Scientists are seeking to eliminate the 14-day rule for experimenting on live human embryos. They ultimately believe any child before (or perhaps after) birth should be fair game. However, the Michigan Constitution could block them from such experiments here.
In the early days of abortion, amoral scientists conducted horrific experiments on live unborn children. Consider this one from 1968, where aborted babies were immediately submerged in oxygenated liquid to see how long they could stay alive:
“For the whole 5 hours of life, the fetus did not respire. Irregular gasping movements, twice a minute occurred in the middle of the experiment but there was not proper respiration. Once the profusion [pumping in of oxygenated blood] was stopped, however, the gasping respiratory efforts increased to 8 to 10 per minute.”
These practices were generally condemned once they were sufficiently exposed. Now, amoral scientists are looking to formally approve them. In truth, they were never really horrified by those past experiments.
Currently, scientists have adopted a 14-day rule for experiments on living human embryos. In some territories the 14-day rule is a law, and in others it’s a guideline. Once the child has developed for 14 days after fertilization, the child must be killed.
The rule was always more about feasibility than ethics, but it gave some people comfort. Though we would be killing “leftover” human beings from in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments, we would only be killing them early in their development. We would never purposefully create a human life only to experiment on it when it has a heart, or lungs, or a face… right?
Calls are growing to remove this 14-day rule for human vivisection. Recent research has made it feasible to sustain a child outside the womb longer than 14 days. As one Israeli researcher put it, “So I would advocate growing it [a human embryo] until day 40 and then disposing of it. Instead of getting tissue from abortions, let’s take a blastocyst and grow it.” He’s endorsing the practice of fetal farming.
Why stop at day 40? Why not 40 weeks?
We mean it when we say “vivisection”: the experimentation on a live being. This debate mirrors the abortion debate, where otherwise intelligent human beings will plainly assert that “science” doesn’t know if a child is alive half-way through the process of birth, and therefore things like partial-birth abortion ought to be legal.
It’s not just one rogue researcher. The International Society for Stem Cell Research announced they were waiting for President Trump to leave office before changing their guidelines to remove the 14-day limit. What will the new limit be? Likely just beyond what is possible today. Perhaps they feel secure enough to remove the limit entirely. After all, Planned Parenthood got away with human organ trafficking just a few years ago, and is being richly rewarded today with taxpayer dollars.
This is how people who don’t value life operate: they deceive. They just need a foot in the door. This pattern is the same for other prolife issues. A “slight tweak” to allow abortions in just a few cases turns into abortion-on-demand. Laws permitting assisted suicide just for those with 6 months to live are extended to euthanizing children.
It’s boiling a frog. What seems monstrous at first is finally achieved after allowing a few “concerning” or “controversial” steps.
This isn’t our personal opinion, this is their admitted game-plan: “‘I agree the rule has to be changed, but it should be done in an incremental manner, on a case-by-case basis,’ says Alfonso Martinez Arias, a developmental biologist at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, who thinks researchers should ease their experiments forward a day or two at a time so they don’t lose public support.”
Let’s call this what it is: the noble lie. People are led to believe the line will be drawn here, and then the line moves again, usually after enough time has passed for previous promises and statements to fade from memory. Amoral scientists feel so secure in these noble lies that they are openly admitting them. It’s just 15 days… just 3 weeks, just 4 weeks…whatever we can get away with today to keep enough public support.
Scientists behind this move have no discernable moral line in the sand. Their real, monstrous belief is they should be able to experiment on any “unwanted” child before birth—in any way they see fit. They believe they should even be able to create children for this purpose: fetal farming. You shouldn’t even have a say, you ignorant rube! Don’t take our word for it; prestigious universities employ thinkers today who argue children after birth don’t have a right to life—especially if they are disabled.
If they loudly insist they truly believe in the new guidelines this time, just remember the last ethical line they drew was done with 100% dishonesty. Like an abuser, they will continue gaslighting you as long as they can get away with it. What else do you call a person who purposefully deceives you over and over—even though they may believe this is all for the “greater good”?
Let’s revisit one example from Michigan, which is extremely relevant. When amoral scientists wanted to kill human embryos for research here, they narrowly passed a state constitutional amendment to allow it in 2008. Do you remember they promised cures for all sorts of horrible diseases? They even promised the amendment would bring revolutionary economic benefits—something for everyone!
How honest were they? How many diseases has human embryonic stem cell research cured? Are the lame getting up out of their wheelchairs and walking again?
Will you believe these charlatans if they say they don’t want to do human vivisection? Just what credibility should they have left after knowingly deceiving dying people, telling them their cures were almost here—if they would just change the laws, and maybe give them some taxpayer funding?
In this case, however, the amoral scientists unwittingly limited themselves. Their amendment wrote the 14-day limit right into the Michigan Constitution. This research being proposed on unborn children older than 14 days could only be allowed here by amending the Michigan Constitution. They probably needed to put that limit in to pass it at the time. While their next step may be illegal, their previous efforts mean unborn children under 14 days can still be used and destroyed at will. How long until they demand this amendment be amended further and the line pushed back again?
People who don’t believe unborn children are human beings ultimately do not believe in an unalienable, universal right to life. That includes your right to life. The slippery slope is real, and they openly admit it as their strategy. “Guidelines” and “safeguards” are simply short-term political ploys. They don’t start their ethical framework from a consideration of what it means for every human being to have inviolable dignity, but instead they ask what they can get away with today to provide utilitarian benefits for the greater good. It never occurs to them that building an inhumane society can never deliver anything in the end but human misery.
It’s not that we want to paint all scientists with a broad brush; after all many—if not most—would be horrified at the idea of human vivisection. At least today. What about tomorrow? Once their colleagues and leaders tell them it’s OK and they’ve been habitually exposed to newer unethical practices, what then? What if their jobs hinge on accepting—or refusing to challenge—the monstrous? Can we expect the honestly noble scientists to resist these noble lies any more than politicians, business leaders, academics, or any of us?
When you hear phrases like “there will be adequate safeguards,” please stop believing it. What evidence do you have to rationally believe that any longer?