In Memory of the Babies...
NOTE:
This can be upsetting to watch — even if it's just a cartoon depiction.
Viewer discretion is advised.
SCREENCAP of video’s final image.
WATCH:
While proponents of embryonic stem cell research claim that good things come of this kind of work, the Catholic Church, for one, begs to differ.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is stated thus:
This is further fleshed out in this essay by Abp Chaput:
In Embryonic Stem Cell Research, End Does Not Justify the Means
by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
EXCERPT:
Let's be clear on this: Catholics do indeed oppose medical research that requires the destruction of human embryos. Millions of other Americans, religious and otherwise, share this moral conviction. We emphatically support science and medical advances — but we oppose the use of immoral means to achieve seemingly good goals, even when they include possible medical cures.
Why? Because if the bloody legacy of the last century has taught us anything, it's that the end never justifies the means.
The immorality of destroying human embryos does not rest on what the Post termed a "rigid postulate." Rather, the sacredness of human life is the constant teaching of the Christian faith from the Didache of the first century through Vatican II. Two statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church make this teaching clear.
CLICK TO READ THE WHOLE ESSAY.
RE: Vaccines
This is also a reason why Catholics object to several vaccines, specifically, those using fetal stem cells in their manufacture. This is one basis for a religious exemption taken by some who refuse these, including conventional vaccines (listed in video talk below).
Watch VIDEO:
.
Read TRANSCRIPT of an INTERVIEW.
EXCERPT:
Dr. Deisher addressed the question of why vaccine makers started using human fetal cells.
I think it’s complicated. The animal rights movement was very active at that time. For instance chickenpox could have been manufactured in a guinea pig cell line, but there’s quite a bit of objection to using animals for research. The animal activists were definitely driving them to go and use the bodies of aborted babies.
Economically they thought that it would be cheaper. It’s not though because the regulatory aspects are so much higher. It turns out making the virus costs less than 10 cents. Vialing the virus is the cost. That’s 10 dollars. It didn’t end up being more economically for them.
Kennedy: It’s kind of weird to think that the animal rights activists have more clout with the vaccine companies than do the anti-abortion activists.
12:36
Dr. Deisher: They do, and what’s really alarming is the lack of outcry over human babies, born alive at five to six months old, so that their hearts can be obtained beating, and they have to be beating to be used in the research that’s being done. If the heart has stopped beating it’s not useful. You cannot use it.
So these babies are delivered alive and their hearts cut out without anesthesia. I wouldn’t do that to a mouse. …
Kennedy: They are live birthed?
Dr. Deisher: Yes.
Kennedy: And they are surgically killed?
Dr. Deisher: Their hearts are cut out or they cut through their faces to get good brain tissue.
Kennedy: That is horrible.
Kennedy next talked about Dr. Stanley Plotkin’s work.
Kennedy: Stanley Plotkin … used about seventy-five fetuses to make the many vaccines he was involved in. He said that they used the entire fetus.
The fetus was aborted and that they were cut into parts. They used the tongues, they used the eyes, they used all the parts of the fetus. Is that true or do they just use the heart and the brain?
Dr. Deisher: They use the baby and certain scientists will purchase the heart, another scientist will purchase the brain. They purchase the legs or the eyes. The body parts are sold for research.
I got a catalogue twenty plus years ago. I’ll never forget the prices. Thirty-two week old baby, that’s a living baby. Early deliveries survive at 21 weeks now so we’re talking about viable babies.
Kennedy: It’s hard not to start talking about this as morally revolting. It is difficult not to talk about the moral implications of this. …
Let’s go back and talk about the science and I’ll try to get over what I just heard.