by:
A number of years ago, I watched an interview that Geraldo Rivera did with an abortion clinic owner. I think it was a 20/20 episode when Geraldo was working for ABC with Barbara Walters.
Geraldo was holding a small glass vial that contained a small aborted baby. He held it up to the clinic owner’s face and said, “This sure looks like a baby.” The clinic owner turned her face away.
Why did she turn away? Because Geraldo was right; what she wouldn’t look at looked like a baby because it was a baby.
Apparently a lot has changed for Geraldo since then. He describes what he considers to be a “good abortion,” that is, a procedure that snuffs the life out of an unborn baby:
“You know what a good abortion is? A good
abortion is in a clean place where the woman's health is protected as
opposed to a back alley – as opposed to a back alley where the woman
dies where some butcher cutting her to pieces. Why do you think we’ve
got Roe v. Wade and the rest of this....This is baloney.”
As long as killing an unborn baby takes place in a clean place, Geraldo
is OK with the procedure. He’s against “some butcher cutting” a pregnant
woman “to pieces,” but it’s a high ethical standard to cut her unborn
baby “to pieces” and sell the unborn babies body parts for a better
humanity.
“It was then that Gutfeld schooled his
liberal co-host: ‘God bless you. I hope you live long on the back of
dead fetuses, Geraldo... No, I’m using your argument. I'm validating
your argument. You want to live longer on the back of fetuses.
Geraldo dug a deeper immoral hole for himself by telling Gutfield,
“bury your head in the sand and ignore the reality of how medicine gets
done, how research gets done.”Geraldo has buried his head in the sands of history. Here’s a wake-up call.
Nazi war criminals appealed to the American eugenics movement for their defense. In Mein Kampf Adolf Hitler mentioned the American eugenic movement as a developing eugenic model to follow:
“There is today one state in which at
least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable. Of
course, it is not our model German Republic, but the American Union, in
which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially.”1
Let’s not forget the Nazi medical experiments that were used to further the cause of medical science. The Jews were going to be exterminated on anyway, so why not use them to advance science?:“Nazi human experimentation was a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners (including children), largely Jews from across Europe, but also Romani, Sinti, ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs and disabled Germans, by Nazi Germany in its concentration camps mainly in the early 1940s, during World War II and the Holocaust.
“Prisoners were forced into
participating; they did not willingly volunteer and no consent was given
for the procedures. Typically, the experiments resulted in
death, trauma, disfigurement or permanent disability, and as such are
considered as examples of medical torture.”
The unborn babies didn't give their consent to be aborted and to have
their organs and other body parts to be used to advance medical
science.The question whether the data gleamed from Nazi medical experiments should be used today in a research setting is still debated. The following is from Baruch C. Cohen’s article “The Ethics of Using Medical Data from Nazi Experiments”:
“[A]fter reviewing the graphic
descriptions of how the Nazis conducted the experiments, it became
increasingly difficult to remain objective regarding its subsequent use.
The difficulty of objectively analyzing the use of Nazi data was
further complicated by the use of the amorphous term, ‘data.’
"‘Data’ is merely an impersonal
recordation of words and numbers. It seems unattached to the tortured or
their pain. Once cannot fully confront the dilemma of using the results
of Nazi experiments without sensitizing one's self to the images of the
frozen, the injected, the inseminated, and the sterilized.
"The issue of whether to use the Nazi
data is a smokescreen from the reality of human suffering. Instead of
the word ‘data,’ I suggest that we replace it with an Auschwitz bar of
soap. This horrible bar of soap is the remains of murdered Jews. The
image sensitizes and personalizes our dilemma. Imagine the extreme
feeling of discomfort, and the mortified look of horror upon discovering
that one just showered with the remains of murdered Jews. The ghastly
thought of the Nazis melting human beings (and perhaps even one's close
relatives) together for a bar of soap precludes any consideration of its
use.
"How could any civilized person divorce
the horror from the carnage without numbing one's self to the screams of
the tortured and ravaged faces of the Holocaust? Indeed, it is only
with this enhanced sensitivity to the suffering that one can accurately
deal with the Nazi ‘data.’”2
Blacks, often thought of as less than human, were also subjected to
medical experiments to further advances in medicine. There was the
Tuskegee Syphilis “clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by
the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of
untreated syphilis in rural African-American men in Alabama. They were
told that they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.
. . ."
Since it was for “science,” and blacks weren’t equal to whites, a utilitarian ethic was considered legitimate for what turned out to be “the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history.”
Geraldo Rivera and many liberals like him are some of the biggest hypocrites. They are the first to bring up some charge of “micro-aggression,” and they are the last to condemn the killing of tens of millions of unborn babies.
No comments:
Post a Comment