Research Lab Assistants “Freak Out” at Sight of Baby Body Parts

Research Lab Assistants “Freak Out” at Sight of Baby Body Parts August 26, 2015
Photo Source Flickr Creative Commons by Britt-knee https://www.flickr.com/photos/lsuchick142/
Photo Source Flickr Creative Commons by Britt-knee https://www.flickr.com/photos/lsuchick142/

This is the most recent video from the Center for Medical Progress detailing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted babies to commercial medicine for research.

StemExpress is a mid-level handler who buys the organs of abortion babies from abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, and then re-sells them to researchers. This video shows the director of StemExpress at lunch, discussing the acquisition of the livers, brains, arms and legs of murdered babies for her company.

The thing that I found most interesting in the video is her discussion of how careful she has to be in dealing with the researchers to whom she sells the baby’s body parts. She says that these researchers want the body parts stripped as much as possible of anything that would remind the researcher that he or she is using organs that were harvested from a living child.

She doesn’t put it quite that way, but that is her meaning.

She also comments that lab assistants “freak out” when they see an intact arm or leg with the hand or foot of the child attached. That is, of course, the real value of these videos. They make it clear what is going on here.

I think that if you asked the American public a hypothetical question about whether or  not to allow the use of “tissue” from “the products of an abortion” for “life-saving research” that would “benefit millions and might find the cure for dread diseases,”  and “would be thrown away anyway,” they would say yes. But when you show people sorting through the organs of a dead baby, lifting the tiny arms and tossing aside the empty skull with the vacant eyes, the whole thing takes on another dimension.

That dimension is reality. Reality is what the researchers want to avoid experiencing when they ask that hands be removed from the arms of murdered babies that they want to use in their research. Realty is what the lab assistants react to when they “freak out” at the sight of what is clearly the corpse of a murdered human being.

The reality is that abortion kills a living child. That is why it is wrong.

It is also why we must find other solutions for the miseries of misogyny than abortion.

This video is a lesson in dealing with those who face this grisly reality and do not find it difficult, whose conscience does not appear to be troubled by participating in what is in fact mass murder. History is replete with the stories of such people. They are often among the most urbane and “civilized” among us.

They are also a testament to the fact that you cannot judge the soul of another person by their outward demeanor.

People have been fooled for too long about the reality of abortion. These videos change that.

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

10 responses to “Research Lab Assistants “Freak Out” at Sight of Baby Body Parts”

  1. Well said.
    Why would someone freak out about seeing a tiny piece of liver? “Oh god!”, it’s a tiny piece of flesh.
    This is the first video involving a man.
    Why aren’t men stepping forward to defend this practice?
    Women who’ve had abortions admit it and take responsibility for their action.
    How many men have stepped up and said, “Yes, I insisted my girlfriend, wife, have an abortion?
    Come on guys. Do women have to do everything?

  2. I feel like you have a significant disconnect with the way other people think about abortion, which I find surprising from someone with your background. The paradigms are almost completely reversed, but not in the ways you might think.

    From a pro-life perspective, abortion is framed as a moral issue. You’re extinguishing a life at its earliest stage of development; that’s objectively wrong, and any distinctions you try to make are purely arbitrary. From this point of view, in order to support abortion you’d have to be malicious or misinformed. This is why so much of the pro-life messaging consist of appeals to conscience:

    “Look at these pictures of dead babies. Don’t you feel bad?”
    “Look at this ultrasound. Can you see the heartbeat?”
    “Look at these videos. Don’t these people make you queasy?”
    “If we gave you time to think about it, you would surely reconsider.”

    As a result of this line of thinking, I’ve often seen you frame abortion as a societal ill that serves as a source, trigger and cause for other moral failures in society.

    And here is where I feel you guys have it exactly backwards. I view abortion as a social, rather than moral issue. I see it as an effect, rather than a cause. The way our social, economic and political structures are built, they invariably push people in that direction. Under these conditions, whether or not women (in general) will have abortions becomes a matter of “when”, not “if”.

    So when people advocate for abortion to be legal, its not because they want them to happen, its because they consider the alternative to be, far, far worse.

    I mean, what’s your strategy here, to force abortion clinics to close? Shut down Planned Parenthood? How many women would get abortions afterwards? Oh wait, now we have no way of knowing that; now we have no idea who, where, why and how they are getting it done.

    That reminds me of the way some cities deal with homeless people by making it illegal to feed them, pretending they don’t exist and shipping them out of town: out of sight, out of mind.

    This is my take on this: if an abortion clinic closes, I want it to be as a result of them going out of business due to lack of demand, rather than the result of being the scapegoat of political ambitions backed by religious zealotry.

    Abortion clinics are not the root cause of abortions, any more than contraceptives are the root cause of sex. These are simply the ways in which we deal with, albeit imperfectly, with these realities, instead of hiding from them.

    • Rule out the false analogy with homelessness. The only similarity is that both homelessness and abortion happen to human beings.
      Sexual relations are primarily for procreation. That is basic biology and has been true throughout human history.
      The secondary pleasurable experience definitely helps the spousal relationship, but has always been secondary, historically. Sex is not for personal gratification. That is exploitation.
      Introduce contraception and you have what Pope Paul VI predicted in the ’60’s.
      Contraception gives the idea that sex is free from effects and responsibility. It is not and never is or has been. All human choices and behavior have choice.
      Planned Parenthood, a lot of academics, and, basically, libertine people have sold that view of sex as a commodity.
      For groups like PP who sell abortion, contraception equals more sex; more sex equals more pregnancies; more pregnancies equals money to be made from abortions and providing drugs, contraceptives, to encourage more sex. And all, “non-judgmentally”. The contraceptive-sex-abortion chain comes from encouraging irresponsible behavior and, only occasionally, from failure of contraception.
      Yes, abortions occurred before they were legal but there are some good estimates. There were nowhere near the number occurring now.
      Finally, you revealed your actual pov, “political ambitions backed by religious bigotry.” I know that at this point you are anti-Catholic.
      All life’s situations are moral ones, some more social than others. Everything in your life is governed by your moral foundation. That is what ripping children out of their mothers’ wombs is, a moral problem. It is a permanent solution to a temporary problem and it is very harmful.

      • First off, the word I used was “zealotry”, not “bigotry”. You may or may not want to adjust your description of me accordingly.

        The comparison I made was not between abortion and homelessness, but rather between the proposed solutions. In both cases, shutting down the clinics and shipping out the homeless, there is an attempt to deal with the problem by sweeping it under the rug.

        I’m sure you could get some estimates on abortion rates after you shut down the clinics from self-reporting and emergency rooms, but they will considerably less reliable and always after the fact.

        As for the rest, we could go around in circles forever arguing about what’s right and wrong about sex and get nowhere, but that’s not my intention.

        My overall point is this: acknowledgement is not the same as endorsement. Just because you want to make contraceptives available does not mean that you approve of extra-marital sex. Just because you agree that abortion should be legal and accessible does not mean you think abortion is a good thing.

        When you make a moral argument against abortion you’re appealing to an individual’s own choices, values and priorities, but when the argument shifts to the legality and accessibility of abortion, then they are thinking of other people, whose circumstances, life experiences, values and priorities may differ vastly from their own.

        Which brings me back to my original point of why appeals to morality fall short when trying to engage with people who are pro-choice.

        • Acknowledgement is approval. If something is legal, you get more of it. If you subsidize it, you get a lot more of it. That is what you are advocating.
          You are correct. You used the word zealotry, not bigotry. I wouldn’t call it that. I’m more interested in the Hope of Heaven and the fear of hell, which is why I pray for our country to stop allowing and encouraging the murder of babies. I’m interested in the women and the men involved in the moral degradation of killing their children.
          Those are moral issues first and they come from the heart and effect the heart permanently.

      • Well said!

        “The secondary pleasurable experience definitely helps the spousal relationship, but has always been secondary, historically. ”

        Sex as a purely physical act without the sensations is actually pretty absurd. It’s no accident God gave humans the ability to find intense physical and emotional pleasure in sex or no one would be likely to procreate. As you say, that’s it’s primary purpose, not recreation.

      • As a married woman, I chose many times to have sexual relations with my husband for pure pleasure, not to make our children. When it was time to do so, we planed our 2 children. After that it was for the joy of being together as intimately as is humanly possible—without worrying about pregnancy again. IMO, sex is first for pleasure, then for those that wish it, to make children. I disagree that having access to contraception makes for more sexual activity. There were in the past many pregnant single women who were shamed because they had gotten pregnant without being married. It just wasn’t talked about as often, only in whispers etc. Some of those girls, women were sent away to give birth and their babies taken away. There is a place for PP and clinics similar to them, for those who can’t get help elsewhere. As much as folks hate to admit it—-abortion is not the primary reason PP exists. They offer other services regarding women’s health. Sex ed classes in school are important, letting children know the facts of life and the reasons that having sex too early is not a good idea. Having taught in a Catholic school, (kindergarten) for 10 years, I know that even a religious upbringing doesn’t stop teens from having children. Several of our “graduates” had out of wedlock children in high school. A couple brought their children to the pre-K class in our school. Ideally children would be taught about sexual things at home, teaching them to respect their bodies and ideally waiting to engage in sex. However, IF they are going to do so, they need to know how to prevent STD’s and pregnancy. Parents can’t follow their kids around forever and after they leave for school etc. all one can hope for is that the lessons/examples seen at home will guide them. Yes, PP is for profit, but so are hospitals, doctor’s in private practice etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.