Letters to the Editor

Fetal tissue research and RU-486 for medicinal purposes: Pro-abortion people claim that pro-lifers aren't really "for life" because we oppose fetal experiments, which they claim could save lives. A noted abortion fanatic recently lambasted pro-lifers for opposing the abortion pill, RU-486. She claimed that the drug has the potential to fight breast cancer, and that by opposing RU-486, pro-lifers are consigning women to die of cancer.

Back

Letter Number: 223 Pro-abortion people claim that pro-lifers aren't really for life because we oppose fetal experiments, which they claim could save lives. The main reason abortion advocates like to bring this subject up is to make people who are uneasy about abortion think that at least some good is coming out of it. Obviously, pro-lifers want to encourage legitimate medical research. However, we are creating situations and asking questions for which there are no answers. For example, doctors in Mexico claimed to have found a treatment for Parkinson's Disease, using brain cells from spontaneously miscarried babies. We would, obviously, not object to that per se. However, in the report by one of the doctors, he said better results could be obtained by using brain cells from babies from late-term induced abortions. He said that it was probable to get even better results using brain cells from fetuses who had not endured the normal abortion procedures because it destroyed many useful parts. He was alluding to removing the infant intact and alive to harvest the desired parts. How far are we willing to carry that kind of thinking? It's also been suggested that the closer the biological match between donor and recipient, the better the results. So why couldn't a woman be artificially inseminated with her father's sperm, to create a fetus to be aborted, and the fetal brain cells implanted in the father to treat his Parkinson's Disease? Clearly, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, there is nothing wrong with this scenario. And that is precisely the point. Once we accept that living human beings can be cut up for parts because they will die soon anyway, where do we draw the line? What would become of death row inmates? Or comatose victims of car accidents? I wouldn't want to be brought into the emergency room where these ghouls work.
Letter Number: 224 Pro-abortion people claim that pro-lifers aren't really for life because we oppose fetal experiments, which they claim could save lives. The main reason abortion advocates like to bring this subject up is to make people who are uneasy about abortion think that at least some good is coming out of it. What abortion advocates ignore is that most current fetal experimentation has all the scientific sophistication of little boys pulling the wings off flies. Almost all of them require whole, live, healthy fetuses. In other words, they aren't just going to take jars of fetus puree that was going to be flushed down the clinic's lab sink anyway. They are going to have to arrange special abortion techniques, at greater risk to the mother, to get their coveted specimens. This would create a black market in fetuses. A poor woman with no other way to feed her family might be driven to deliberately conceive fetuses to sell to these ghouls in white coats until their wracked and scarred bodies became incapable of bearing another child. Of course, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, there is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to do this. And that is precisely the point.
Letter Number: 225 A noted abortion fanatic recently lambasted pro-lifers for opposing the abortion pill, RU-486. She claimed that the drug has the potential to fight breast cancer, and that by opposing RU-486, pro-lifers are consigning women to die of cancer. This is especially hypocritical coming from someone who defends abortion, which studies have linked with an increased breast cancer risk. The truth is that this whole thing is just a diversionary tactic. Pro-lifers have never objected to legitimate medical research with any drug, even drugs that can be used to cause an abortion. If RU-486 was ever discovered to have any beneficial effects, nobody would stand in the way of marketing it for legitimate health reasons. However, it should never be given to pregnant women. Abortion is not a legitimate health reason. It is taking the life of a very young human being--and in a nasty way, to boot. RU-486 causes the placenta to deteriorate, and the little human dies of starvation and oxygen deprivation. Nobody can honestly call this a legitimate use of a drug. Let's be honest--the only practical application of RU-486 is killing. As such, it should be forbidden.
Letter Number: 226 A noted abortion fanatic recently lambasted pro-lifers for opposing the abortion pill, RU-486. She claimed that the drug has the potential to fight breast cancer, and that by opposing RU-486, pro-lifers are consigning women to die of cancer. Almost all people agree that doctors should not be permitted to stab their patients to death with scalpels. This does not mean we oppose surgery. We oppose the illegitimate and deadly misuse of what should be instruments of healing. Why should RU-486 be any different? If there was a legitimate medical use for it, nobody would object to such use. There are already drugs on the market in the U.S. that might cause an abortion if they were given to a pregnant woman. Some abortionists are currently experimenting on women with these drugs, to learn how to use them for killing instead of healing. The bottom line is, RU-486 enthusiasts want it for one reason and one reason only: to make it easier for doctors to kill tiny human beings. So it makes sense to ban a drug that has no use but to kill. It is, as famous geneticist Jerome Lejeune called it, "the human pesticide." How can a pesticide against humans be medicine? It isn't.
Letter Number: 227 An abortion fanatic recently lambasted pro-lifers for opposing the abortion pill. She claimed that by opposing RU-486, pro-lifers are condemning women to die of cancer. Of course this whole line of reasoning assumes that the abortion industry is interested in RU-486 for some purpose other than abortions. When the subject of RU-486 first came up, the abortion industry made no bones about why they wanted it. They thought that because it is less visually violent than mechanical abortion, it would be more acceptable. However, the American people weren't fooled. They understood that if it's wrong to kill a child with a suction machine, it's wrong to do it chemically. The abortion industry lost what they thought was going to be a real advantage. Then, some sketchy data came out showing RU-486 might be a treatment for breast cancer. That became something the abortion industry could exploit. After all, who would deny women a drug that might save them from dying from cancer? The truth is, nobody opposes non-abortion uses of RU-486. Doctors researching legitimate medical uses of the drug are able to get it. And that's what gets the abortion people's goat. They don't want it to heal--they can have it to heal anytime they want it. They just aren't allowed to import it for the express purpose of killing children. The very fact that this strikes them as unacceptable tells you scores about their mentality.
Letter Number: 228 An abortion fanatic recently lambasted pro-lifers for opposing the abortion pill. She claimed that by opposing RU-486, pro-lifers are condemning women to die of cancer. I'm no expert in this field, but the material I've seen about RU-486 being used as a treatment for breast cancer and brain tumors sure makes it seem like women are being used as guinea pigs. But still, no pro-lifer wants to see any woman experiencing one of these tragic circumstances denied something that might help her. So let me propose this: Why don't the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers set aside their differences on abortion, and address this issue? Our part of the compromise is that we will agree to immediately stop our opposition to RU-486. The pro-choice part of the compromise is to agree to a federal law ensuring that it can only be dispensed by physicians and not given to pregnant women. Of course, everyone knows what the pro-choice response will be. They will look American women right in the face and say, "If we can't have RU-486 to kill babies, you can just die."

Letter Number: 223

Pro-abortion people claim that pro-lifers aren't really for life because we oppose fetal experiments, which they claim could save lives. The main reason abortion advocates like to bring this subject up is to make people who are uneasy about abortion think that at least some good is coming out of it.

Obviously, pro-lifers want to encourage legitimate medical research. However, we are creating situations and asking questions for which there are no answers. For example, doctors in Mexico claimed to have found a treatment for Parkinson's Disease, using brain cells from spontaneously miscarried babies. We would, obviously, not object to that per se.

However, in the report by one of the doctors, he said better results could be obtained by using brain cells from babies from late-term induced abortions. He said that it was probable to get even better results using brain cells from fetuses who had not endured the normal abortion procedures because it destroyed many useful parts. He was alluding to removing the infant intact and alive to harvest the desired parts. How far are we willing to carry that kind of thinking?

It's also been suggested that the closer the biological match between donor and recipient, the better the results. So why couldn't a woman be artificially inseminated with her father's sperm, to create a fetus to be aborted, and the fetal brain cells implanted in the father to treat his Parkinson's Disease? Clearly, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, there is nothing wrong with this scenario.

And that is precisely the point. Once we accept that living human beings can be cut up for parts because they will die soon anyway, where do we draw the line? What would become of death row inmates? Or comatose victims of car accidents?

I wouldn't want to be brought into the emergency room where these ghouls work.

Letter Number: 224

What abortion advocates ignore is that most current fetal experimentation has all the scientific sophistication of little boys pulling the wings off flies. Almost all of them require whole, live, healthy fetuses. In other words, they aren't just going to take jars of fetus puree that was going to be flushed down the clinic's lab sink anyway. They are going to have to arrange special abortion techniques, at greater risk to the mother, to get their coveted specimens.

This would create a black market in fetuses. A poor woman with no other way to feed her family might be driven to deliberately conceive fetuses to sell to these ghouls in white coats until their wracked and scarred bodies became incapable of bearing another child.

Of course, if there is nothing wrong with abortion, there is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to do this.

And that is precisely the point.

Letter Number: 225

A noted abortion fanatic recently lambasted pro-lifers for opposing the abortion pill, RU-486. She claimed that the drug has the potential to fight breast cancer, and that by opposing RU-486, pro-lifers are consigning women to die of cancer.

This is especially hypocritical coming from someone who defends abortion, which studies have linked with an increased breast cancer risk. The truth is that this whole thing is just a diversionary tactic. Pro-lifers have never objected to legitimate medical research with any drug, even drugs that can be used to cause an abortion. If RU-486 was ever discovered to have any beneficial effects, nobody would stand in the way of marketing it for legitimate health reasons.

However, it should never be given to pregnant women. Abortion is not a legitimate health reason. It is taking the life of a very young human being--and in a nasty way, to boot. RU-486 causes the placenta to deteriorate, and the little human dies of starvation and oxygen deprivation. Nobody can honestly call this a legitimate use of a drug.

Let's be honest--the only practical application of RU-486 is killing. As such, it should be forbidden.

Letter Number: 226

Almost all people agree that doctors should not be permitted to stab their patients to death with scalpels. This does not mean we oppose surgery. We oppose the illegitimate and deadly misuse of what should be instruments of healing. Why should RU-486 be any different? If there was a legitimate medical use for it, nobody would object to such use. There are already drugs on the market in the U.S. that might cause an abortion if they were given to a pregnant woman. Some abortionists are currently experimenting on women with these drugs, to learn how to use them for killing instead of healing. The bottom line is, RU-486 enthusiasts want it for one reason and one reason only: to make it easier for doctors to kill tiny human beings. So it makes sense to ban a drug that has no use but to kill. It is, as famous geneticist Jerome Lejeune called it, "the human pesticide."

How can a pesticide against humans be medicine? It isn't.

Letter Number: 227

An abortion fanatic recently lambasted pro-lifers for opposing the abortion pill. She claimed that by opposing RU-486, pro-lifers are condemning women to die of cancer.

Of course this whole line of reasoning assumes that the abortion industry is interested in RU-486 for some purpose other than abortions.

When the subject of RU-486 first came up, the abortion industry made no bones about why they wanted it. They thought that because it is less visually violent than mechanical abortion, it would be more acceptable. However, the American people weren't fooled. They understood that if it's wrong to kill a child with a suction machine, it's wrong to do it chemically. The abortion industry lost what they thought was going to be a real advantage.

Then, some sketchy data came out showing RU-486 might be a treatment for breast cancer. That became something the abortion industry could exploit. After all, who would deny women a drug that might save them from dying from cancer?

The truth is, nobody opposes non-abortion uses of RU-486. Doctors researching legitimate medical uses of the drug are able to get it. And that's what gets the abortion people's goat. They don't want it to heal--they can have it to heal anytime they want it. They just aren't allowed to import it for the express purpose of killing children.

The very fact that this strikes them as unacceptable tells you scores about their mentality.

Letter Number: 228

An abortion fanatic recently lambasted pro-lifers for opposing the abortion pill. She claimed that by opposing RU-486, pro-lifers are condemning women to die of cancer.

I'm no expert in this field, but the material I've seen about RU-486 being used as a treatment for breast cancer and brain tumors sure makes it seem like women are being used as guinea pigs. But still, no pro-lifer wants to see any woman experiencing one of these tragic circumstances denied something that might help her. So let me propose this: Why don't the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers set aside their differences on abortion, and address this issue?

Our part of the compromise is that we will agree to immediately stop our opposition to RU-486. The pro-choice part of the compromise is to agree to a federal law ensuring that it can only be dispensed by physicians and not given to pregnant women.

Of course, everyone knows what the pro-choice response will be. They will look American women right in the face and say, "If we can't have RU-486 to kill babies, you can just die."