Scientists Paranoid about Losing Access to Baby Body Parts
You would not believe the hatred and disgust that Big Science has for anyone trying to protect the unborn.
Nature‘s Editorial this week broke records for hate speech. If you oppose abortion, and were appalled by the undercover videos last year showing Planned Parenthood officials selling baby body parts to labs, including one top official who wanted to use the money to buy a Lamborghini, here’s what Nature thinks of you. If you happen to be a Republican, let’s assume you agree for the most part with a report the Congressional “Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives” just completed that recounts multiple incidents of lawbreaking by scientists and Planned Parenthood, and concluded that science does not need fetal tissue (Nature uses the euphemism “controversial material”) for its research. If so, the following venom is aimed at you, too.
- The committee engaged in “fantasy politics”
- They “distort the truth”
- They wrote a “science fiction story” that’s a “fantasy” like a “dystopian tale”
- They “predicted a bizarre future disconnected from its past”
- They applied “cognitive dissonance”
And that’s just the warm-up paragraph. It gets worse. Republicans, Donald Trump and anyone who doesn’t believe scientists deserve unlicensed free rein to do anything they want with unborn babies are in the Editor’s sights.
- The authors of this fantasy were the Republicans who were part of a US congressional investigation into the use of tissue from aborted human fetuses for research
- the result would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
- the officials applied their own, distorted, vision of how science works
- the Republicans’ investigative report shows a careless — or perhaps all too careful — disregard for facts and history
- Such a report should be an aberration. There are concerns that it will not be.
- it is especially worrying given the political changes ahead for the United States.
- President-elect Donald Trump could embolden the anti-science lawmakers in Congress to ‘investigate’ other areas of controversial research
So are the Editors of Nature going crazy? Let them indict themselves: “As such, it would not be totally paranoid to worry that the report released last week… is a taste of things to come.”
We Want Our Baby Body Parts!
Now comes the attempt to rationalize what the undercover videos showed: corrupt and blatant disregard for the lives of the unborn. Leaving bloody baby body parts on countertops and in buckets. Quibbling about the price for limbs, organs and brains. Modifying the abortionists’ procedures to get the best parts. Breaking federal law. Lusting for filthy lucre while cauterizing their consciences. Violating any reasonable standards of decency. Watch the editors put the guilt, however, on the Congressional committee instead of the perpetrators in Planned Parenthood’s houses of horror. Can they do it? You bet.
The use of fetal tissue from abortions is a prime target for politics in the United States, where access to abortion is a perennial political issue. The investigation was launched after a series of undercover videos showed employees of women’s abortion clinics and companies that distribute fetal tissue for research discussing the procedures they use for collecting the tissue and the fees they charge for the service. It gave those opposed to abortion a new way of attacking those who provide such tissue.
In which other directions could this damaging and partisan interference spread? Biologists remember the struggle to access embryonic stem cells during former President George W. Bush’s term in office. Fears are mounting that this attack will be renewed.
We Want Our Embryonic Stem Cells!
Speaking of embryonic stem cells, Nature‘s Editors never stopped lusting for those, either, even though ethically-safe induced pluripotent stem cells are just as good (see previous entries). Here’s what the Editors say about that. Republicans had better not tie scientists’ hands again, they warn:
The Republicans’ report on fetal-tissue research harked back to the old arguments about embryonic stem cells — the familiar, evidence-free mantra that convenient alternatives can easily replace a controversial source of material. (Despite the open hostility, there was never a congressional investigation into the use of embryonic stem cells.) The report also went a step further, rewriting the long history of the role of human fetal-tissue research in vaccine and therapy development, and even directly attacking one researcher for his vocal support of the research.
This paragraph is a textbook example of turning the tables in an argument with emotional propaganda: (1) Describe your opponents’ argument as “old.” (2) Call it “evidence-free.” (3) Call it a “mantra,” suggesting their arguments are just repetitive, mindless chants. (4) Use euphemisms like “controversial source of material” (this is human babies we’re talking about!). (5) Accuse your opponent of “open hostility.” (6). Accuse your opponent of “rewriting history” as you engage in that yourself. (7) Call an investigation an “attack.” (8) Call your dirty work “research.” Run this quote by our Baloney Detector, especially the parts about loaded words, fear-mongering, non-sequitur, and other tactics of distortion.
Then Nature issues its call to arms:
It is important for the scientific community to rally round those who would speak up to defend research. Let us hope that this report is an isolated incident. Even so, researchers should prepare for more of the same.
There’s more to say about stem cells. We’ll save that news for a separate post. In Science Magazine this week, Greg Miller reported on new imaging techniques for fetal brains. That’s great, but is this a subtle justification for abortion?
The findings provide the first direct evidence of altered brain function in fetuses that go on to be born prematurely, and they might ultimately point to ways to remediate or even prevent such early injuries.
Miller repeatedly refers to the human baby in the womb as a “fetus” with a “fetal brain,” but then notes, “How this process unfolds is largely a mystery.” In light of Nature‘s naked disdain for the fetus, watch a remarkable animation of the unfolding development of a baby from fertilization to birth on YouTube. You were like that once. Is your life valuable?
We wish we could reinforce the positivistic picture of science that you learned to respect in middle school or high school, with its fluttering butterflies and colorful flasks, but it’s just not true any more. Big Science has become a leftist, materialistic, pro-Darwin special-interest hate group, and their targets are Republicans and conservatives – anyone who doesn’t bow the knee to them with their inflated egos and distorted view of the world as “nothing created everything.” Don’t buckle under to their hate speech. Face it and confront it. Donald Trump took on the major media today, calling them out as perpetrators of “fake news.” That’s what we all need to do to Nature, Science, and the other progressive, globalist, Democrat pressure groups. Tell them, “Cut the fake science! You shall not spend my tax dollars to support murder! You shall not call that ‘research’! You shall not rewrite history with hate speech and euphemisms! You, Editors—not us—are the perpetrators of anti-science!” There is nothing in science that says one must be a leftist progressive globalist. They chose that worldview. The actual evidence of nature supports creation and intelligent design. Nature and the other Big Science pressure groups are out of line, manhandling the noble reputation of science for leftist ends.
We all know the proper stance against bullies. Nature is one of them. Call them out. Don’t let them get away with this callous whitewash and propaganda. They need to cower in fear before the public that pays for their ‘research’. The public has every right to limit what they can get away with, especially when it is bloody murder.