Thanks, that’s what I was thinking was happening after I read the article in full. Still don’t know what to think about this — on the one hand the baby was donated by the family, and as you said according to the doctors the baby could NOT be carried to term (so it wasn’t a “teenager in trouble” type abortion to begin with...). My parents had a stillborn child in 1962 and they donated his body to science so they could figure out what went wrong and hopefully stop other babies from dying in utero. If this is what these parents were thinking — that perhaps some good could come out of their tragedy then it wasn’t malice that created this. As you said, a slew of medical advances were made first, then the cosmetics industry picked up on it...
This is a rough topic, and it’s not as black and white as people seem to feel about it, IMHO. Now, I personally don’t think I could ever use these products after finding out how they were created, but if I had skin cancer, or extensive burns and such as you described I - to be PERFECTLY HONEST - don’t think it would bother me all that much to be treated with those medical ‘products’ if it meant saving my life so I could be around for MY children. Maybe that’s selfish of me, but I’m just being honest...
Thanks for the extra information on this. I appreciate it.
“Children of God for Life is calling on rival cosmetic companies to take advantage of some free advertising by their company.”
Talk about exploitation of aborted babies - I just think it's awful to falsely howl about a “slaughtered baby” and then extol the virtues of “free advertising.” Sort of reminds me of that sleazy salesman in the plaid sport coat on on WKRP.