Thursday, March 19, 2009

Proposal to transplant organs of abortion victims

Conservatives: Proposal to Transplant Organs of Aborted Fetuses 'Horrifying'

LONDON – Christians and conservatives in the United Kingdom have reacted in horror to a suggestion by an Oxford professor, who said that the organs of aborted fetuses should be used in organ transplants for the seriously ill.

Sir Richard Gardner, a stem cell expert from Oxford University, said that using the organs of fetuses was a realistic way of solving the problem of a shortage of freely given organs. He also said that experiments on mice had shown that fetal kidneys grew very quickly when transplanted into adults.

“It is probably a more realistic technique in dealing with the shortage of kidney donors than others,” Gardner said of his proposal, according to The Daily Mail.

Using aborted fetuses “is something that could be done but it’s not something that’s talked about much,” he added. “It is at least a temporary solution.”

Christian groups have opposed the idea, however, describing it as immoral.
Dr. Peter Saunders of the Christian Medical Fellowship argued that unborn children deserved “protection, respect, wonder and empathy.”

Josephine Quintavalle from Comment On Reproductive Ethics (CORE), meanwhile, was quoted by The Daily Mail as saying, "At what stage do you say to the woman who is to have an abortion, ‘Can we have some organs for transplant?’”

She described the idea itself as “absolutely horrifying."

Currently there are 8,000 people in the United Kingdom waiting for organ donations, around 7,000 of which are waiting for kidneys. People waiting for kidneys have only a one in three chance of receiving a kidney during the year and hundreds are dying every year because of the shortage

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, well, well..........

I am going to post an I told you so.

In my post "The New Obama Nation", I chided Obama for the following statement:

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry," Obama said. "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

I asked this in my post:

Shall we let scientist have a free reign on doing whatever they want "free from manipulation or coercion"? ..."even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient"?

I also asked:

If this is the mind of Obama then nothing is off limits is it?

How about these things for scientific study free from manipulation or coercion:

*Once a baby is aborted, science will harvest the organs and limbs to do research.
*Mentally ill people will be subject to 'life enhancement' research and testing.
*The elderly will be subject to 'life longevity' research and testing.
*Random selecting of individuals will begin this year for frontal lobotomy research.
*All new drugs will no longer be tested on animals but from random human population drawings.
*To better understand cancer cells, science will now start injecting cancerous cells into healthy babies drawn randomly.

What was the first one????

I was asked by Quasar in his response to the posting:

Hello Wayne. A few quick questions, if you don't mind: Do you have any reason for believing that the new American president has any intention of allowing such clearly immoral things to happen, besides the obvious reason of political bias due to perceived ideological dissimilarities?

Yes.....I do have reason to believe that this president could allow it...remember his words; "It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Now granted this was an Oxford professor who made this statement in the United Kingdom, but can you see where we are headed?

Do you really think it is unreasonable that this could happen? Maybe not today......maybe not in a few years......but it will happen. People are desperate for cures for dying and will stop at nothing to gain a few extra years no matter what the perceived 'morals' are of that particular generation.

There is only one cure for death and His Name is Jesus Christ. Christ died on a hill called Calvary to pay for the Law you and I have broken; God's Commandments. The Scriptures say that God is not willing that any should perish but but that all should come to repentance.

The Bible says that if you repent of your sins and put your trust in Christ, He will save you from the wrath that is to come.

Please, do that today before it is too late.

7 comments:

Steve Martin said...

One has to wonder how much longer the Lord will put up with this stuff from a world that is spiraling downward at breakneck speed.

Not much longer, I hope.

Wayne Dawg said...

Come quickly Lord Jesus!

Ike said...

"God may also give America what she wants."

I always found it interesting that the Lord said that He "loved" Jacob but He "hated" Esau. Yes...that word means hate!

In what way did His hatred towards Esau manifest itself? Glad you asked. Esau was blessed by God! So much so that when Jacob came back into the land and offered him a gift.....he needed no gift. The thing is......God cut Esau loose and let him do anything he wanted!!!!

Jacob was the opposite.....every day of Jacob's life.....every wrong turn.....God was there disciplining Jacob until finally Jacob wrestled with God and the Lord touched his hip. Jacob came back into the land "limping" but finally trusting in his Lord.

Maybe....I'm not sure...this is what is going on in America. I pray for my president but he is the most liberal president America has ever had. God is sovereign and He allowed Obama to be elected for a reason. Maybe (I do not know) God is cutting America loose and letting her have what she wants....I hope not.

ExPatMatt said...

I must say that I disagree with this use (abuse) of aborted fetuses. However, if my loved one were in desperate need of a kidney...my thoughts might be different.

Either way, this is one guy proposing a potential, temporary, answer to the kidney waiting-list problem in the UK.
I fail to see how this is evidence of "a world that is spiraling downward at breakneck speed." or "God [is] cutting America loose and letting her have what she wants".

Wayne, I see that you were sure to point this out and are merely saying that it indicates a frightening direction the world at large might take in the future. I agree with you.

However;

The 'spiraling world' would be better evidenced by the genocide in Rwanda and Sri Lanka and America being 'cut loose' would be better evidenced by the current economic crisis, surely?

Be careful not to see signs everywhere - you might miss the actual signs if you do that too much!

Regards,

Quasar said...

Wayne wrote
Well, well, well..........

I am going to post an I told you so.


Fair enough. However, I feel it necessary to point out that what Gardner is suggesting bears little resemblance to what you suggested.

Wayne suggested:
"Once a baby is aborted, science will harvest the organs and limbs to do research."
Gardner suggested:
"that using the organs of fetuses was a realistic way of solving the problem of a shortage of freely given organs."

He is not suggesting that the organs should be used for stem cell research, or indeed for any form of research: there would be no benefit in this. He is suggesting that they be used as a quick fix, to save hundreds of lives, until a better solution (such as growing organs from stem cells) can be found.

I honestly don't know why he didn't suggest the same thing about still-born children: it would have been slightly less controversial and there are far more still-borns every year than abortions. The word "abortion" can be used to mean still-births as well, perhaps he was using it in this form.

You stated in the previous thread, Wayne, that what you "oppose is the destruction of human life any any stage of development." Why, then, do you oppose saving the lives of many at no cost? (Given that abortions and still-births will happen anyway)


Before you read between the lines however, I do not support this proposal. It makes sense to the logical side of the brain, but it is repulsive to the emotional side. In particular, it is the effect of forcing the woman to make this decision on top of the decision to have an abortion in the first place that I find repulsive. I don't oppose the proposal either: it makes logical sense, and could save many, many lives. But the emotional side of my brain is fighting the logical one, and I can't reconcile either of them, so I am undecided.

Needless to say, this is the isolated opinion of a single british professor. He is entitled to his opinion, but it has no effect on reality: enacting his suggestion would cause any leadership not held by force to topple under the weight of the emotional response from the population.

Jonathan said...

Can a fetal kidney support an adult body?

Lighthouse Prayer Line said...

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for sharing that with us! Very insightful!

Hey. If you get the opportunity, would you
mind praying for the prayer requests that are
on our main page?

May the Lord bless you and your family!!

Mark, Lynn, Brooke & Carley Seay
www.LighthousePrayerLine.org

ps - please consider "following" our blog -or- atleast
grab one of our free, linking, blue buttons. (see top
sidebar at www.LighthousePrayerLine.org).