Depraved Professor Proposes "Harvesting" Organs From Aborted Babies

There are days where I am in wonder at God's patience and that He still has not finally said "enough!" and ended the madness on this planet. The Daily Mail in the UK reported Wednesday that Professor Sir Richard Gardner at Oxford University believes the chronic shortage of organs available for transplant in Britain can be solved by harvesting organs from aborted fetuses. Yes, you did read that right, Professor Gardner of Oxford University wants to harvest organs from aborted babies for transplant into adults. In case you wonder if such transplants could work, Gardner states that "experiments in mice have shown that foetal [sic] kidneys grow extremely quickly when transplanted to adult animals". Similar results could be achieved in humans, but "much research would be needed to show such transplants were effective," he continued. Christian and pro-life groups were naturally - and rightfully - "horrified" by Gardner's proposal. 1

As ugly as abortion is on it's own, the civilization that begins using the unborn for spare parts truly has descended into a Soylent Green kind of nightmare. Such a civilization advocates not just murder, but murder plus human trafficking as the unborn are exploited as a mere commodity to be bought and sold on the market. I bet Planned Parenthood would love this idea if it could be made to work. Not only could they profit from the abortion, but they could profit from the spare parts too, right? If Gardner's proposal became reality, is there any reason a couple shouldn't be allowed to conceive a child simply to "harvest" the organs? Or what about a woman who opens a business as a surrogate "mother" to sell human spare parts to researchers or transplant recipients? Is there any reason that should be opposed? Yes, Gardner's proposal is far from reality, and many people will undoubtedly find it enormously repugnant, but it is a sign of severe cultural decay that otherwise credible and intelligent people can seriously promote something like this.

If there is anything positive in Gardner's proposal, it is that it exposes even more the contradictions and hypocrisy of the pro-abortion position. Aren't abortion supporters always denying that the "something in there" is really human? Don't they always maintain that it is merely a formless blob or lump of flesh and that killing it is no big deal? Aren't pro-abortionists always opposing proposals that require full disclosure through the use of ultrasound? If the unborn "something" is not human, how is it that it has human organs that could be transplanted into adult humans?

The most astounding and heartbreaking part of the Daily Mail article was the callousness expressed by Professor Stuart Campbell, also from Oxford and supportive of Gardner's proposal. Campbell said he has "no ethical objections" to harvesting organs from the aborted unborn. Many babies are aborted quite late, and "if they are going to be terminated, it is a shame to waste their organs". 2 Professor Campbell apparently reserves no regret at all for the "waste" of the life of another human being.

References

1. Use aborted foetus organs in transplants, urges scientist. (March 11, 2009). Retrieved March 14, 2009 from, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1161085/Use-aborted-foetus-organs-transplants-urges-scientist.html
2. Ibid.

Image courtesy of http://www.freefoto.com/.

Posted by mroberts at 10:48 AM