Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Disposition of Aborted Fetuses
Message-ID: <899@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-May-85 12:14:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.899
Posted: Thu May 30 12:14:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 13:27:01 EDT
References: <855@bunker.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 295

> 	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