Abortion endpoint no accident

Abortion destroys unborn children. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. The advocacy of abortion reveals the hypocrisy of the left.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Center for Medical Progress today released yet another abortion endpoint video, their ninth. In it, a Planned Parenthood official implicates herself and her organization again in selling baby parts. More than that, the video speaks of “kickbacks” to clinics from baby parts buyers.

Most striking and disturbing of all, the Planned Parenthood official speaks of a “happy accident” in which an abortion patient, who has done this sort of thing many times, comes to clinic with the unborn child already in the birth canal. There it “just falls out.” But of course the abortion endpoint does not play out by accident. It plays out because no one thought like a depraved reprobate. So neither Henry Hyde nor Ronald Reagan nor any other official ever thought to pass enough laws to forbid this kind of practice. Or did they?

Abortion endpoint: dramatis personae

Three people speak on the ninth video showing the abortion endpoint in all its gory detail:

  • Dr. Katharine Sheehan, medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest until 2013
  • Perrin Larton, Procurement Manager for Advanced BioScience Resources. ABR have bought tissue from Planned Parenthood longer than any other firm.
  • Cate Dyer, CEO of StemExpress.

The presence of Cate Dyer speaks volumes. StemExpress got a temporary restraining order forbidding CMP to release any more videos involving or naming StemExpress or their officials. But the judge who issued the TRO, refused to enjoin CMP permanently. The judge cited the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…

So CMP may freely release all the footage it has.

Sheehan tells actors posing as a new human biologics company that at Planned Parenthood Pacific Southwest, “We have already a relationship with ABR.” Sheehan explains, “We’ve been using them for over 10 years, really a long time, just kind of renegotiated the contract. They’re doing the big collections for government-level collections and things like that.” When one of the actors negotiates, “We return a portion of our fees to the clinics,” Sheehan responds eagerly, “Right, get a toe in and make it, make a pro–alright.

A "therapeutic abortion," under dubious clinical circumstances The abortion endpoint is worse. Much worse.

Doctors removed this 10-week unborn child after the mother was found to have carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Photo: User “drsuparma” on flickr.com, CC BY-SA 2.0 Generic License

What? Government-level collections? What could that mean? The CMP don’t say. What they do quote speaks loudly enough. “We return a portion of our fees to the clinics.” Police have a word for that: kickback.

More to the point: you hear Dr. Sheehan telling one of the actors something interesting. She recalls when embryonic stem cell research became such a controversy that President Bush forbade any funding of new stem-cell lines. But, she says, one could still derive stem cells from unborn children. (She uses the Latin word foetus or fetus and all its derivatives. CNAV refuses to use the term. In Latin, the word foetus stands for an unborn calf, not an unborn human baby. The medical profession might now fail to distinguish between human beings and cattle in this connection. CNAV will not so fail.)

Looking ahead to the abortion endpoint

Every video the CMP releases, incriminates Planned Parenthood the more. As it should. But it should also incriminate all of us.

Sometimes, to stop a  depraved person, one must think like one. And to recognized depraved behavior as depraved. Clearly the mainstream media see nothing depraved about abortion or the abortion endpoint. The “tissue” from what they still call an unborn calf, would go to the garbage, anyway. Why not do something useful with it?

Note again what Dr. Sheehan said. Ten years have Planned Parenthood sold the organs of unborn babies to Advanced BioScience Resources. (By the way, that does break the law. Title 42, United States Code, Section 289g-2. Look it up.) Even Bush Junior did not stop this on his watch.

Make no mistake: abortion logically leads to selling baby parts.

Already those who defend the practice, do so by asking what new drugs any of us would give up. Lay aside for a moment whether the defenders are even telling the truth about that. Suppose they are. What kind of people have we become, that we would accept even that kind of knowledge at any price? Especially at that price?

In earlier articles, of course, CNAV has cited the franchise of motion pictures by the Dino DeLaurentiis Group, featuring Thomas Harris’ infamous anti-hero, Hannibal Lecter, M.D. Perhaps this time one ought to recall a different novel, a stand-alone novel this time: Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison. Our theater-obsessed society might remember, not the novel, but the motion-picture adaptation of it: Soylent Green, directed by Richard Fleischer, with Charlton Heston, Edward G. Robinson, Chuck Connors, and Leigh Taylor-Young; MGM Pictures, 1973. A detective in near-future New York City (population forty million!) investigates the murder of a senior executive of a company that makes most of the world’s food in the form of “tasteless, odorless crud.” They make this in wafers of three colors: red, yellow, and green. For some reason, people will riot and kill to get Soylent Green. Why? He discovers the horrible truth. And it has nothing to do with either soybeans or lentils, the supposed roots of the company name:

Soylent Green is made out of people. They’re making our food out of people. Next thing, they’ll start breeding us like cattle for food.

Cattle. Like using the Latin word foetus or fetus for an unborn baby.

In a sense Charlton Heston could never have suspected, the dreaded vision he acted out, has now come to pass.

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

17 Responses to Abortion endpoint no accident

  1. tex_rich says:

    Terry, this reads more like an Onion article than it does an objective blog posting. Firstly, use of human tissue (fetal or otherwise) has lead to significant medical innovation. This is a fact. Secondly, “Fetus” refers to a technical stage in human development – this is why it is used by scientists and medical professionals. As a blogger, you can certainly use “baby parts” instead, but such a description lacks the specificity required in science/medicine (i.e., when in development and which “parts”?). Lastly, it is only illegal to sell fetal tissue at a profit. Seeing as you likely have not idea as to the cost of harvesting/preserving/shipping tissue, you are in no position to make an objective assessment as to whether this occurred. In fact, if an independent investigation (keep in mind, none have thus far) does determine that for-profit sale has occurred, this will HOPEFULLY serve to lower the cost of future tissue procurements (through improved enforcement of existing regulation), which will benefit medical researchers. See, there is a silver lining after all.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      That’s up to you. If you want to be the type who would eat Soylent Green even after I proved to you that Soylent Green is made out of people, that’s up to you. If you want to go on using an improper term that means an unborn calf instead of an unborn baby, that’s up to you, too. (I don’t give an unripe fig what the medical profession does. In this connection, they’re just as wrong as you are. More wrong, since they should know better.) And if you want to quibble about “costs of harvesting,” go ahead with that, too.

      It is better to keep your mouth shut and risk the world thinking you’re a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. And that applies equally to banging away at a computer console.

  2. tex_rich says:

    Yeah, the Soylent Green point is completely nonsensical. If you think there’s human tissue in your diet, you might want to contact the FDA…or a healthcare professional (e.g., dietician, psychiatrist…). As for the actual (i.e., Webster) definition of fetus, here it is: “an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically: a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth.” Given this is your blog, though, you certainly have the right to redefine words for your purposes. “And if you want to quibble about ‘costs of harvesting'” – yeah, this is SORT OF how the law works, Terry. Given FOR-PROFIT sale is the illegal part, it’s SIGHTLY important to determine if profit was actually made. Darn – would be so much easier if we could just think something was illegal and that would be good enough. “…banging away at a computer console” – Terry, only bang your hands, not your head ;)

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Yeah, well, hey: the point you and/or your allies have been making is that human tissue figures prominently in finding cures for human diseases. In my book that makes us all chicken guano, just as much as if we were rioting and killing to get our “fix” of a sour-apple-green-colored wafer made out of people.

      Profit, for one thing, depends on what you’re after. And the other part is: it’s not as if those revenues from the tissue sales/”gifts”/whatever you want to call them, are paying for any “services” PP would not otherwise render. So as I read the account books, including the inherent fungibility of money, anything that even offsets the “costs of collection” is pure profit. The correct basis for any profit calculation is always the things you do to bring in the revenues, that you would not do if the revenues were not forthcoming.

  3. tex_rich says:

    “human tissue figures prominently in finding cures for human diseases” – this is certainly one of my points. “The correct basis for any profit calculation is always the things you do to bring in the revenues, that you would not do if the revenues were not forthcoming.” – this not the definition recognized by economists or the federal government. Well, it’s quite simply not the definition at all (…clearly you’ve never owned a business or reported to shareholders). Most basically, profit is revenue minus expenditures. But the implications of YOUR definition are interesting, particularly as to how they would apply to the tax-exempt status of Christian non-profit organizations (which would no longer be non-profit it they brought in ANY revenue). Of wait, I’m guessing you’d conveniently adopt the ACTUAL definition of profit for those groups ;) And I really don’t understand your green wafer comment. Although, I will have to remember that as another argument against abortion: that the fetus tissue – sorry, “baby parts” – will end up in our Big Macs. I knew those burgers tasted funny! ;)

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Yeah, well, the economists are fudging! I take no interest in official (and especially self-serving or politically correct) definitions. And I begin to take less and less interest in your continued defense of the indefensible.

      I’m not talking about business. I’m talking about basic good and evil. To you, “evil” is “anything that stands in the way of your goal.” You hold human life pretty cheap, if not valueless. I hold it very dear. Dearer than you can contemplate, it seems.

      I asked you to distinguish morally, if you could, between cannibalism and the use of human body parts without the consent of the human involved (in this case, the unborn baby) to “advance the progress of science.” You have failed, epically.

  4. tex_rich says:

    …I ate at Taco Bell for dinner, and I’m starting to think you might not be crazy after all. Pretty sure there were baby parts in my taco, or else that was just a REALLY bad taco. Probably reasonable to assume it was some baby parts.

  5. JeffA says:

    I can’t seem to find any origin or definition of “fetus” as relating specifically to cattle. Even the latin root seems to be broadly pertaining to pregnancy, birth, fruitful, etc with any animal.
    Can you point to a source or background for this assertion?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      The pathogen Campylobacter foetus is found chiefly in cattle. (The Latin word foetus is a fourth-declension noun, so its possessive form is spelled the same as the nominative, with a bar over the letter “u.”) The known pathogen Brucella abortus means specifically “the Brucella found in stillborn calves.”

  6. tex_rich says:

    Yeah, so can you actually point to a source – other than you – that claims that “fetus” refers to a calf? I’m not even asking for a credible/legitimate source – ANY other source would do at this point.

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I just cited an example of actual germ names that say as much about the original everyday Latin meaning of that word, a meaning that every Roman citizen or lawful resident from the lowliest farmhand to the Emperor understood, as I have to say.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.