The Culture of Death: More Like the Nazis Than You Think

I have often been excoriated by the pro-abortion industry crowd for comparing the practice of abortion to the genocide practiced on the Jews by the Nazis in WWII. In their apoplexy, they claim that there is no comparison between the two heinous practices, and attempt to invoke Godwin's Law because I even attempted to make such a seemingly hyperbolic comparison.

But is the comparison with the practice of the killing of innocent developing human beings that different from what was practiced by the likes of Adolph Hitler, Josef Mengele, or for that matter, Pol Pot?

Many have heard the stories of the Nazis making bar soap from the bodies of the Jews that were exterminated by them.

Well, consider this:

Neocutis' key ingredient known as "Processed Skin Proteins" was developed at the University of Luasanne from the skin tissue of a 14-week gestation electively-aborted male baby donated by the University Hospital in Switzerland. Subsequently, a working cell bank was established, containing several billion cultured skin cells to produce the human growth factor needed to restore aging skin. The list of products using the cell line include: Bio-Gel, Journee, Bio-Serum, Prevedem, Bio Restorative Skin Cream and Lumiere. But Vinnedge is calling for a full boycott of all Neocutis products, regardless of their source.

Yep. using the remains of aborted developing human beings to make moisturizing skin lotion.

Given that according to legend, the Nazis utilized the remains of murdered Jews to manufacture bar soap, the actions of the culture of death as shown in this story suggest that it wouldn't be such an unfair comparison after all, would it?

Well, as Paul Harvey would say, "Hold the phone!"

"No human soap"? This is true, but misleading. Though there is some evidence that soap was made from corpses on a very limited experimental scale, the rumored "mass production" was never done, and no soap made from human corpses is known to exist.

Notwithstanding of the fact that millions of Jews (as well as Poles, Gypsies and others) suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis, the Nazis didn't actually make soap from human remains.

Thus, to compare the makers of this hand lotion to the Nazis is indeed an unfair comparison.

These ghouls are far worse.

(Via Gateway Pundit)

Regarding The Right to "Choose."

A libertarian acquaintance of mine and I share a number of views in common; we are both for smaller and less intrusive government, as well as the right to pursue happiness in ways of our own choosing.

Where my libertarian acquaintance and I part ways is the question of abortion, and a woman's so-called right to choose whether or not to maintain the developing life inside her womb. Although this acquaintance is personally pro-life, she appears to think that it is not necessarily the role of government to dictate whether a woman must carry a baby to term.

I wrote,

"I can get behind much of what you believe in.

Except for the abortion part.

You see, my right to do what I want with my fist ends with your face.

And the right of what a person can do with his or her body ends when that person's choice interferes with another innocent person's God-given right to live, no matter what station in life or life stage one finds oneself. (read it in the preamble to the Constitution)

The woman's so-called right to "choose" is not a question of freedom. It goes much deeper than that. It's a question of one's fundamental right to exist. When that is called into question, the right to "freedom" is moot."

Yes, one has a right to engage in the behavior that may or may not produce a life. But one does not have a right nor necessarily the freedom to escape dealing with the consequences of one's choices, especially when that choice impinges on another's fundamental right of existence.

***UPDATE***

My correspondent wrote back:

I am personally a pro life person! That is why I say freedom of choice - instead of prochoice- the pro choice folks believe pro choice means their choice – I disagree- I believe pro choice means that I am freed to choose life and I DO! Listen to last weeks show and you will hear me say so!

To which I responded,

Yes, one has a right to engage in the behavior that may or may not produce a life. But one does not have a right nor necessarily the freedom to escape dealing with the consequences of one's choices.

She went on...

I agree Leo- we just can not stop people from doing things they want to do- I wish I could but that is God’s job not mine! I answer to God and so will they!

To which I responded

No, we cannot stop people from doing things they want to do, but we CAN hold them accountable.

We have laws that codify against murder. We have laws that codify against robbery and crimes against person and against property.

Why should the unborn, developing human being be unprotected by the rule of law? Why should their status and the protections afforded them be any different than any other human being?

Are the unborn 3/5ths of a person? Are you comparing the unborn to slaves, with no rights, especially that of the most fundamental right of all, that being the right to exist?

You say you are pro life.

I don't believe you.

Either you believe that the developing fetus is a human being, and is entitled to unalienable rights, or you don't.

Let's be honest, here.

...to be continued?

***UPDATE***

My correspondent wrote back:

Leo-

I told where I stand if you are going to call me a liar- we have nothing else to discuss.

Have a good evening.

To which I responded,

Betty Jean, what I am saying is that you are being intellectually dishonest.

You say you are pro life, a position which, by definition, holds that the developing fetus is indeed human; yet you are unwilling to assign human rights to that which you ostensibly deem human.

Realize that saying, "I'm pro-life, and I wish everyone was, but I understand that others will make different decisions," is not in the same league as saying, "I like coconut on my donuts, and I really wish everyone liked coconut on their donuts, but I understand that others may not." The former carries with it real life and death implications, while the latter is merely a preference.

Realize that when one says one is pro-life, that means that one truly understands that it is indeed a separate and distinct life developing within the womb. Yes, a LIFE.

Of course, saying that you're pro-life but simultaneously recognize other women's right to "choose" may score you points by those on both sides of the issue who haven't taken the time to parse the illogicality of what you stated. But realize that by saying what you're saying, you have effectively negated your pro-life stance by its very definition. You have in effect made a non-statement.

Yes, Betty Jean, I am challenging your beliefs by identifying the inconsistencies inherent in that which you state you believe.

I understand that can be an uncomfortable feeling.

But if I can see the inconsistency in your stated beliefs, it is my contention that others in your audience can also see that inconsistency, which may lead them to question your credibility.

What I'm asking is that you take a step back, and take a good, long, hard look at your stated belief regarding abortion.

Don't rationalize it. I mean, take an honest look at it.

Again, if you can't be honest with me, at least be honest with yourself.

Consider this an exercise in constructive criticism.

-Leo-

...developing.

The Wages of "The Culture of Death?"

For years now we've been told that we need to de-populate mother earth, either through the use of contraception, or via its insidious stepchild, abortion. As the Abortion Ticker shows on the sidebar of this blog, over 12,000,000 would-be American citizens never got a chance to take a breath because of abortion--and that's only been since the year 2000.

While in the dominant leftist culture, where death and/or the absence of more life is more or less glorified as the cleansing required to re-make the world and to downsize humanity's carbon footprint and affront against the earth's natural resources, another "death cult" has been making other plans.

While the video doesn't really make a direct link between the twin practices of contraception and abortion (with the latter often being utilized as the former) and the downslide of re-population in European and North American countries, there can be no denying that their impact has been nothing less than marked.

Like the global warming hoax, the nattering about the supposed ticking population bomb was ill-thought out from the start, and like the global warming hoax, we, our children, and their children's children will continue to pay the price. And pay it dearly.

Hope you enjoy your brave new world, liberals.

You created it. And now we all have to live in it.

Thanks.

The Real "Little Eichmanns"

...can be found within the human embryo harvesting industry:

A major research project is to be announced this week that will culminate in three years with the first transfusions into human volunteers of "synthetic" blood made from the stem cells of spare IVF embryos. It could help to save the lives of anyone from victims of traffic accidents to soldiers on a battlefield by revolutionising the vital blood transfusion services, which have to rely on a network of human donors to provide a constant supply of fresh blood.

Hmmm... I wonder just how many of those human embryos, yes, human lives, "volunteered" for this.

There's something very ghoulish about people destroying innocent life so that they could improve the quality of their own lives.

Oh, there are the usual culture-of-death liberals who will argue to their dying day that these tiny lives are nothing more than a collection of cells; are sub-human, and as such are quite expendible.

After all, it becomes easy to kill when the recipient of your deed is stripped of his or her humanity, doesn't it?

I'm sure that the operators of Auschwitz, Treblinka and Sachsenhausen will likewise vouch for that fact.

FINALLY.

Colorado, a weary nation will turn its eyes toward you.

Unborn Personhood Amendment Makes Colorado Ballot
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
May 30, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - An amendment to the Colorado Constitution that defines a "person" as "any human being from the moment of fertilization" will go before state voters in the Nov. 4 general election.

Amendment 48, entitled "Definition of a Person," was approved for a statewide vote on Thursday by Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman, whose office validated 103,000 signatures on petitions for the ballot initiative -- 27,000 more than required.

The petition drive -- which actually collected 130,050 signatures -- originated with 20-year-old Kristi Burton, who said in a news release that she developed a deep passion for the pro-life movement at 13 years of age.

"All humans should be protected by love and by law, and this amendment is a historic effort to ensure equal rights for every person," Burton noted in her statement.

"We at Colorado for Equal Rights are incredibly thankful for our many volunteers who worked so hard for each signature we delivered to the secretary of state's office and the churches who stood behind us and supported us," she added. "This victory is the voice of the people, and all credit goes to our Creator."

If approved by voters next fall, the amendment would guarantee every person, at every stage of life, the right to life, liberty, equality of justice and due process of law, Burton said. And while the initiative would not make abortion illegal, supporters and opponents alike believe it could lay the legal framework to legislate against abortion.

"For the first time in 40 years of 'legalized' child killing, pro-lifers have moved an entire state to consider the God-given right to life of the unborn," said Brian Rohrbough, president of American Right to Life, in a statement of his own on Thursday.

"Abortion is wrong because it's a baby; it's always wrong to intentionally kill a baby," said Rohrbough, "even when its father is a criminal, as with incest."

"The abortion clinic covers up the crime of incest and typically sends the victim back home to her rapist," the group's Web site states. "Even worse, they often send her home with her rapist, the criminal who brought her to the clinic."

"There are no 'hard cases,'" said Steve Curtis, American Right to Life's vice president and former chair of the Colorado Republican Party. "Abortion for incest emboldens a criminal to rape his young relative, helps him escape being caught, tempts him to repeat his crime and is not compassionate because it kills a baby and increases the woman's suffering."

"Abortion clinics nationwide refuse to comply with mandatory reporting laws for suspected child rape," noted Jo Scott, director of the group Pro-Life Colorado.

"We brought audio-taped evidence of that failure to the Colorado attorney general's office, and they chose to look the other way," Scott said. "Personhood for the unborn will reduce crimes against women and children."

"American Right to Life applauds the dozens of Colorado politicians and candidates who have publicly endorsed the personhood amendment," Rohrbough added, "and urges all Christians, pro-life leaders and organizations to support personhood as the only foundation on which to reverse the de-criminalization of killing unborn children."

Of course, the abortion industry, who makes their living from slaughtering the innocent, is having coniptions, and is throwing every cliche they have at the amendment:

However, opponents -- including a "broad-based coalition including nurses, doctors, religious leaders, community groups and health-care advocacy organizations" called Protect Families, Protect Choices -- have claimed that the amendment is "dangerous and deceptive."

"Access to affordable health care is already tough enough for Colorado families," the organization's Web site states. "But now a deceptively written ballot measure would put women's lives at risk and threaten access to health care.

"This amendment could make abortion illegal at all times, even in the earliest weeks of pregnancy," the site adds. "It could outlaw abortion even in the cases of rape, incest and when a woman's life is at risk."

The ballot initiative is "a dangerous attempt to put politicians and lawyers in the middle of our most personal and private health-care decisions," the coalition adds. "It would even open the door to letting prosecutors investigate miscarriages and go through our most private medical records.

"The amendment is so extreme that it could even ban several common forms of birth control and prohibit in-vitro fertilization and life-saving stem cell research," says the coalition, which includes the League of Women Voters and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.

First of all, abortion is not "health care." [Yet another example of this] No one "gets healthy" from abortion; least of all the aborted. Second of all, tell me one instance in which embryonic stem cells saved one life. The dirty little secret is that there isn't any, since embryonic stem cells are too unstable to be useful. Yet the Mengelians in the abortion industry continue on with the lie.

The pro-death movement is based on one concept and one concept alone: Convenience of the living trumps the sanctity of life.

While the absence of abortion as a possibility may indeed make the lives of those who are in the midst of an unwanted pregnancy more "complicated" for a period of time, the "final solution" of the theft of a chance at life itself from a developing human being is by no means a just alternative.

And Coloradans will have a glowing opportunity to shout that from the Rocky Mountain-tops come this November.

The Natives at the NYT are complaining...

... that some of their potential blood sacrifices have been taken away by the Supreme Court. The jackals editorial board states:

Among the major flaws in yesterday's Supreme Court decision giving the federal government power to limit a woman's right to make decisions about her health was its fundamental dishonesty.

Under the modest-sounding guise of following existing precedent, the majority opinion — written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — gutted a host of thoughtful lower federal court rulings, not to mention past Supreme Court rulings.

It severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth. The justices went so far as to eviscerate the crucial requirement, which dates to the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, that all abortion regulations must have an exception to protect a woman's health.

Other jackals are joining in the howling:

ADL Disappointed With Supreme Court Ruling On Partial Birth Abortion Act

New York, NY, April 19, 2007 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) issued the following statement expressing its disappointment at the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act:

We are deeply troubled by the ramifications of the Supreme Court's ruling on abortion. By upholding, for the first time, an abortion statute which contains no exception for the health of the woman, the Supreme Court has undermined a woman's right to choose and to act in accordance with her conscience and the dictates of her faith.

We continue to believe that Americans should have the freedom to make difficult decisions of conscience and health without government interference.

ADL joined an amicus brief in the case filed by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Rights.

For the health of the woman? In the case of partial-birth infanticide, since when is that an issue? Does the NYT editorial board think it intellectually honest to suggest that delivering a baby alive, is any more detrimental or traumatic to a woman's health than artificially inducing womb contractions, turning the baby around in the womb so that it is delivered breech, and inserting a pair of scissors in its skull (and in the birth canal, in the process) just before the baby's head exits?

Just who is being "fundamentally dishonest" here?

It just so happened that a NARAL spokessavage was on Andy Barnett's Hot Talk this morning, where the following ensued:

When we discussed this procedure with spokesperson Melissa Reid with NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota she said that any time you describe a medical procedure such as this in detail it sounds much more gruesome than it is. She compared it with a procedure like open heart surgery which sounds much more disgusting than it is. WHAT? Excuse me? That has to qualify as one of the most outrageous things ever uttered on Hot Talk. I don't even need to say anything else. This is a perfect example of how warped someone's mind is on the other side of this issue.

We also talked about how this ban does provide exceptions when the woman giving birth's life is in danger which apparently as not good enough for Ms. Reid who wanted the language in the bill to provide exceptions for "any health concerns" for the woman. That's pretty vague wording and opens up the door for any kind of "emotional scarring" or "psychological damage." Why even have the ban at all? When it comes down to deciding between saving a life or health concerns, I don't know about you, but I'm siding with saving a human life!

It's quite simple, really. Whether it pertains to the abortion issue, the Iraq War, or any issue under the sun, the leadership of the democrat party (and all of its minions thereof) have never been about doing the right thing. Rather, in their inbred, intractable narcissism, the liberal left has always been about self-centered expediency, as well as tenaciously holding onto what they perceive as power, for power's sake. Whether in the arena of government, politics, or in what should be the sacredness and safety of a mother's womb, one can count on leftists to invariably choose self-absorbed expediency over what is good and right. And their wholesale endorsement of a barbaric procedure that by definition can never be "medically necessary" is testament that they will go to any length to hold onto power and wield it, regardless of consequence.

The NYT's editorial had at least this much correct:

For anti-abortion activists, this case has never been about just one controversial procedure. They have correctly seen it as a wedge that could ultimately be used to undermine and perhaps eliminate abortion rights eventually.

To eliminate what could only be thoughtfully weighed as barbaric procedures, at any stage of pregnancy, should be considered a victory for any thinking person.

On the positive side, along with the Supreme Court's views changing, Americans' views on abortion, as a whole, appear to be changing as well:

Downward Trend Continues

After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.

Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government's Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood's special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.

The CDC ordinarily develops its annual report on the basis of data received from 52 central health agencies (50 states plus New York City and the District of Columbia). AGI gets its numbers from direct surveys of abortionists.

Hopefully indicative of a trend that increasing numbers of Americans are realizing that we're dealing with human lives, not masses of tissue.
--------------------------------------------