From the DailyMail.co.uk: Foetus Cell Injections Give Hope to Parkinson's Sufferers
There's something about having the cells of an aborted baby directly injected into a brain that sickens me. You?
A treatment for Parkinson's disease that involves injecting patients' brains with cells from aborted foetuses could bring hope to thousands of sufferers.
It was first tested more than 20 years ago and hailed as a cure before being abandoned because of devastating side effects.
Many of the human guinea pigs lost control of their bodies and experienced writhing and jerking movements for the rest of their lives.
Now scientists say they have found a way to control these side effects, which will give hope to many sufferers - such as Hollywood star Michael J Fox and boxing legend Muhammad Ali.
But critics say the injection legitimises abortion, describing the use of foetuses in such treatment as a 'grisly trade in human life'.
The procedure involves drilling four holes into the patient's skull and injecting cells from aborted foetuses into their brains.
Listen - this is not the same as a blood transfusion, or an organ transplant, or skin grafts. One difference? Voluntary donation. The aborted child had no choice in the matter. This is reducing a human being to a parts factory, to be taken apart and distributed around with the hope that something beneficial might result.
The other difference - someone didn't have to be killed in order to provide material for the experiments. Granted, babies aren't being aborted for the sole purpose of generating the cells to be used. Proponents make the claim that since there are going to be abortions anyway, this won't increase the frequency. That's most likely true, but that's not the point. The point is, this cheapens the intrinsic value and uniqueness of the child. It's the next step down the short flight of relativism - starting with "I'm choosing to have this child", much like saying "I'm choosing to have a vanilla ice cream cone", ending with "Since it's dead, let's take out the useful parts." Which is a lot like saying "Before throwing out that lawn mower, save the spark plugs."
One commenter at the Daily Mail site wrote this: "Anything that can give sufferers a normal life is a wonderful thing." Well then - what if the only cure for Parkinson's turned out to be replacing sections of the patient's brain with those from a living healthy person. That qualifies as "anything", right? And say the procedure doesn't kill the donor, only affect their quality of life. Would that still be a "wonderful thing"? And what if there were no volunteers? Conscription?
I'm sympathetic to those who suffer from Parkinson's. Close friends of my family died from the disease, so I've seen how it affects people and brings pain and grief. I get all that. Even still, their suffering and pain doesn't justify cannibalizing another dead person WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. Especially a dead person who was sucked, scraped or scalpeled from its mother's womb. That's a big black pot of gooey immoral behavior there that ought not be stirred.
Using cells of aborted children for medical purposes is not drawing good from evil. It makes the evil even worse.