even the New York Times covered it.) Meanwhile, in Brazil, four out of five heart transplant candidates treated with their own bone marrow stem cells are reported to no longer need new hearts.

* Harvard Medical School researchers reversed juvenile onset diabetes (type-1) in mice using "precursor cells" taken from spleens of healthy mice and injecting them into diabetic animals. The cells transformed into pancreatic islet cells. The technique will begin human trials as soon as sufficient funding is made available.

* Severed spinal cords in rats were regenerated using gene therapy to prevent the growth of scar tissue that inhibits nerve regeneration. The rats recovered the ability to walk within weeks of receiving the treatments. The next step will be to try the technique with monkeys. If that succeeds, human trials would follow. This is tremendous news that cannot come close to being matched by "therapeutic cloning" experiments in animals. A new era appears to be dawning in which our own cells will be the sources of very potent medicine. Rather than having to choose between morality and the wonders of regenerative medicine, it increasingly looks like we can have both, since with adult stem cells no human lives are taken nor are humans created and exploited as mere "products."

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

Soon, too soon, the debates regarding cloning will arise in the House and Senate. The American people are sadly unprepared to understand the nuances of the arguments, because we are not well versed in the methodologies, in the 'what the heck does that mean' and 'how the heck do they do that' aspects of the issues. Here's another essay to help with preparation, then let the obfuscations begin!

Reasonable People Cannot Always Agree To Disagree

[For on-line postings of the essay and some discussions, the following are two locations: http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_5432.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/910285/posts ]

Don’t you just love it when someone with whom you're arguing says, “Well, we will just have to agree to disagree”, as a spin of the phrase ‘Reasonable people can agree to disagree’, or as the shortened version, ‘Reasonable people can disagree’? Can reasonable people disagree over cannibalism in order to permit cannibalism, without doing violence to civilization?

As a pro-life advocate who gets into lots of discussions, I hear this ‘agree to disagree’ more and more. It tells me my points are getting to the irrational heart of defense for the abortion slaughter. When an advocate for abortion of alive little ones trapped in a womb tries to discuss the topic from a reasoned position, irrational underpinnings are eventually exposed and the ‘reasoning’ stops, in favor of either ending the discussion or deflecting the ‘reasoning’ into areas better defined as emotional landmines.

A whole new field of argument is arising in defense of exploiting individual human lives. There is a common foundation for these dehumanization arguments, a theme running through the lines of reasoning from the ‘pro-choice’ camp, but the origins of that commonality are not to be found in choice to abort; it has a more subtle beginning than that.

Prior to ‘choice to abort’, dehumanization of individual life had already laid a foundation for exploiting and choosing, a basis for viewing individual human life as a phenomenon that grows in value, as opposed to being endowed with unalienable right to be. And it came into our collective psyche as a supposed benefit to humankind, a means to have science aid in conceiving babies with ‘artificial insemination’. Subtracting from our humanity, artificial insemination moved to more detached dehumanization, with in vitro fertilization, the scientific ‘miracle’ of conceiving ‘something’ outside of the woman’s body, then that thing being implanted into a woman’s body, to have a ‘growing (increasing) right to live’.

[Devout Catholics would say contraception was the beginning of dehumanization, but that’s an historical discussion and not the focus of this essay. The Roe abortion decision came in 1973, but ‘artificial insemination’ had been a reality for years prior to Roe. The first in vitro fertilization baby in the world was born in July of 1978 in England, after many years of research. Today, hundreds-of-thousands of children are born annually as a result of the IVF technique. Those children are our precious posterity,but like it or not the means to bring them into our midst has a dehumanizing effect on the earliest ages of their lifetimes.]

I cannot recall what I thought when first I learned that something could be conceived in a petri dish that would later be implanted in a woman’s body, to even later be born as a human baby. I have a vague recollection from my youth that some people warned against artificial insemination, warned that such manipulation of human conception would lead to a dehumanization process, a ‘slippery slope’. I don’t quite remember what was warned of down that slippery slope, but I don’t have to remember, because we are living in the age of arrival!

Now, at this descended-to plateau, engulfed in a degree of darkness not anticipated so long ago, we are again facing a slippery slope. How will we come to recognize it as a hazardous slope? … This time the hazard has a name. Will America reject cannibalism, despite the campaign to focus only upon the utilitarian value of cannibalism, diverting attention from the truth that we face cannibalism? If prepared properly, we will accept cannibalism, just as we accepted in vitro fertilization. [Note: I purposely repeat the word rather than allude to the reality. Cannibalism should have a revulsion value. Modern examples of cannibalism, such as the incident with plane crash victims who survived by eating the flesh of already dead crash victims, tend to blur our historic revulsion to cannibalism. Let’s focus upon the Jeffrey Dhamer version of cannibalism, the kill and consume version, as opposed to the ‘harvest from accidentally dead’ version of cannibalism.]

What could make cannibalism more palatable, more consumable? … Allow me to illustrate by sharing a recent discussion I had with a close cousin, a father of four.

My cousin asked me to explain a recent news story in which a research scientist was profiled for an heroic desire to cure his daughter’s spinal injury by developing protein matched tissues for transplantation. Nowhere in the story was the viewer (it was a TV presentation) given the underlying facts of how this tissue would be generated, only that stem cells closely matched to the daughter’s tissues would be harvested to treat her injury. As I explained the process of ‘therapeutic cloning’ (methodology the scientist intends to rely upon for the tissues he desires), my cousin displayed no revulsion to the process. No matter how graphic my description of the cloning and killing process, my cousin could see only the utilitarian value of the harvesting, never the cannibalistic reality of killing an individual human being conceived for the sole purpose of harvesting spare parts to treat the older individual human being. I was shocked that a well-educated man would not be repulsed by this cannibalism. Upon later reflection, I understood why. It’s that damn slippery slope!

Once the descending plateau is reached, an acceptance quotient has been established. In the case of therapeutic cloning, the acceptance quotient involves a speciously arranged ‘degree of humanness’ … a conceptus, or zygote, or embryo, or second (or even third) trimester fetus is not deemed a full human being. Nay Sayers will not be allowed to interfere with utilitarian value of the ‘conceive, support, kill, and harvest methodology’. Individual human life, prior to being born, is deemed ‘not yet a complete human being’ on our familiar darkened pro-choice plateau, thus to conceive individual human life, support that life, kill that life, and harvest from these ‘not yet complete human things’ is not defined as cannibalism. If these conceived individuals were admitted to be full human beings, would we still embrace the cannibalistic exploitation due to the utilitarian value of their individual designer body parts? The scientist of my cousin’s query most certainly would and my cousin would, because darkness this far down the slippery slope, this far down inside the funnel of dehumanization, is so great.

The pre-born are less human than the born? … Yes, when you strip away the rhetorical gamesmanship, the obfuscatory verbiage, that is what the arguments descend to, that is the dimness of our modern world. That is the plateau to which we’ve descended, from the seemingly innocent stage of artificial insemination then in vitro fertilization as merely medical assistance to natural conception. Touted as a boon to infertile couples, the in vitro fertilization process manipulated sex cells in a lab environment, conceived multiple embryos to be implanted in a woman’s uterus, stored excess embryos … and the process redefined the earliest age of an individual’s lifetime as but one stage ‘in a process that eventually becomes a human being’. So, where was the error in reasoning first made?

Sex cells are sub-units of organs; organs are sub-units of organisms; embryos are whole organisms. That was so quick, allow me to reiterate: cells are sub-units of organs, organs are sub-units of organisms; an individual human being is an organism; a kidney, for instance, is an organ of an organism.

In vitro fertilization manipulates, first, sex cells … sub-units of sex organs, organs of the parents. But if successful, in vitro fertilization conceives a whole, new organism … not just an organ, the whole organism! As the embryo grows, with the cell total climbing from one, to two, to three, to five, etc., the early cells are totipotent or pluripotent--less differentiated into the individual organs of the organism--thus the early cells are the organs of the individual begun with ‘petri dish’ conception, the assertions of Senator Orrin Hatch notwithstanding. [Senator Hatch claimed that conception doesn’t happen in a petri dish, possibly because Senator Hatch is pushing a bill that would allow therapeutic cloning, but not ‘reproductive cloning’. Senator Hatch has already decided that what is conceived in a petri dish and not allowed to live long enough to be born is not an individual human being, thus these ‘less than human’ beings will be fair game for killing and harvesting … fair game for his ‘to be protected’ form of cannibalism! Orrin Hatch’s reasoning has faltered at the difference between organs and whole organisms, thus he deems an embryo as no more than a non-differentiated organ that will ‘someday’ become an organism. And he’s patently and completely wrong!]

Whether in a dish or a human host, the embryo is an individual human being alive at the earliest age along the continuum we call a human lifetime. That fact is what was passed over so quickly when the debate over in vitro fertilization was squelched. That is the tiny error so grossly exploited to toss America down the slippery slope.

Now, after gradual descent (artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, amniocentesis, etc.) and later steep descent (abortion on demand, fetal tissue harvesting, partial birth abortion), we have arrived at a descended-to plateau beyond which is cannibalism, conceiving then killing individual human beings because their designer body parts at an embryonic age are of utilitarian value, of more utilitarian value than their unalienable right to life. Can ‘reasonable people’ agree to disagree on cannibalism, to allow the cannibalism to continue? May God have mercy upon America if such is reasonable at this stage in our nation’s life.

Friday, January 23, 2004

Hidden Agenda: Why Democrats Ghoulishly Protect the Roe v Wade Ruling

When the various states are calculated for number of abortions per capita, some states show higher rates than others. [This is also true for racial groupings, but we won’t go too much there in this screed.] If the laws governing abortion were written and enforced at the state levels, individually, and not controlled by the Roe and Casey and Doe Federal decisions (through the U.S. Supreme Court), what would be the long-term effect, statistically?

The truth is so shocking when considered, it is not a stretch to believe the DNC and liberals in general have realized the effect and thus have become even more determined to keep the Roe ruling as the law of the land!

Let’s peel the banana and take a look at the very real potentialities of repealing Roe and Doe and Casey.

In effect, what we’re suggesting is a complete reversal of what the rulings in Roe, Doe, and Casey accomplished. Those rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court accomplished the nullification of state statutes in effect that regulated abortion in the various individual states. Famous abortion related cases arose in Texas, Pennsylvania and other states, but the rulings set precedent for the nation as a whole (the Stenberg v Carhardt ruling was over a Nebraska statute banning partial birth abortion, but the effect was a nationwide prevention of such statutes taking effect in other states that had addressed the horror).

Within eighteen to twenty years, the number of citizens in the liberalized abortion states would fall behind that of the more restrictive states. As demographics shift, so does voting power! Some would argue that females in restrictive states will just drive to the more liberal state to hire a serial killer. Yes, they will, but the very presence of laws restricting the killing to only the most dire circumstances will have an influence on the developing children/teens and upon women for whom truth can still help them make life choices. Eventually, the states where restriction is signed into law will become the more populace, overall.

Can this be? Well, to check the possibility, turn to the statistics on traffic fatalities held by insurance companies. When the state speed limit is max at 65, those states realize a lesser death toll from speed related traffic deaths than states where the max is 70. It is a real effect and is reflected in costs for certain insurance products as regulated by the collected statistics. Consider another insurance related area, that of risky behavior in life insurance premiums; when risks such as smoking are factored into premiums, smokers pay higher rates because their behavior kills them earlier, on average.

Actuarial statistics are cold and impersonal. It is a fact that if the nation was moving toward a more liberal climate in the 1970’s, abortion killed off 44,000,000 potential liberals since 1973. Oh, to be sure, not all would have been liberal as they matured, but the greater number would have been because the trend was in that direction and is still in that direction, even with a significant percentage of 44,000,000 not around to bolster the liberal tides!

One final vague substantiating note: has Jesse Jackson or any other Politically motivated race peddler ever explained what the loss of so many aborted black children has meant to the demographics of blacks in American population percentages? No, and they wouldn’t dare, because what these spiritually bankrupt people have been championing for three decades has actually resulted in black people becoming a lessened demographic percent of population while other minorities have risen, minorities that didn’t practice such high rates of abortion over the same three decades.

There are other factors in demographics that effect population percentages, but actuarial tables would certainly show a paradigm shift in the nation’s population centers, over time by state, when the abortion holocaust is removed from Federal controls and returned to the states where dealing with homicide and citizens’ behavior is best addressed. The Democrat Party wants none of that sort of shift! Perhaps that’s why they work so hard to prevent any Federal judge being appointed who might question the constitutionality of the Roe decision. Oh, they’ll tell us they are trying to protect ‘a woman’s reproductive rights’, but since when is the right to hire an educated serial killer to off the already alive unborn a reproductive procedure?

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

And Now For Something Different ... and my Spanish is not good!

Do we have any Spanish speaking readers who would like to translate the below linked manuscript for Spanish speaking pro-life folks? Contact me at the e-mail addy in the right margin if interested.

Cada curso de la vida humano individual tiene un principio. La ciencia indica inequívoco que el concepto es ése que comienza para por lo menos un individuo por el concepto. ¿Los embriones humanos son organismos humanos, apenas pues el lector es un organismo humano, no un?clump de células? como reciente el dehumanization de embriones por los medios ha deducido.

¿Después de treinta años más de holocaust del aborto, ahora está América a emprender canibalismo como uso aclarado de maravillas médicas? Sí, el canibalismo, para ése es exacto cuáles es la metodología de la copia y de la matanza, y por lo menos un estado, Nuevo-Jersey, ha abrazado ya el reaprovechamiento de individuos humanos nuevamente concebidos, aprobando leyes para hacerlo legal entonces para concebir los diseca para sus piezas de cuerpo. Explotando los embriones humanos para sus piezas de cuerpo, sus células de vástago, están como seguramente canibalismo como si los techs médicos fueran colocar embriones en las galletas y servirlas a la gente enferma.

¿Para prevenir el?a-hah? el fenómeno (donde el americano medio realiza repentinamente que la reproducción de la investigación es reproducción definida por el uso diseñado del individuo concebido más bien que por una cierta diferencia real en la reproducción) allí ha sido un esfuerzo consciente de ocultar la verdad. Primero, los científicos intentaron llamar sus métodos que se reproducían orientados que cosechaban reproducción?therapeutic?, pero esa piel del didn?t la verdad cannibalistic suficientemente, cambian tan verbiage a la reproducción del?research?. Pero la concepción de un humano individual nuevo que se cosechará para sus piezas de cuerpo de la célula de vástago sigue siendo el objeto de la metodología.

¿Entender mejor las tecnologías implicadas en la explotación embrionaria de la célula de vástago y la reproducción humana, un manuscrito nuevo? America, We Need To Talk los?has encerrado y ofrecimos libremente al público.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?