Allowing the unborn to be born is a tragedy to some people in today’s society. Simply put, ABORTION is MURDER and these people who support abortion are therefore for MURDER! However, the grace of the Creator God even forgives and saves murderers! Saul of Tarsus is an example. The following is a dialogue concerning a “heartbeat’ bill in the state of Texas.
‘The US state of Texas has passed a law protecting unborn children in the womb by making abortion illegal from six weeks into pregnancy.
The so-called ‘Heartbeat Act’ was signed into law back in May, however on 1 September, the US Supreme Court ruled not to block the law after abortion providers and lobby groups campaigned against it.
Christian Concern’s chief executive Andrea Williams debated journalist Hilary Freeman on GB News about the new law. Shockingly, Hilary commented, “I can’t see the difference between what’s going on in Afghanistan and what’s going in Texas. … A six-week-old fetus is not a child, a heartbeat doesn’t mean anything … it’s like a parasite really, when you’re pregnant. … Before we’re born, we’re not human.”
‘Few reports have shocked me like this one. In September 2020, it was reported that scientists from the University of Pittsburgh (US) had taken the scalps from 18–20 week aborted babies, grafted them onto the backs of live mice, and watched the human skin and hair grow.1 They also took some of the babies’ internal organs, and diced them small enough to inject into the rodents. Funded by US tax dollars via the National Institute for Health (NIH) the purpose of the ‘experiment’ was to investigate disease and immune responses in ‘humanised’2 mice and rats.
The scientists published their findings in the prestigious online journal, Scientific Reports (nature.com). The researchers gathered information on how the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus infects human skin. This was achieved by studying mice immune responses to human—rodent skin grafts. In the researchers’ own words:
“Full-thickness human fetal skin was processed via removal of excess fat tissues attached to the subcutaneous layer of the skin, then engrafted over the rib cage, where the mouse skin was previously excised.”3
To say that those with pro-life convictions (based upon the sanctity of human life) will find such a description extremely distasteful is a huge understatement. Sadly, there is more. Simultaneously, the mice were injected with the aborted babies’ lymphoid cells (derived from thymus and spleen) and hematopoietic stem cells (blood manufacturing cells) extracted from their livers. By doing this, the rodents (termed “models” for human biological study) were ‘humanized’ with organs and skin from the babies. Some of the rodents were then infected with Staphylococcus in the newly grafted human skin to study how the grafts and mouse internal organs responded.
It was observed that healthy skin grafts lasted up to 10 weeks. Multiple layers of new human skin cells developed ‘keratinocytes’ (outer-skin cells) and ‘fibroblasts’ (structural-cells). The human skin also grew new blood vessels and immune cells. Infected skin patches were also monitored for bacterial growth and damage. The hair from the babies’ scalps continued to grow in the original colours. The photos from the research paper show the darker human hair contrasted against the fine white hair on the backs of the mice.
Human dignity vs animal rights
The published research and associated imagery should shock us to the core. Each little scalp belonged to a baby who should have been loved, cherished, and nurtured. Instead, these little ones were sacrificed on the altar of convenience, merely as medical products, ostensibly to benefit others. As we have stated before, “CMI would still oppose embryonic stem cell research, because the end of possibly saving human lives does not justify killing others, in the same way that Dr Mengele’s medical experimentation on Jews during the Holocaust were inexcusable, and would be even if it had produced numerous medical breakthroughs.”
At the end of the Scientific Reports paper, an “ethical approval” section outlines the researchers’ strict adherence to official protocols for—rodent care:
“All animal studies/experimental protocols were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Pittsburgh and were conducted following approved guidelines, which adheres to the NIH guidelines for housing and care of laboratory animals.”3
The question arises, was the same level of care offered to the unborn babies? Absolutely not. Their lives were snuffed out and exploited in abhorrent and macabre ways. After dismemberment at abortion clinics, they were administratively “de-identified” and referred to as “human fetal tissues”:
“De-identified human fetal tissues at the gestational age of 18 to 20 weeks were obtained from medically or elective indicated termination of pregnancy through Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), with the University of Pittsburgh, Health Sciences Tissue Bank. Written informed consent of the maternal donors was obtained in all cases, under a protocol reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Pittsburgh; approved guidelines and federal/state regulations were adhered to for all procedures. The use of de-identified human fetal tissues to construct humanized rodents was reviewed and approved by the University of Pittsburgh IRB Office.”3
Here, institutionalised human ethical ‘approval’ is emphasised—but it is certainly not God’s approval. He cannot condone such barbaric destruction of human life—for any cause. As Creator, God alone has the sovereign right to give or take life.
Imago dei defines humanity
The next sentence in the so-called ‘ethical approval’ section lays bare the philosophical and moral bankruptcy behind the thinking that approves such monstrous practices:
“The use of de-identified human fetal tissues did not constitute human subjects research as defined under federal regulations…” (emphasis added).2
This is the horror exposed. Unborn children are not being legally recognized as possessing human rights. Nevertheless, why, in the same sentence are fetal tissues labelled as being “human”? Which is it? Only when God’s Word is rejected as being foundational to correct moral thinking, are such contradictory and ethically repugnant statements contemplated. Such depraved reasoning inevitably leads to morally abhorrent, shocking practices, as in 2014 it was reported that some UK hospitals were being heated using incinerated aborted babies.
Unborn babies are people. They are made in God’s image and likeness (Latin: Imago dei; Genesis 1:30) and bequeathed by their Creator with the gift of life, dignity, and worth. They are also vulnerable, and should therefore be afforded special protection in law.
This kind of tax-funded research used to be banned under a succession of US administrations. The tragedy is, under recent and present governments, such restrictions were overturned,4 in which case, we can expect more horrors to come. History demonstrates that, if such ‘research’ can be done, it will be done. Tragically, the moral compass necessary for people to govern righteously in society is broken.
Not until people return in their thinking to the standards of God’s Word will the rights of the unborn be protected. Babies in the womb are fully human, made in God’s Image. The research described above should shock the conscience of people in every nation which practices abortion, and permits the insidious medical research that exploits it. However, the sad reality is that consciences will not be stirred unless people face up to the consequences of breaking God’s moral law. Evolutionary thinking sees humans and rodents merely as distant cousins, therefore the unborn have no inherent dignity or worth. Only Genesis provides the moral framework for protecting humans created in His Image.
References and notes
News first reported in: Trasancos, S., How aborted children are used in medical research in 2020; ncregister.com/blog/how-aborted-children-are-used, December 15 2020. Return to text.
Humanized mice carry functioning human genes, cells, tissues, and/or organs. They are commonly used as small animal models in biological and medical research for human therapeutics. Return to text.
Agarwal, Y., et al., Development of humanized mouse and rat models with full‑thickness human skin and autologous immune cells, Scientific Reports, 10:14598; September 2020 | doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-71548-z. Return to text.
This is what happens when the Creator God is pushed out of a society!
‘Ohio pro-life leaders called for an investigation Wednesday after a second-trimester aborted baby’s body was discovered in a dumpster at a northeastern Ohio abortion facility.
During a press conference, Denise Leipold, executive director of Right to Life of Northeast Ohio, said a pro-life volunteer found the baby’s mangled body in the trash about a month ago at the Northeast Ohio Women’s Center in Cuyahoga Falls.
Abortion is MURDER. All rational thinking people should abhor the murder of the unborn. Therefore those companies that promote that murder should be boycotted. Why, do I say this? Because, ‘A life-affirming commercial that shows the humanity of unborn babies will not air on three major TV channels after their corporations deemed the ad too “controversial.”
The Daily Wire reportsCBS, the Hallmark channel and CMT (Country Music Television) all refused to run the ad this spring.
The 30-second spot from the Susan B. Anthony List shows ultrasound images of unborn babies as the narrator talks about recent scientific advances that demonstrate how unique and valuable they are.
“Science tells us that at 15 weeks these babies have fully formed faces. They smile. They yawn. They feel pain,” the ad states. “Isn’t it time the law reflects the science?”
If you want to murder the unborn that’s fine for many as they believe the baby’s not human anyway! However, if you desire to save the unborn, well, that’s another story. ‘An NHS doctor has been banned from trying to save the babies of women who regret starting controversial ‘pills-by-post’ abortions introduced because of the pandemic.
Since GP surgeries and clinics closed in lockdown, women have been able to carry out terminations at home by swallowing two powerful pills over 48 hours.
But hospital consultant Dermot Kearney has treated dozens of women who changed their minds after taking the first pill by prescribing a sex hormone which he claims reverses its effects.
Dr Kearney, who is president of the Catholic Medical Association, says the anguished women turned to him in desperation after the NHS provided no solution to their predicament, and he believes his interventions may have saved dozens of babies.
He says that if taken within about 24 hours of the first pill, the hormone progesterone doubles the chance of the foetus surviving from 25 per cent if nothing is done, to 50 per cent.
But earlier this month, a Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel ordered him to stop offering the treatment, which is not approved by health officials. The decision came after a complaint by abortion provider MSI Reproductive Choices, formerly known as Marie Stopes International.
It is understood MSI claimed he inappropriately prescribed progesterone to a patient for a use not backed by evidence, failed to present a balanced picture of its benefits and risks, and imposed his anti-abortion beliefs on her.
Dr Kearney now faces a full ‘fitness to practise’ hearing, likely to be held later this year, where he could be struck off. The Mail on Sunday has been told that he will vigorously contest the allegations and is being supported by The Christian Legal Centre.
Three women he helped are to give evidence in his defence. One of them, ‘Laura’, said: ‘Without Dr Kearney’s help, the alternative would have been horrific. I wouldn’t have been able to forgive myself. I’d be racked with guilt, with the shame of what I did, for the rest of my life. He was so supportive, compassionate and completely non-judgmental – and there was no mention of religion.’
I’m originally from Iowa and am glad the Iowa legislature has enough backbone to stand up to this murder of the unborn.
‘The Iowa legislature has officially approved an amendment declaring there is no right to kill babies in abortions. The state constitutional amendment needs to be approved by the legislature one more time and then be approved by the voters on the ballot to become a part of the Iowa Constitution.
The Iowa state House passed an amendment late Tuesday that would protect unborn babies and ensure Iowans are not forced to fund abortions with their tax dollars. it would declare that there is no right to kill babies in abortions. The Senate followed suit today and now it must be passed again by both chambers in the 2023-24 General Assembly to be placed on the ballot.
It reads: “To defend the dignity of all human life and protect unborn children from efforts to expand abortion even to the point of birth, we the people of the State of Iowa declare that this Constitution does not recognize, grant, or secure a right to abortion or require the public funding of abortion.”
Leading pro-life advocates told LifeNews.com they were delighted that the legislature took the first step to getting the amendment in the state constitution.
“Today marks the first step in restoring the proper voice of the people of Iowa,” says Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of The FAMiLY Leader, a Coalition member. “In 2018, five radical, unelected judges stripped that voice away, declaring that they and they alone get to set Iowa’s abortion laws. Without constitutional grounds or any input of the people, they invented a so-called ‘right’ to abortion and then paved the way for future courts to force late-term abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion on Iowa.
“But the vast majority of Iowans don’t want to fund elective abortions nor live in a state where a baby’s life can be snuffed out just moments before her first breath,” Vander Plaats continues. “The judges were wrong to silence Iowa voters and seize for themselves the power to rewrite the people’s constitution. Today, the Iowa Legislature was right to give Iowans our voice back.”
“The Life Amendment represents everyday Iowans telling unelected judges, ‘You don’t get to just decide the abortion debate for us,’” added Maggie DeWitte, executive director of Iowans for LIFE and spokeswoman for the Coalition of Pro-Life Leaders. “‘Because there’s one argument in the debate you didn’t take into account, one truth you can’t argue away: That little girl in her mother’s womb, she’s a baby.’”
The Life Amendment does not require the governor’s signature to advance.
“For those that oppose this language, nobody mentions, ever, the unborn child,” Holt said. “Nobody mentions the second heartbeat.”
“You don’t even have to be pro-life to support this amend,” said Rep. Sandy Salmon, R-Janesville. She called it a “separation of powers amendment (that) corrects a power grab by handful of judges.”
Pro-life leaders said the amendment is necessary after the Iowa Supreme Court found a so-called “right” to abort unborn babies in the state constitution in 2018.
“What these judges did was even more extreme than Roe v. Wade,” DeWitte said.
Unless Iowans pass the amendment, she said the state will not have any protections for women and children from abortion “even up to the point of birth.”
To be added to the Iowa Constitution, the amendment must pass the state legislature during two consecutive sessions and then be approved by voters on the ballot, likely in 2024.
Such amendments are important because the abortion industry often turns to the courts to overturn pro-life laws. Some judges, including the Iowa Supreme Court in 2018, have found a so-called “right” to abortion in their state constitutions, and these decisions have been used to force taxpayers to fund abortions and restrict state legislatures from passing even minor, common-sense abortion restrictions.
In the Australian ‘A Queensland IVF clinic receives two to three inquiries about gender selection every week, and some patients report killing their 10-week-old preborn baby after a blood test revealed the baby was the “wrong sex”.
Queensland Fertility Group director Dr David Molloy said that dozens of IVF patients support his legal push for IVF gender-selection, in a legal framework that already permits genetic-based abortion.
“I think couples come to me because they know I have always been an advocate of gender selection, but the National Health and Medical Research Council upheld the ban on non-medical gender selection in its 2017 review,” Dr Molloy told The Courier Mail on March 7.
“This move disappointed a lot of Queenslanders and we are still lobbying for change,” he said.
Part of Dr Molloy’s legal argument for change is that parents who have an “all-consuming desire” for a boy or a girl can become so disappointed with the outcome that they end up in psychiatric care.
“I have seen hundreds of patients who are disappointed when they hear of the gender of the child they are expecting but it doesn’t mean they don’t adore the baby when it arrives. For most, the disappointment passes quickly. Sadly though, I do see some who end up broken and in psychiatric care,” he said.
FamilyVoice Australia spokesman Darryl Budge says that sex-selection abortion is a further attack on the sanctity of life.
“All Australian states have legalised abortion that is allegedly justified for the mother’s mental health or because tests on the baby point to an unwanted disease or abnormality,” Darryl Budge said.
“This legally translates to the erasure of a preborn baby’s right to life by the mother’s own preference for her quality of life.”
Mr Budge commended that Queensland LNP MP George Christensen, who addressed a FamilyVoice webinar on March 8 regarding his Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021, had expressed the need for legislation to protect children born alive after abortion, and his desire to prevent gender-based abortions.’https://familyvoice.org.au/news/wrong-sex-pre-born-babies-killed
My wife and I will not take those China virus vaccine’s that use aborted (murdered) baby parts. Dr. Harnett speaks out on this and other important issues in this article so I have put the whole article here.
‘Someone asked me about my current relationship with Creation Ministries International (CMI) because he no longer saw any new articles written by me appearing on their platform (creation.com).
I explained that I no longer contribute articles or work with them. This situation came about through the organisation’s stance on fetal cells used in vaccines.
For a long time I felt that the leadership had an unacceptable element of biased editorial control. CMI says that they promote a biblical creation (not evolution) message and provide the opportunity for peer-review science publications that are free of the secular bias against such writings. But they have adopted certain corporate positions, which seems to fly in the face of free debate even within the biblical creation discussion space.
When some article is submitted that doesn’t fit their current corporate positions it will not be considered. Or if it is marginal it may be discussed in the Journal of Creation but the article would not be displayed on the website front page but in a journal index, and possibly later as a pdf, but not promoted.
Jason Lisle and Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC)
One of very important issues to the biblical creation community (distant starlight in a young vast universe) has been treated this way since 2001. We will just refer to it as the ASC model. You can find many articles on it on this website. Search “ASC model” or “conventionality thesis” in the search box.
I published many papers on the subject over at least 10 years ending in 2018 when I last published in the Journal of Creation. All my articles on the subject were ever only allowed in the Journal of Creation and never online (which is the much wider audience). See my post Can we see into the past? for an easy-to-understand Powerpoint presentation on the subject.
Jason Lisle originated the answer to the starlight-travel-time problem when he was still a graduate student. His paper was only accepted to be published in the Journal of Creation on this when he first proposed it in 2001 (under a pseudonym Newton, R., Distant starlight and Genesis: Conventions of time measurement, J. Creation 15(1):80–85, 2001 ) because I reviewed the paper and strongly supported its publication. This happened despite the fact that Jonathan Sarfati also reviewed it and rejected it. He didn’t/doesn’t like the idea and the only online web article on it on creation.com is written by Sarfati. He doesn’t understand it and used a strawman argument against it. No matter how much I and others have written on the subject it does not seem to have changed any views of the CMI editorial team.
I was told new ideas are canvassed and discussed in the Journal of Creation and later they may go on the web as they gain acceptance. But this never happened with the ASC model of Jason Lisle. Several of my Journal of Creation papers on it are now available as pdfs on the web but they were never promoted as holding a real answer. In my view, it is the only viable answer to the creationist starlight travel-time problem. I have written on why that is the case.
My own cosmological model, which I developed using Carmeli’s cosmology, has too many problems and I have since abandoned it. Even so it is still promoted as a viable model, even in their premier publication, see chapter 5 of the Creation Answers Book. But Jason Lisle’s model is not mentioned at all. That book may have been last reviewed 10 years after Lisle’s first article.
In January 2019 I wrote to the Australian CEO asking why their is no promotion of Lisle’s ASC model on their website, except one article by Sarfati unjustly critical of it, and why don’t any CMI speakers present it as a viable idea. It had been 18 years since the first publication about it and many other papers (by me) had followed but always only in the Journal of Creation. The CEO told me that he would get back to me on that. One year later I had not heard anything and wrote again in January 2020 asking the same question. Again he said he would find out and get back to me. But alas, crickets.
I have to conclude that CMI is not a free academic clearing house. They are as biased within their own set of decided positions as much as an evolution-promoting secular journal might be within its own position (i.e the evolution must always be represented as a fact). CMI is really a PR organisation not an academic institution open to free debate, even within the context of the biblical worldview.
Fetal cells in vaccines
I tolerated a lot of editorial control (one example explained above) until the issue of fetal cells in vaccines was added to their “vaccine position”.
You may not know but they kept their vaccine position paper non-searchable for many years and the link was only shared if someone asked. Probably because they thought it so divisive that they could lose people over it.
In May 2020 I read a Jonathan Sarfati authored vaccine letter (Vaccines and Abortion, 2012) online at creation.com, which discussed the use of fetal cells as acceptable in making vaccines. I don’t know why I had not noticed that earlier. The acceptance of the practice really flawed me and I could not sleep that whole night. I just couldn’t get the idea out of my head.
Dr Sarfati wrote another article on vaccines in June 2020 and included the same argument. He compared it to organ donations. He wrote: “Would we refuse a life-saving organ that was from a victim of a drunk driver for example who listed “Organ Donor” on the driver’s license, because he was killed in a sinful way?” I could see so many problems with that comparison.
So I researched and wrote an article titled “Using Aborted Babies For Vaccines Is Never Justified“. I sent my paper to the Australian CEO at the Australian CMI office and asked for comment and possibly consideration for publication. After about 3 weeks I had heard nothing. When pressed weeks later on it the CEO said he would respond point by point but he never did. No one at CMI ever responded to me on the issues I raised in that paper. I did have a private email discussion with the former CEO on the issue of the supply of fetal cell lines running low as the reason why new cell lines are needed and that the Chinese in 2015 developed a new cell line. But otherwise no one addressed my points made in the paper.
As a result I published it on my own blog site 1 June 2020. The reason the issue caused me to lose a lot of sleep is because I could not understand a Christian movement condoning use of murdered baby parts for any purpose, vaccine or medicine development. Possibly CMI would also apply their same reasoning to all the recombinant DNA drugs in development (>80) using aborted baby parts under the label of “life saving”. I don’t know.
The world cannot be trusted
It would seem that the editors of CMI publications have bought into the illusion of the global elites’ veracity and trustworthiness. That is, even though we live in a sin-cursed world with the heart of man desperately wicked, they trust in the establishment pronouncements.
They make the point that they are not anti-establishment per se. I agree, we should not be. But when the evidence piles up on the dangers of vaccines, some from the mainstream media but mostly from alternative news sites, due to the massive censorship, we should be more circumspect. We should look “under the hood” and see who is making the medical agents and question their motives.
In a commentary published in journal Nature in 2012, scientists from biotech company Amgen found that findings in 90 per cent of the important cancer papers published in significant medical journals could not be replicated, even with the help of original scientists.
In another review, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked back at 67 scientific projects, covering the majority of Bayer’s work in oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular medicine over the past four years. Of these, they found results from internal experiments matched up with the published findings in only 14 projects, but were highly inconsistent in 43 (in a further 10 projects, claims were rated as mostly reproducible, partially reproducible or not applicable.)
“People take for granted what they see published,” John Ioannidis, an expert on data reproducibility at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California wrote in Nature in Sep 2011. “But this and other studies are raising deep questions about whether we can really believe the literature, or whether we have to go back and do everything on our own.”
While some of the un-reproducable results could be due to sloppy research, it appears that much of it is a result of deliberate misconduct. This was clear from a paper published last year.
Dr Ferris C Fang conducted a detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012. It revealed that only 21.3 per cent of retractions were attributable to error.
There was the now famous paper, on a study involving 96 ,032 hospitalised patients and 81,114 controls, alleging to disprove the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an effective treatment for COVID-19 disease, published May 2020 in the number one medical journal TheLancet. It turned out to be completely fabricated, a total fraud. It is now retracted. There was never any such study ever done.
You might ask, how could the world’s leading medical journal with stringent peer-review not reject such a fraud? How could the Editors approve the fraud? Just look at the journal’s strong links to Big Pharma. Much of its financial support comes from the pharmaceutical industry. Many of the journal editorial team have links via research to Big Pharma. This is a big concern for objective independence. See here for much more on the conflicts of interest and corruption in the medical industrial complex.
I wrote an article a few years ago (2015) that discussed some medical errors of the past and highlighted a new flu vaccine that was given to children in Australia making many very sick. This came about because the company rushed the safety trials to get it to market. See Science the new religion. My paper was more about not trusting too much in the science or those who use the science for financial gain. But CMI would not publish it. It was not part of the controlled narrative that suggests that at least some vaccines are dangerous.
Where I make my stand
My position is to stand against everything that is biblically and ethically wrong. It does not matter what the consequences. There can be no pragmatic view in the realm of abortion, eugenics, euthanasia, and that is what these experimental COVID mRNA injections involve. We must stand only on the Word of God and biblical morality.
But Sarfati of CMI has said that there is no mention of vaccines in the Bible. That is true. Yet we are told that eating the flesh of humans is an abomination to God (Ezekiel 5:7-11, Leviticus 26:27-30, Lamentations 2:16-21, Deuteronomy 28:52-57 are a few references). Injecting another humans cell fragments or DNA seems to be pretty close to cannibalism to me.
Acceptance of fetal cells in vaccines could easily lead to accepting cloned human flesh as a food source. See Salami made from human flesh of famous Hollywood actors. Produced by BiteLabs, who have to be a bunch of the mentally insane. No humans are deliberately killed to make that cloned meat either. Isn’t that also an abomination to God. It certainly is preparing people to accept human flesh, even if lab grown, as normal. What’s next? Soylent green?
This is nothing short of demonic practice. Vampirism! The so-called civilised Western countries have been aborting their unborn children at unprecedented rates. 1.4 million per year in the US and at least 100,000 per year in Australia. And now they are passing laws to murder them right up to full term. Even passing laws to not medical assist the child if born alive in a botched abortion. How heartless and how demon inspired the once Christian West has become.
Satanists also are giving instructions to mothers on the satanic chant to make as they are aborting their babies in the abortion clinics.
CMI claims only a few babies were aborted to make the cell lines used for vaccine development. That is quite disingenuous. Depending on the vaccine, dozens of murdered babies were used.
In 1962 the Wistar Institute, developed their cell line WI-38 from the 32nd abortion in their development process. That abortion was performed in Sweden and shipped to Wistar Institute, Philadelphia. They used lung tissue from the 3 months gestation, Caucasian female baby.
The attenuated rubella virus, clinically named RA273 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant), was cultivated on the WI-38 aborted fetal cell line. Isolated by Dr. Stanley Plotkin. And 40 more elective abortions were used for rubella virus isolation by T.H. Chang (67 in total).
Therefore 67 abortions were required to produce rubella virus plus an additional 32 abortions to produce the cell line for cultivation which means there was a total of at least 99 elective abortions to create the rubella vaccine alone. The cell line was used also in development of MMR vaccines. See here for more details on other fetal cell lines.
Stanley Plotkin is probably the most famous developer of vaccines; pioneer and father of many vaccines, which used murdered baby parts. Watch this short 2-minute video segment recorded in 2018, where Plotkin is unrepentant and admits he is happy to go to hell for his deeds. The full 9-hour deposition is available on Bitchute.com
There are other arguments here also relating to the environment of using baby parts for any medical experimentation or drug development which most countries now are doing. The sale of fetal parts by Planned Parenthood is a prime example. Where does it end?
I have personally sought to speak to several Australian Federal Parliamentarians about the abortion issue with no success. However, a Queensland senator says “I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’ The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.” – George Christensen
Most Australians are unaware that hundreds of documented cases exist of babies being born alive after botched abortions and then left to die.
Federal and state guidelines say no treatment is required. Just let them die.
Courageous and compassionate state parliamentarians Nick Goiran of Western Australia and Dr Mark Robinson of Queensland, both Liberals, have been shining light on this practice for years.
Sadly, their parliamentary colleagues and the media avert their eyes.
Regardless of which side of the abortion debate one is on, only those with the hardest of hearts don’t find the practice heart-wrenching and tragic.
I believe that if most Australians knew the truth about abortion and the harm it inflicts on mothers, they would demand reform.
It is a practice fiercely protected by our cultural and media elites; and by men, whose convenience is the primary beneficiary. Alternative views on abortion are mostly suppressed in the public discourse.
Liberal National Party member for Dawson, George Christensen, read of this while preparing to speak at the Brisbane launch of the book last July.
He promised that night he would push for law reform and this week he delivered, releasing the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2021. You can read the bill here.
He also released research from the Parliamentary Library which independently validates the figures Gioran and Robinson have been quoting for years as well as providing new statistics from Victoria.
In WA, 27 babies had been born alive and left to die between 1999 and 2016.
In the 10 years to 2015, 204 Queensland babies died this way while 33 in Victorian perished after botched abortions between 2012 and 2016.
Christensen’s bill requires medical practitioners to treat a baby surviving abortion the same way they would any other patient. Who would oppose this?
Currently the federal government’s advice to a doctor or nurse encountering a baby born alive after abortion is to “not offer treatment”.
I wonder if Scott Morrison is aware of this.
Christensen appeals to provisions in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Both support the right to life. Both have been signed by Australia. But when it comes to the human rights of our most vulnerable citizens, we have chosen to look away.
In a media release issued yesterday and ignored by the mainstream media, Christensen says:
“I am asking my parliamentary colleagues, and in fact, our entire community to consider the painful question: ‘what happens to a child born alive during a late term abortion?’
“The uncomfortable truth is that the child is left to die.
“As one state agency (South Australia) so brutally puts it: ‘the baby … is wrapped in a blanket and the mother is given the opportunity to hold the baby as it dies’.
“This issue has been on my heart and mind for a long time.
“Now that I have more information on the number of children we are talking about, though those figures understate the problem, I must act.”
Christensen’s bill points out that Australia is in breach of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“I have provided the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Act 2021 bill to the Prime Minister and other key ministers, seeking their support on adopting this bill, or allowing a conscience vote on it,” Christensen said.
“The bill makes it an offence not to provide life-saving treatment punishable with penalties of higher than $400,000 for health practitioners and higher for corporations.
“It also could see health practitioners who breach the law deregistered in Australia.