Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Other People's Body Parts
The Washington Dispatch ^ | February 15, 2003 | Beverly Nuckols, MD

Posted on 02/15/2003 9:12:45 AM PST by hocndoc

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: Apple Pan Dowdy
Will God even be able to still hear us?

There's no shortage of voices assuring us that we can't go wrong because God's our National Mascot.

Now let's go get those Evildoers!

21 posted on 02/15/2003 11:39:27 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Thank you so much for pinging your list!

Once abortion was a horror, something only done to save the mother's life. Then, people began openly debating whether anyone had the right to life if their life was an inconvenience or less than optimal.

Gradually, abortion, promiscuity or alternate lifestyles became more acceptable - and material accomplishment more desirable - than monogamy for life, with families structured around raising children. Women are now expected to "handle" any "problem pregnancy." And public debate about the killing of one human by another has switched from the safety of the mother to the "quality of life" of first "defective" babies, then the handicapped and then the elderly and ill.

Now, the subject is "how many lives can be saved" by destroying others. With a hint of "designer babies" in the future.

This is nearly a cliche', but: 30 years ago, I couldn't imagine a world where public figures promoted genocide more openly than the Nazis did in Germany. But, now I read about Peter Singer and participated in debates on line with doctors willing to use their own names when they suggest worse than any in in history.

If clone and kill is not successful, then millions will have died for nothing, except to cheapen human life. If it is successful, I don't think we'll recognize our world in 30 years. If they let us live our less than perfect lives.
22 posted on 02/15/2003 1:21:55 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Kudos to hocndoc! And thank you for the heads up!
23 posted on 02/15/2003 2:08:37 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

But, now I read about Peter Singer and participated in debates on line with doctors willing to use their own names when they suggest worse than any in in history.

Animal Rights Book Review, David Kopel, Peter SingerBut if you compare a profoundly retarded child with one of the higher primates, the primate may have much more advanced skills in the traits that we consider human (such as use of language or tools) than does the profoundly retarded child.

If we acknowledge that the retarded child has rights, then what philosophically plausible claim can be made that the primate does not?

The best test for rights, argues Singer, is a test first articulated by the 19th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham: "Can it suffer?" If you saw someone using an electric cattle prod to torture an adult human, you would say that the person's rights were being violated. If the severely retarded child were being tortured, you would likewise say that the child's rights were being violated. [Medical Evidence that a Child Feels Pain]

And because gorillas, dogs, and eagles also feel intense pain when being attacked with electric cattle prods, their rights are likewise violated when they are tortured. In contrast, trees and rocks do not feel pain, as far as we know, and therefore using a cattle prod on a rock is merely a waste of electricity, and not the violation of rights on the part of the rock.[ The Emerging Reality of Fetal Pain in Late Abortion The disturbing concept that an unborn child feels pain while being destroyed has once again entered the public conscience in England, when a pro-choice fetal researcher suggested that anesthesia should be given to comfort the fetus from pain from abortions as early as 17 weeks gestation.]

In reply, Singer points out that: First of all, animals react in a manner which we would expect from a being in pain -- they scream, and they try to avoid the source of the pain. Second, all of the evidence we have regarding the nervous system of animals shows that their pain-sensing capacity is structurally similar to the pain-sensing portion of the nervous system in humans. [ The Silent Scream A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12-week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby's mouth clearly opens wide - hence, the title]

Having set up a philosophical basis for animal rights, Singer then examines current treatment of animals by humans, to see if violations of rights are involved.

Singer's approach has no sentimentalism about animals in it. He describes his disgust as meeting a woman who gushed "Don't you just love animals!" -- and then offered him a ham sandwich.

24 posted on 02/15/2003 2:16:23 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
Have you seen this article by Harriet McBride Johnson, yet? She describes her meetings with and feelings about Singer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/16DISABLED.html?pagewanted=print&position=top
25 posted on 02/15/2003 3:14:05 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Think carefully, because your choice could affect your ownership of your “own” life and body. Your body may become tomorrow’s source of body parts. Living donors are possible today for those who need livers, kidneys and skin, as well as the more easily obtained (and replaced) bone marrow and blood, and for half of us, oocytes. The quality of life of so many could be saved if the State had the power to allocate these “resources,” which you don’t actually “need” to live. What is your bodily integrity and comfort compared to the misery of someone dying for the want of your cells and organs?

Bump.

26 posted on 02/15/2003 3:21:31 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
A straight-line course from our current reality will embrace the notion that ‘exploitation of embryonic life is needed to bolster unencumbered lives of worthy pursuit.’ Because of our tacit acceptance for the extreme treatment of individual prenatal life--forceful withdrawal of life support, abortion--it is assumed by some that we will accept conception of individual human lives and then killing those individuals for their body parts (embryonic stem cell exploitation and therapeutic cloning). That’s cannibalism.

To legally exploit individual embryonic life, someone must arrange our agreement that killing and harvesting embryos is not the same as killing an individual. Scientists who would carry out these medical marvels know differently. Here's the key to their reasoning: embryology holds axiomatic that individual human life is a continuum with a beginning at conception, so those seeking legalization for embryonic exploitation must promote the blatant lie that ‘embryos are not individual human life’ ... or worse, have the nation agree that these are individual human lives being exploited in earliest stage of their ‘less worthy life’, defining a higher purpose for the body parts of these embryonic individuals, to sustain others. The first level of agreement is based on a calculated lie; the second descending level of agreement is acceptance of cannibalism based on that same specious axiom that embryos are not human individuals existing at a normal age in a human lifetime.

Many people warned of a slippery slope back when outrage over in vitro fertilization was squelched.

27 posted on 02/15/2003 3:46:07 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078342/New York Times Magazine, Feb. 16
In the engrossing cover story, Harriet McBryde Johnson, who has a muscle-wasting disease, eloquently articulates her confusion about how to interact with Peter Singer, a Princeton University philosopher who "argues that parents should be able to kill disabled infants" and who makes "the assumption that I am one of the people who might rightly have been killed at birth." Johnson wonders if she grants Singer legitimacy by debating him. She wonders if telling him that she eats only soft foods will bolster his argument that life with a disability is not worth living. And she wonders how it is that she likes him, despite his beliefs.

Over 250 protesters greeted bioethicists Peter Singer's first class at Princeton. Singer says parents should be able to kill their disabled newborns, and says that people with cognitive disabilities should have fewer rights than the rest of us. Associated Press story

Nathanson Hand of God Silent Scream He describes how the science of fetology had advanced due to ultra-sound and other techniques. The "Silent Scream," which shows one of the very last abortions performed in his clinic, was the fruit of that technology.

Dr. Nathanson not only left that culture with its massive cover-up, but began to battle against it. He started that battle as an atheist who had become convinced by scientific evidence. But the evidence was about human life and therefore the fifth commandment "Thou shall not kill." That he himself had violated that commandment not once but thousands of times was indeed a heavy burden. By facing the personal meaning of the moral law, he was quickly carried to the question of God. He began reading the great Christian authors and as he did so, the evidence for Christianity mounted.

The final chapter describes how he went from atheism to Christianity. In reading it, I was reminded of another great convert, C.S. Lewis. As a young university professor he was quite comfortable in his atheism. But then, because of some good influences, he began to try to live the moral law. Things began to unravel. He did try to be moral and at the same time to cling to his atheism. But in the end says Lewis, "God checkmated me." The same happened to the author of "Hand of God." His autobiography not only analyzes the greatest moral issue of our times, but gives a searing picture of one soul caught up in that struggle.

Why Abortion Isn't Important In fact, when I first learned that the Doctor Exsecrabilis Peter Singer was now somewhat of a fan of bestiality,2 I caught myself being not nearly as surprised as I thought I might be: surely this was the logical working out (by a thinker who satisfies G. K. Chesterton’s definition of a maniac—not someone who has lost his reason, but someone who has lost everything but his reason) of a moral position that had already been poisoned decades ago by those first thoughts about whether morality is all about costs and benefits, and whether the job of modern moralists was to overthrow tradition and replace it with a brand new morality for our brand new times.

Here is one of the (to my mind) greatest philosophers produced by England in the last century, telling people-especially other philosophers-that sometimes it is better to walk away than to argue. Why? Because a person's conscience can become so corrupt, and lead to such equally corrupt rationalizations, that to engage them in serious argument about those rationalizations is both pointless-being unlikely to have the slightest impact on their thinking-and, what is worse, dangerous-bringing the thinker of good will into serious danger of having his own conscience perverted by the sophistries of the other.

 

 

28 posted on 02/15/2003 3:50:00 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc

Heaving the Cat." (Remember Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn's cure for warts?)

Fault any detractor as "whistling past the graveyard."

29 posted on 02/15/2003 4:06:22 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I liked "Swinging the Cat" - what I thought I remembered. Doggonit, when I looked it up, Huck said to "heave" the cat. Might be just as good a pun as "swinging."
Whistling past the graveyard is another great saying. And, I'm afraid that's what too many are doing, nowadays.
(subtle bump)
30 posted on 02/15/2003 5:38:03 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Just this week, one of the doctors on Physician Online, and ethicist who teaches medical students, called my definition a "religious bias."
Some guys just don't keep up with the literature, I guess.
31 posted on 02/15/2003 5:41:20 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Remedy
I pray for Mr. Singer and all those who think like he does.
32 posted on 02/15/2003 5:43:33 PM PST by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc; Remedy; MHGinTN
Outstanding job hocndoc!!!

Thank you for getting the truth out with such force and conviction. The public needs to understand what really is happening amidst the oceans of liberal lies. Keep on writing!

The Pen Is Mightier Than the Scalpel

33 posted on 02/15/2003 5:55:30 PM PST by cpforlife.org
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: hocndoc; 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; american colleen; annalex; ...
Respect Life ping
34 posted on 02/15/2003 6:03:47 PM PST by Coleus (RU 486 Kills Babies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
There was a folk song in the 60s that contained the line "if living were a thing that money could buy, the rich would live, and the poor..."
35 posted on 02/15/2003 8:20:02 PM PST by 185JHP ( "Big Oil, Big Buttons, Ultrarightwingers in Red China?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Here is a pro-life snowed in ping.
36 posted on 02/16/2003 8:47:49 AM PST by fatima (Prayers for all our troops and loved ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RepublicanRightOrWrong; blam; Alamo-Girl; backhoe; Woahhs; Victoria Delsoul; William Wallace; ...
Has anyone seen the ad for "Dreammakers"? They recruit women as "egg donors" presumably for artificial insemination to "help a couple who can't concieve". Nothing wrong with that, but I bet that "fetal farming" is the next step. Oh, there was/is a great deal wrong with such manipulation of embryonic individual human life, but the public was not privy to the truths the scientists wishing to do the science held axiomatic to their manipulations ... embryologists hold as fundamental truth that individual human life begins with conception. The debates back when in vitro fert was arising on the bio-med scene pointed to the horrific reality we now face, but those debates were extremely one-sided, touting the benefits so loudly that the features--the 'how is this done'--were squelched; the American citizenry were not told the truths the scientists based their exploitations upon. The public was carefully fed degrees of information, degrees of truth, thus We the People accepted degrees of exploitation. In a conspiracy?... Yes and no. We must realize and admit that there were scientists back then who had no qualms with creating and discarding embryonic human individuals, and their values guided the careful manipulation of public understanding, causing the people to tacitly accept the values of the scientists without weighing those values against our founding values ... our tacit accpetance led to the values of the scientists becoming the expressed values of this nation! Will we also allow cannibalism to be the expressed value of this nation?

The same agenda driven framework that brought lazy acceptance for careless exploitation of embryos for in vitro fertilization is happening now regarding embryonic stem cell and cloning exploitations, with powerful politicians (like Orrin Hatch and New Jersey state leaders) aiding this manipulation. The withholding of truth, deeper truth regarding these procedures, is decidedly manipulative and IS designed to 'prepare the confused atmosphere' in which the debates occur.

Our tacit agreement for this 'benefits-outweigh-the-features' is being exploited, in order to arrange public acceptance of cannibalism in the name of 'higher purpose' for individual human lives deemed 'of less worth' since they are merely embryonic individual humans.

Unless media venues willing to air the facts regarding nascent individual human life are found (and I have been frantically searching for doors that will open, with little success so far), to get the truth out there prior to 'demand for the benefits' driving the debates to ignore the 'features', this nation will embrace cannibalism as enlightened policy for medical advances.

In Europe, the citizens have already been manipulated to focus on benefits and ignore features, ignore the truth of 'how these marvels' are accomplished; in Europe, the citizens have already lent their tacit acceptance to this cannibalism, without actually ever facing the stark truth, due in strong measure to calculated, selective dissemination of information by the scientists and industries planning to profit from the exploitations, from the cannibalization of individual human life.

37 posted on 02/16/2003 12:06:39 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
BTTT!!!!!!
38 posted on 02/16/2003 12:12:59 PM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Interesting thoughts. But I would move the focus off of scientists and onto the true movers and shakers. Scientists are often disappointingly ordinary people. The people behind this new biotech are the board of directors and their puppets--politicians. We could go full tinfoil and refer back to the bankers, but it isn't necessary. We'll focus on the board of directors.

Who are the board of directors? They might have some knowledge of the science behind the tech. They have more knowledge of the finances and they don't spend any time at all in the lab. When they aren't in board meetings where are they? Doing PR for the product, that's where. Talking to their personal politician, writing press releases, making the world safe for the product.

That's who is stretching the concepts of morality and ethics beyond all limits. Don't look at scientists: they don't know about these things and don't write the forward-looking press releases. Look at the boards of directors, and ultimately at politicians: they are creating our new moral and ethical strucutres for us.

39 posted on 02/16/2003 12:26:35 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Very astute, RW. I have some experience with Searle Labs and the promotion of 'birth control pills and IUDs'. The moral and ethical choices to develop and market these medical marvels were made by the boards of directors and product marketing people. But in fairness, the scientists who developed these methodologies had a decidely 'benefits over features' bias. There is a 'someone else deicided' game played, where the scientists will say 'The company has decided this is ethical' and the company heirarchy will offer 'The scientists say we can do this and since they do not seem to object to the features of how this is accomplished, we may proceed'. Someone has to eventually say, with no equivocation, 'This is wrong, even though we can do it; this is cannibalism in a stealth mode!'
40 posted on 02/16/2003 12:43:04 PM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson