I was recently enjoying that most cherished of modern-male traditions – channel surfing – when I stumbled across some obscure late-night talk-show. The subject was medical research using fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells and it wasn't long before the host and her guest began ragging on the pro-life community for its opposition to these things. Both were practically foaming at the mouth as they accused us of being hypocritical for calling ourselves "pro-life" while opposing technology that could save so many lives.
It was soon obvious that the goal of this show was to use fetal tissue research and embryonic stem cell research to create the illusion that something noble comes from abortion. In a transparent attempt to neutralize the biological reality that abortion intentionally takes the life of a living human being, the guest went so far as to propose that, even if life does begin at conception, we should all be willing to accept that the unborn are sacrificing their lives for the benefit of all mankind. Then, right on cue, the host nodded pensively, switched on her most fawn-like demeanor, looked into the camera and reminded the audience of the Biblical reference about no man having greater love than the one who will lay down his life for others.
Now, I have been in this battle far too long to be shocked by anything that might be said by these kinds of people. Besides, I had already heard this particular drivel from another member of the pro-choice mob a few years earlier. This guy had spewed forth many of the same laughable positions taken by these two women, even going so far as to question why the pro-life movement was opposed to allowing babies to "assist" in making life better for people with serious health conditions. You heard right. In abortions, the babies are not victims, they are "assistants."
This idiotic statement, along with those made on this talk-show, were further evidence that, if the ability to pervert rhetoric is art, the abortion lobby makes Rembrandt, DaVinci and Michelangelo look like a bunch of paint-by-number amateurs.
Let's set the record straight. Children who are being killed by abortion are not "laying down" their lives. Their lives are being taken from them through the application of lethal force. Using the corpses of aborted babies for medical research has nothing to do with allowing the unborn to sacrifice their lives to save others. It is about the born hoping that they can improve their own lives by butchering and then mining the unborn.
To fully appreciate the moral bankruptcy of this, imagine that a team of researchers has developed a drug that will cure cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. This miracle drug is produced from a chemical found in the human body and can only be taken from living people under 55-years-old. Additionally, clinical trials have proven that the drug is 100 percent effective and perfectly safe. It has also been determined that the amount needed to treat the entire country would require only about 500 donations per year. The only downside is that harvesting this chemical always kills the donor.
This broaches the question, given that millions of people could be saved, should we create a national lottery to randomly select 500 people a year who would be forcibly killed to make the drug? After all, out of a population of over 300 million, each individual's chances of being selected would be infinitesimally small and the overall benefit would be astronomical. The only thing we have to do in order to claim this benefit is be willing to say that where the chemical comes from is irrelevant. Remember, whether they want to admit it or not, that is precisely what some people are currently saying about medical research conducted with fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells. The distinction is that one situation is hypothetical and involves 500 people a year while the other is brutally real and involves over 3,000 a day.
Of course, the fact is that the pro-life movement has never been opposed to medical research. But we also understand that no force on earth is more potentially evil or dangerous than science unrestrained by morality. In this case, whether fetal tissue research or embryonic stem cell research is morally justified, or not, is wholly dependent on how the tissue and cells are obtained. If they come from umbilical cords, or placenta, or from babies who died in some natural manner (miscarriage, stillbirth, accident, etc.) few people would raise a moral objection. But we cross the line when we start using parts taken from babies that we allowed to be intentionally killed by abortion. And we obliterate that line altogether when – as some are now advocating – we start creating human embryos for the expressed purpose of using them in medical experiments. By any measure of human decency, it is indefensible that we slaughter these children in the first place. But when we then rob their graves in some Draconian attempt to make our lives better, we disgrace ourselves even further. Meanwhile, the abortion lobby is joined by some in the research field who defend this practice on the basis that these babies are already dead and are going to be tossed away whether we take advantage of them or not.
As a nation, what we need to remember is that this is the same rationalization used by the Nazi thugs who harvested gold fillings from the teeth of Jews they killed in their concentration camps. If we want to be a better people than that, we have to stop this holocaust altogether. But until that day comes, when the question is asked whether we should discard these dead babies instead of using them in medical experiments designed to benefit us, the answer must be an unqualified yes. No civilization has the right to profit from the evil that it knowingly and intentionally commits.