Archive for the Fetal Development Category

Abortion has been a brutal and violent procedure from day one

Posted in Fetal Development, fetal heartbeat, Fetal Pain, fetal research, Fetal Surgery, Fetal Tissue, Roe, Unborn Child with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 7, 2018 by saynsumthn

Doctor sees tiny living baby ‘swimming’ in amniotic sac after ectopic pregnancy

abortion, baby 8 weeks, pregnancy

In 1970, Fordham law professor Robert M. Byrn detailed his objections to abortion in a case published in the Notre Dame Law Review. Byrn, a criminal law specialist, gave explicit details of the abortion procedure in this article and also filed an unsuccessful challenge to New York’s state abortion law. Byrn wrote of the preborn baby, in part, saying, “The fetus at eight weeks has a pumping heart with fully deployed blood vessels and has all other internal organs. The face is completely formed, and the arms, legs, hands, feet, toes and fingers are partially formed. The fetus will react to tickling of the mouth or nose, and there is readable electrical activity coming from the brain.”

Byrn then shared some haunting statements from physician Paul E. Rockwell, M.D., Director of Anesthesiology at Leonard Hospital in Troy, New York, who said, “Photographs of the fetus around the eighth week present an unmistakable human baby with rather blunt features and extremities.  However, such pictures invariably have been taken after the death of the fetus following an abortion,” adding, “It is death which superimposes the bluntness of appearance.”

READ: These 10 images may change your mind about abortion

Image: Robert M Byrn challenges NY abortion (Image credit: NYT 12/4/1971)

Robert M Byrn challenges NY abortion (Image credit: NYT 12/4/1971)

Rockwell went on to describe his experience seeing a child yet living after treating a woman for an ectopic pregnancy at two months:

Eleven years ago while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy (at two months gestation) I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human being ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny (approx. 1 cm.) human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent, as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers.

The baby was extremely alive and swam about the sac approximately one time per second, with a natural swimmer’s stroke. This tiny human did not look at all like the photos and drawings and models of “embryos” which I have seen, nor did it look like a few embryos I have been able to observe since then, obviously because this one was alive!

…When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this age.

It is my opinion that if the lawmakers and people realized that very vigorous life is present, it is possible that abortion would be found much more objectionable than euthanasia.

Rockwell went on to describe gruesome abortion procedures being used at that time, including the saline abortion (see Baby Choice) and hysterotomy abortion, as shown in this 1981 Hayes Publishing pro-life brochure (graphic image warning).

[Note: the images below are not in the original article]

Image: Saline abortion 1981 Hayes Publishing brochure

Saline abortion 1981 Hayes Publishing brochure

Image: Hysterotomy abortion 1981 Hayes Publishing brochure

Hysterectomy abortion 1981 Hayes Publishing brochure

Live Action News has previously described gruesome experiments on living abortion survivors, dating back to the 1930s. University of Pittsburgh anatomist Davenport Hooker conducted research on children who survived surgical abortion by hysterotomy and, in 1952, he assembled his footage into a silent educational film called “Early Fetal Human Activity.” The film showed the muscle activity of six fetuses ranging from 8 1/2 to 14 weeks.” Video from that film can be viewed below (warning: Images may be disturbing to some)…

Byrn also quoted Dr. H. P. Dunn, of the Royal College of Surgeons and Royal College of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians regarding one of the abortion methods used:

“… to dilate the entrance to the womb, then insert a large forceps and drag out the baby and the afterbirth. This is not as easy as it sounds. The surgeon must work by touch alone. He gives a tug – a tiny arm comes away; then other fragments of the body. The head is always difficult; the skull gets crushed; the eyeballs protrude. All the time the bleeding is profuse. When the abortion has been completed,” writes Dr. Dunn.

“The problem of the disposal of the remains has to be faced by the nursing staff. Incineration is the favored method. So ends the life of another human being – thrown out with a mess of blood clots and dirty swabs, unwanted, unremembered.”

Byrn quoted Dunn on another abortion procedure:

“The woman has a general anesthetic, an abdominal incision, the womb is incised from top to bottom and the baby lifted out. It makes some weak movement of its arms and legs, and tries to breathe. Sometimes it manages a pathetic cry like a kitten; then after a few minutes it dies an asphyxial death and lies coldly in a stainless steel bowl.”

The third method is the most “scientific,” added Byrn, describing the horrific saline abortion method, which actually burns off the baby’s skin:

“A large needle,” Dr. Dunn tells us, “is inserted through the abdomen into the womb and a strong solution of salt or glucose is injected. The baby can be felt to make a few convulsive movements, and within a few minutes it dies. In about twenty-four hours labor starts and the already disintegrating baby is delivered.”

READ: Abortion survivor to Congress: ‘If abortion is about women’s rights, then what were mine?’

“Abortion is a brutal and violent procedure, which is fundamentally repugnant to the philosophy of medical practice,” Byrn stated.

Byrn later called the infamous Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide “the worst tradition of a tragic judicial aberration that periodically wounds American jurisprudence and, in the process, irreparably harms untold numbers of human beings.”

“Three generations of Americans have witnessed decisions by the United States Supreme Court which explicitly degrade fellow human beings to something less in law than “persons in the whole sense,” he said. “Are not three generations of error enough?”

This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Roe v. Wade violates science, which confirms preborn children are human beings

Posted in Abortion History, Fetal Development, Roe, Supreme Court with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 6, 2018 by saynsumthn

first trimester, pro-life

Some people, especially those in the pro-choice camp, believe that “personhood” and “being a member of the human species” are two different things. But are they? By creating this artificial divide, society can deem certain members of the human family “persons” while denying that title to others of that same family. During arguments in the Roe v. Wade case before the full U.S. Supreme Court in 1972, Texas Attorney General Robert C. Flowers argued for the state against abortion legalization. Flowers was asked by Justice Thurgood Marshall, “Is there any medical testimony of any kind that says that a fetus is a person at the time of inception?”

In response, Flowers submitted dissenting arguments made by Senior Judge Campbell in a 1971 Illinois abortion case, Doe v.s Scott, which Flowers said was “very similar to the case we have before us.”

READ: Science shows the humanity of preborn children — so why are scientists ignoring it?

Image: Robert C. Flowers (Image: Oyez, 24 Aug. 2018, www.oyez.org/advocates/robert_c_flowers)

Robert C. Flowers (Image: Oyez, 24 Aug. 2018, http://www.oyez.org/advocates/robert_c_flowers)

In that case, Justice Campbell spoke against amending or repealing Illinois’ existing abortion statute. He wrote, “We, as did the Illinois Legislature, have before us the following undisputed facts relating to fetal life.” Campbell eloquently presented facts about the development of the preborn child, quoted in part below (emphasis added):

Seven weeks after conception the fertilized egg develops into a well proportioned small scale baby. It bears all of the familiar external features and all the internal organs of an adult human being. It has muscles; hands with fingers and thumbs; and the legs have recognizable knees, ankles and toes.

The brain is operative…. Brain waves have been noted at 43 days. The heart beats; the stomach produces digestive juices; the liver manufactures blood cells; and the kidneys begin to function by extracting uric acid from the blood.

In the third month it can kick its legs, turn its feet, curl and fan its toes, make a fist, move its thumb, bend its wrist, turn its head, and even open its mouth and swallow and drink the amniotic fluid that surrounds it. Thumb sucking has been noted at this age… with inhaling and exhaling respiratory movements.

In the twelfth week it can move its thumb, in opposition to its fingers. It swallows regularly. It has active reflexes. The facial expressions of a fetus in its third month are already similar to the facial expression of its parents….

In the third month finger nails appear; sexual differentiation is apparent in both internal and external organs….

From the twelfth to the sixteenth week the child grows to eight or ten inches in height and receives oxygen and food from its mother through the placental attachment. In the fifth month it gains two inches in height and ten ounces in weight…. It sleeps and wakes and may be awakened by external vibrations.

In the sixth month the fetus develops a strong muscular grip with its hands; starts to breathe regularly and can maintain a respiratory response for twenty-four hours if born prematurely…. A child has been known to survive between twenty to twenty-five weeks old

“Indeed, as medical science progresses in the field of detection, the date of potential viability moves continually closer to earlier stages of gestation,” Justice Campbell wrote.

He also quoted from Dr. Arnold Gesell, who wrote in his book, “The Embryology of Behavior”:

Our own repeated observation of a large group of fetal infants (an individual born and living at any time prior to forty weeks gestation) left us with no doubt that psychologically they were individuals. Just as no two looked alike, so no two behaved precisely alike. One was impassive when another was alert. Even among the youngest there were discernible differences in vividness, reactivity and responsiveness. These were genuine individual differences, already prophetic of the diversity which distinguishes the human family.

Today, a corporation is considered a “person” and yet the Supreme Court in Roe wrongly determined that a preborn child was not. This irony is reminiscent of the infamous Dred Scott case which ruled a Black man was not a full person.

READ: Harvard Law Journal concludes: The preborn child is a constitutional person

The Fourteenth Amendment, known for giving citizenship and equal rights under the law to former slaves and African Americans, should also apply to the preborn, as Live Action News contributor Kristi Burton Brown previously documented.

Fordham law professor Robert M. Byrn addressed this just prior to the Roe case, in an article published in 1970 in the Notre Dame Review:

From its original intent to safeguard Negroes against discrimination by Whites, the fourteenth amendment has evolved into a broad guarantee of equality both to artificial persons and to all natural persons irrespective of citizenship, sex or race. In an era of increased sensitivity to human rights, it would be the ultimate in irony if the corporation which manufactures the instruments used to abort the unborn human child was entitled, as an artificial person, to equal protection of the law, while the unborn child, who is in all respects qualitatively human, is deprived of that protection.

There is no doubt that the child in the womb is a human person deserving of constitutional protection.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

1970’s Commission looks into fetal experimentation and research

Posted in Abortion History, Fetal Development, fetal heartbeat, Fetal Homicide, Fetal Organs, Fetal Pain, fetal Remains, fetal research, Fetal Stem Cell, Fetal Surgery, Fetal Tissue, The Ryan Program with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 27, 2018 by saynsumthn

Some abortion survivors were kept alive almost a day for experimentation

Image: 10 week old Fetus kept alive via artificial womb (Image credit: Life Magazine Sep 10, 1965)

In part one of this series on fetal research, Live Action News detailed a number of experiments conducted on living abortion survivors. Due to the outrage over such experiments reported in the media in the 1970s, the National Research Act established the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The commission was chaired by Kenneth John Ryan, MD, an abortionist who also taught others how to do abortions.

IMage: Dr. Kenneth Ryan chaired commission on fetal research (Image credit: Harvard Gazette)

Dr. Kenneth Ryan chaired commission on fetal research (Image credit: Harvard Gazette)

A report published by the Harvard Gazette at the time of Ryan’s death states:

 President Jimmy Carter appointed Ken to chair the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

…When he became the Chief of Staff at the Boston Hospital for Women in 1973, one year after the Roe vs Wade decision, he established the first abortion service in a university hospital and included training in the necessary skills as a routine part of residency education. In 1975 Ken credentialed and granted admitting privileges to Dr. Kenneth Edelin, an African-American, even as he was under indictment for manslaughter in a politically motivated prosecution for performing a legal abortion at Boston City Hospital.

The Ryan Program, which bears the doctor’s name and partners with Planned Parenthood, was established in 1999 to train OB-GYN residents in abortion.

Dr. Paul Ramsey, a Professor of Religion at Princeton University, also served on the commission. He wrote a lengthy opinion in the section entitled, “Moral Issues in Fetal Research,” criticizing NIH definitions of life and death regarding the preborn child, with good reason:

The answer seems clear enough: the difference between the life and death of a human fetus/abortus should be determined substantially in the same way physicians use in making other pronouncements of death… the 1973 NIH proposed guidelines studiously refuses to speak of the previable fetus as “living” or having “life.” By studiously refusing to speak of a previable fetus/abortus who may still be medically “alive” and by leaving the determination of viability entirely to the discretion of physician researchers (not even excluding abortuses with respiration from being deemed previable and entered into experimentation), the American guidelines can be faulted for lack of definitional clarity. Indeed, if and only if the previable fetus is human, unique for certain purposes, and alive in significant medical respects–i.e., if it is not dead–could claims be made that researchers need the knowledge uniquely to be gained by using the fetus/abortus while it is still living, growing and reacting as a tiny, whole fetal human being or entity.

This national commission was tasked to investigate and study research involving abortion survivors, and to recommend whether and under what circumstances such research should be conducted or supported by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). Up to this time, the July 1974 “National Research Act” had ruled that the “Secretary may not conduct or support research in the United States or abroad on a living human fetus, before or after the induced abortion of such fetus, unless such research is done for the purpose of assuring the survival of such fetus.”

Report Research on the Fetus

At the time the commission began, a New York Times article detailed how members of the commission had reviewed existing research of human fetuses. Members told the paper that the amount of research already conducted using aborted fetuses was “so substantial as to seem surprising.”

Image: article Hundreds of aborted fetuses delivered outside womb, NYT 1975

Hundreds of aborted fetuses delivered outside womb, NYT 1975

The most controversial form of research the commission found was on the “fetus outside the womb,” involving “fetuses delivered by abortion.” The commission claimed hundreds of reports of such cases had been conducted. Experiments were also conducted on already expired fetuses from spontaneous or induced abortions. Below is a small sample of what the commission found:

  • Physiologic and Metabolic Studies: Fetal hearts, removed just after death of a fetus following hysterotomy abortion, have been studied to establish physiologic response data.
  • Studies of the Pregnant Mother: Women undergoing elective midtrimester abortion have been starved for 87 hours before abortion in an attempt to learn the effects of caloric deprivation on pregnancy and to gain some information as to whether the fetus could adapt to fuels other than glucose.
  • Research With the Previable Fetus Outside the Uterus: To learn whether the human fetal brain could metabolize ketone bodies, brain metabolism was isolated in 8 human fetuses (12-17 weeks’ gestation) after hysterotomy abortion by perfusing the isolated head (the head was separated from the rest of the body). The study demonstrated that, similar to other species, brain metabolism could be supported by ketone bodies during fetal life suggesting avenues of therapy in some fetal disease states.
  • Another technique for studying the ability of the midtrimester fetus to carry out endocrine reactions used 4 fetuses (16-20 weeks’ gestation) immediately after hysterotomy abortion. The fetuses were perfused through their umbilical veins while being housed in a perfusion tank. Fetal tissues were examined at the end of the study.
  • After studies with newborn and fetal mice, cutaneous respiration (breathing through the skin) was studied in 15 fetuses (9-24 weeks’ gestation) from induced abortions. The fetuses were immersed in a salt solution with oxygen at high pressure. The fetuses were judged to be aliveby a pulsating cord or visible heart beat; if necessary the chest was opened to observe the heart. Four fetuses were supported for 22 hours in this attempt at developing a fetal incubator.
  • Seven previable fetuses (200-375 grams) from spontaneous or induced abortions were immersed in a perfusion tank and perfused with oxygenated blood through their umbilical vessels. The fetuses survived and moved for 5-12 hours.

Interestingly, in addition to general experimentation, the commission noted that if the fetus could “feel pain” then experimenting on abortion survivors would not be permissible. Of course, that debate continues to linger despite evidence that they do feel pain.

Still, members were mixed:

The fetus in utero or in process of being aborted provides a more difficult ethical analysis than does the dead fetus or the living viable infant. There is a presumption of viability at any stage in gestation for the living fetus as long as it remains inside the uterus. Thus experimentation involving that fetus must have acceptably low risk of any harmful effect on viability or on the potential for meaningful, healthy life. If the process of abortion has begun, the life of the fetus will soon end. There is debate about whether different standards apply in that situation and we disagree in our own analysis.

One view holds that no risks can be imposed that would not be acceptable for the fetus which was continuing life. Another view will accept an increase in risks if the information is important and alternate ways of obtaining the information are not practical, if the methods of the experiment are acceptable in themselves (i.e., would be used in other classes of human subjects), and if the process of dying for the fetus were not altered in an unacceptable way.

In any event, expected benefits from the experimentation still must be clear and must require the use of the human fetus to gain the desired information. Ethical considerations as to sensory perception by the fetus also must be addressed. We know of no evidence to suggest or support a contention that the fetus at midgestation or earlier, when abortions are performed, is aware of pain or has a psychologic fear of death.

Image: Ban on experimenting on live aborted fetuses (Image credit NYT, April 1975)

Ban on experimenting on live aborted fetuses (Image credit NYT, April 1975)

The commission ultimately drafted several recommendations, including a restriction on experimenting on living abortion survivors. But their report also recommended that research resulting in “no harm to the fetus” be permitted, so long as that research might benefit other fetuses.

Unfortunately, this did not stop the push for the research nor the push to obtain federal funding. According to a historical timeline of fetal research regulations published in a report by the Institute of Medicine:

After the National Commission issued its report (Report and Recommendations: Research on the Fetus), fetal research following abortion was permitted under subsequent [Department of Health Education and Welfare] DHEW regulations for therapeutic reasons, but otherwise held to the standard of “minimal risk.” Minimal risk means that no more potential harm is tolerated than would be encountered in daily life. In the case of a fetus, almost all interventions exceed minimal risk, and the regulations did not distinguish between fetuses that were carried to term and those intended for abortion. The DHEW regulations, however, contained the possibility of waiver of the minimal risk standard on a project-by-project basis by a complicated procedure to be decided ultimately by an Ethics Advisory Board.

Image: article 1975 Ban funding fetal research (Image credit Corpus Christi Times)

1975 Ban funding fetal research (Image credit Corpus Christi Times)

The first Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) was convened in 1978. The sole waiver issued by this body was to test the efficacy of using fetal blood samples for prenatal diagnosis of sickle cell anemia. The charter for the EAB expired in 1980, and despite publication of a draft charter in 1988, it has not been reactivated.

According to CQ Researcher, in 1988, an NIH commission “voted 18–3 to pronounce fetal tissue transplant research ‘acceptable public policy’—a position then unanimously endorsed by the standing advisory committee to the director of the NIH. That advice, however, was rejected in November 1989 by Louis W. Sullivan, the Bush administration’s secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), NIH’s parent department. Sullivan decided instead to extend, indefinitely, the moratorium on NIH funding of fetal tissue research first ordered by the Reagan administration in March 1988. The moratorium barred NIH funding of clinical transplantation studies using tissue from induced abortions.”

However, “The NIH moratorium did not affect privately funded research in the United States.”

Co-chairman on that 1988 NIH panel was none other than Kenneth Ryan, the same abortionist/trainer who chaired the 1970’s commission. When the push for federally funded research failed, Ryan began calling for private funding to experiment on aborted children.

In part three of this series, Live Action News will detail who eventually lifted the ban on federal funding of fetal tissue research and how much taxpayers spend on this research every year.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Not just Nazis: The grisly history of research on abortion survivors

Posted in Abortion History, Fetal Development, fetal Remains, fetal research, Fetal Surgery, Fetal Tissue with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 26, 2018 by saynsumthn

A look back at some of the grisly experiments once conducted on human abortion survivors will most likely make your stomach turn. This history shows the depravity a society can spiral into when medical research is allowed to advance untethered to any sense of ethical morality. Today, as videos of Planned Parenthood staffers haggling over the price of aborted baby body parts come to mind, a look into the fetal research market dating back to the 1930s reveals again how those who experiment on the bodies of tiny victims will often justify their actions as good.

Davenport Hooker’s Fetal Experiments on Living Aborted Babies

Image: Davenport Hooker University of Pittsburgh

Davenport Hooker University of Pittsburgh

Davenport Hooker (Image credit: University of Pittsburgh)

From the 1930s until the mid 1960s, University of Pittsburgh anatomist Davenport Hooker conducted research on children who survived surgical abortion by hysterotomy, a risky procedure similar to Caesarian section, where the doctor opens up the uterus with an incision and pulls the baby out.

Forensic anthropologist Emily K. Wilson authored a paper in the Bulletin of the History of Medicine, explaining how Hooker obtained the abortion survivors:

Immediately following a surgical abortion by hysterotomy, performed on an unnamed woman at a nearby lying-in hospital, Hooker took the seven-week-old fetus to an observation room. He touched and stroked the face, body, arms, and legs as a motion picture camera recorded the fetus’s corresponding movements and reflexes. Over the next thirty-one years, Hooker would observe more than 150 fetuses and prematurely born infants in this manner. The project resulted in over forty articles and one nine-minute medical film and contributed information and photographic stills to numerous scientific and popular publications.

Wilson also writes, “But while Hooker and the 1930s medical and general public viewed live fetuses as acceptable materials for nontherapeutic research, they also shared a regard for fetuses as developing humans with some degree of social value.”

According to PittMed, a publication of the University of Pittsburgh, “Hooker purchased a 35-mm motion picture camera. Having gained the trust and permission of the obstetricians at Magee-Womens Hospital, Hooker was able to observe therapeutically aborted fetuses removed by Caesarian section. Upon stimulating the skin, he recorded the degree of reflex development, and in January of 1933, created the first films ever made of human fetal movement.”

Rutgers professor Johanna Schoen, an abortion supporter, adds, “In 1952, he [Hooker] assembled his footage into a silent educational film called “Early Fetal Human Activity.” The film showed the muscle activity of six fetuses ranging from 8 1/2 to 14 weeks.”

Video from that film can be viewed below (Warning – Images may be disturbing for some):

Author Lynn Morgan also did research on Hooker and discovered a brief account of Hooker’s experiments before the American Philosophical Society were published in a 1938 Time Magazine article entitled, “Embryonic Grasp.” Morgan writes:

“It described how a twenty-five week old fetus “snatched a glass rod weighing three grams from the scientist’s hand, waved it feebly but triumphantly for an instant before the spark of life went out.”

Hooker pointed out to his audience that an abortion survivor at twelve weeks gestation makes a “pretty fair fist.”

Article: Time Magazine Research on aborted baby 1938

Time Magazine Research on aborted baby 1938

The article noted that the doctor was notified by a Pittsburgh hospital, “whenever it has on hand a living abortus so that Dr. Hooker can rush to the scene with his photographer, make pictures and experiments before the fetus expires.”

Writing in her book, “Icons of Life: A Cultural History of Human Embryos,” Morgan seemed troubled by the calloused demeanor of Hooker’s audience and the journalist, writing:

“The journalist cited the “admiring voice” of the scientist as Hooker described his findings before a “spell bound” audience… Didn’t the audience question the ethics of fetal experimentation? Didn’t the audience question whether 149 women would have had to be subjected to major abdominal surgery if the researchers had not wanted the fetuses delivered alive?”

Schoen, who approves of using abortion survivors for research, goes on to write that, “Several of Hooker’s images were published in 1962 in an early pregnancy guidebook, ‘The First Nine Months of Life.’ Its author, Geraldine Flanagan, did not discuss how the fetuses were photographed or mention the conditions, such as therapeutic abortion, that allowed them to be used in research.”

Images: Davenport Hooker fetal specimens featured in First Nine Months of Life

Davenport Hooker fetal specimens featured in First Nine Months of Life

Nurse Testifies Aborted Fetuses Shipped Alive on Ice

In 1972, a former Magee-Women’s Hospital nurse anesthetist testified before the Pennsylvania Abortion Law Commission that she witnessed the hospital shipping aborted and still living human fetuses to researchers for experimentation. Wilhamine Dick told the committee she witnessed “live fetuses being packed on ice” for use in research. According to a March 15, 1972, article published by the Indiana Evening Gazette, the former nurse also told the commission, “It was repulsive to watch live fetuses being packed in ice while still moving and trying to breathe, then being rushed to some laboratory and hear the medical students later discuss the experience of examining the organs of a once live baby.” She added that she resigned because she was “no longer able to accept seeing tiny arms and legs considered routine specimens.”

Image: article 1972 Nurse testifies about living human fetuses shipped alive

1972 Nurse testifies about living human fetuses shipped alive

Stanford University Experiments on Living Aborted Children 

A report by the New York Times detailed experiments which involved scientists at Stanford University who allegedly immersed 15 abortion survivors in a salt solution to see if they could absorb oxygen through the skin. An October 4, 1973, report by the Placerville Mountain Democrat quoted an alleged witness by the name of James Babcock, who told a legislative panel that he “learned that live fetuses had been placed in a special chamber, their ribs cut open to observe their heartbeat under certain conditions.”

report by the Stanford Daily, which did not dispute that the experiments happened, claimed the project had been “terminated in 1969.” In fact, according to the report, Dr. Robert Goodlin, an associate professor of gynecology and obstetrics, performed the research at Stanford in the 1960s and told the paper, “Our goal was to keep the fetus alive.” He added, “Cutting the fetus open was sometimes necessary to observe heart action and at other times to massage the heart.”

Paul Ramsey, author of “The Ethics of Fetal Research,”writes that the longest Goodlin was able to keep a fetus alive was eleven days, adding, “Again, the experiments would have been pointless if those previable abortuses had not been importantly and relevantly ‘alive’ before yet having capacity for respiration.”

The Stanford Daily reported, “Funds for further research were halted in 1969 when it was decided that Goodlin and other scientists were ‘too far away’ from their goal of keeping the fetus alive outside the womb….”

Image: article Stanford Daily Med School Doctors attack fetal research ban

Stanford Daily Med School Doctors attack fetal research ban

The paper also stated:

Stanford, along with other medical schools in the nation, made their research widely known in Life magazine article in September, 1965. Life stated that Goodlin and other scientists were “working toward the day when it would become routine to save prematurely aborted fetuses at almost any age and carry them through to “birth” in artificial wombs.

… In 1965, Life magazine depicted a 10-week-old fetus kept alive in an artificial womb by Goodlin’s team of Stanford physicians. Goodlin said the objective at all times was “to preserve life.”

Image: 10 week old Fetus kept alive via artificial womb (Image: Life Magazine)

10 week old Fetus kept alive via artificial womb (Image: Life Magazine)

That same year, Life Magazine published Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson’s photo essay, “Drama of Life Before Birth.” Nilsson later published many of the images in the book, “A Child is Born.”

Today, there seems to be a bit of a mystery about where Nilsson may have obtained his images. In fact, Time.com claims that some of those babies he photographed had been aborted:

Image: Life Magazine cover from 1965

Life Magazine cover from 1965

In the accompanying story, LIFE explained that all but one of the fetuses pictured were photographed outside the womb and had been removed—or aborted—“for a variety of medical reasons.” Nilsson had struck a deal with a hospital in Stockholm, whose doctors called him whenever a fetus was available to photograph. There, in a dedicated room with lights and lenses specially designed for the project, Nilsson arranged the fetuses so they appeared to be floating as if in the womb.

The website Making Visible Embryoscreated in part by an historian of biological and medical sciences, makes a similar claim:

Although claiming to show the living fetus, Nilsson actually photographed abortus material obtained from women who terminated their pregnancies under the liberal Swedish law. Working with dead embryos allowed Nilsson to experiment with lighting, background and positions, such as placing the thumb into the fetus’ mouth. But the origin of the pictures was rarely mentioned, even by ‘pro-life’ activists, who in the 1970s appropriated these icons.

Whether allegations that some of the photographed babies came from abortions is true or not is difficult to verify; however, a paper published in Bulletin of The History of Medicine, written by Solveig Julich, associate professor and senior lecturer at the Department of History of Science and Ideas at Uppsala University in Sweden, makes a compelling case. She writes in part:

He admitted that most of the pictures were of “fetuses, just removed surgically” in connection with miscarriages or extrauterine pregnancies. They looked as if they were alive because they were still alive. He had only a few minutes in which to take the pictures before they developed ugly blotches and were changed. A few of the pictures, Nilsson told the reporter, were “taken inside the mother by means of a cystoscope and a flash in connection with a necessary abortion.” But he insisted that his photographs should not be seen as a contribution to the abortion debate: all he wanted to do was to give a clear conception of the origin and development of human life.

In all fairness to Nilsson, now deceased, there is no way to absolutely confirm these allegations nor to understand fully what his motivation was, if, in fact, he did use aborted babies in his photography.

Read the full paper here.

History is full of examples in which scientists and doctors went too far in their research on human subjects. The most vivid example of this comes out of the Holocaust, during which Nazi physicians believed the medical advances from experiments somehow justified their actions. In an article published by the Montreal Gazette, Dr. Hans Munch, an SS research pathologist at a Nazi institute near Auschwitz, described concentration camp physician Josef Mengele, who experimented on Jews inside the horrific camps:

Mengele saw the gassings as the only rational solution and argued that as the prisoners were going to be gassed anyway, there was no reason not to use them for medical experiments.

Sadly, that kind of reasoning for experimenting on human subjects sounds too familiar, as readers will see in parts two and three of this series on the history of experimentation on abortion survivors.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Stunning fetal surgery images offer amazing glimpse of baby in the womb

Posted in Fetal Development with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 28, 2017 by saynsumthn

Fetal surgery is becoming more and more common, saving lives and improving the conditions of preborn children. Like many other medical advances, open fetal surgery (as displayed in the images below) offers an amazing look at the developing person inside the womb.

Images and videos below are of surgical procedures and may be disturbing for some viewers. 

1. Open fetal surgery by Michael Harrison, MD, and the UCSF Fetal Treatment Center:

Fetal Surgery by Dr Michael Harrison, MD

2. Fetal surgery Ted Talk by Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye:

Fetal Surgery Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye Ted Talk

3. Houston Chronicle report on Texas Children’s Hospital, “Spina bifida case marks advances in fetal surgery“:

Houston Chronicle Open Fetal Surgery (Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle)

4. Vanderbilt University report on fetal surgery procedure yielding positive results:

22 week old preborn baby (Image:1999 file photo by Anne Rayner/Vanderbilt)

5. CNN’s report on spina bifida surgery for a 20-week-old preborn baby:

Fetal Surgery CNN Report on 20-week baby with spina bifida

6. Medscape – Fetal Surgery for Sacrococcygeal Teratoma Technique:

Pulse oximeter placed on foot of fetus (image: Dr Douglas Miniati and Dr Payam Saadai, Division of Pediatric Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine)

7. Open fetal surgery for 25-week preborn baby with spina bifida (watch video):

Fetal Surgery spine of preborn baby

8. Today.com: Baby ‘born twice’ thrives after life-saving surgery:

Fetal Surgery – tumor removed

9. Live Science – Fetus Brought Partway Out of Womb for Tumor Surgery:

Fetal Surgery 24 weeks (Image Credit: AJOC)

10. “Hand of Hope” by Michael Clancy, taken in 1999 of 21-week-old preborn Samuel Armas, grabbing a doctor’s hand during surgery. As Life News reported years later, “Armas was in the womb when Dr. Joseph Bruner performed a surgery on him to help correct some of the potential effects of spina bifida before his birth.”

Clancy’s iconic photo and story were later documented by PressTV and other worldwide media outlets:

Michael Clancy Hand of Hope (image: PressTV)

11. PBS produced “Twice Born,” a stunning documentary about fetal surgery:

PBS Documentary: Twice Born

It is amazing the extent to which members of the medical profession will go to save preborn children growing inside their mother’s wombs. Tragically, there is an inhuman side of “medicine” as well, which believes that ending the lives of other preborn child in an abortion is the better solution.

We long for the day when abortion in unthinkable. Until then, these tiny persons in the womb testify of their humanity.

  • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Nick Loeb: on embryo fight “Two lives were already created” no different than born child

Posted in Fetal Development, Hollywood, IVF, Men and Abortion with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 7, 2015 by saynsumthn

Nick Loeb told the Today Show that the embryos his ex-fiance wants to “destroy” are already life.

nick-loeb-sofia-vergara-today-150506-01_eafc59e030271155e8650b0fd72c4df5.today-inline-large

But, Modern Family actress, Sofia Vergara has accused Nick Loeb of being an opportunist and she wants the embryos they created as a couple to be “destroyed.”

Sofia Vergara Howard Stern Embryo 1

Sofia Vergara Howard Stern Embryo

Loeb filed motion for control of the embryos in August of last year, but the private matter turned public when he wrote about it a New York Times op-ed piece on April 29. “In my view, keeping them frozen forever is tantamount to killing them,” he wrote.

Nick Loeb embryo killing abortion NY Times

More from Loeb’s letter:

    “When we create embryos for the purpose of life, should we not define them as life, rather than as property? Does one person’s desire to avoid biological parenthood (free of any legal obligations) outweigh another’s religious beliefs in the sanctity of life and desire to be a parent? A woman is entitled to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects. Shouldn’t a man who is willing to take on all parental responsibilities be similarly entitled to bring his embryos to term even if the woman objects? These are issues that, unlike abortion, have nothing to do with the rights over one’s own body, and everything to do with a parent’s right to protect the life of his or her unborn child.”
    “In 2013, Sofía and I agreed to try to use in vitro fertilization and a surrogate to have children. We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent. The form did not specify — as California law requires — what would happen if we separated. I am asking to have it voided.”

Loeb then admits he had a girlfriend who had an abortion writing,

    “When I was in my 20s, I had a girlfriend who had an abortion, and the decision was entirely out of my hands. Ever since, I have dreamed about a boy at the age he would be now. Later, I was married for four years to a woman with whom I tried to have children, with help from a fertility specialist. The difficulties we had made me feel, more than ever, that the ability to create life was special. When she left me, as I was running for a seat in the Florida State Senate, my dreams of a family were shattered.”

After the couple broke up after four years together, Loeb said he asked Sofia for the embryos and said he, “offering to pay for all expenses to carry our girls to term and raise them.”

    “She has refused. Her lawyer, Fred Silberberg, has told reporters that she wants to keep the embryos “frozen indefinitely.” In my view, keeping them frozen forever is tantamount to killing them.”

He then told to the Today Show that two lives had already been created:

Nick Loeb

In the interview Loeb stated:

    You know – you know- we filed this back in October, this is not something that’s new.

    This has nothing to do with this at all.

    This has to do with bigger really moral you no legal or ethical concepts that are out there about lives that we’ve already created and nothing to do with anything else.

    It has nothing to do with whether it is her baby or a baby.

    Lives were already created.

    You know a lot of the question is why don’t you move on and meet somebody else and and no doubt I would love to do that.

    But doesn’t it matter that two lives have already been created?

    I wouldn’t just toss them aside – no different than a child that had been born.”

Original video here.

Inside pregnancy the developing unborn miracle in video

Posted in Babies, Fetal Development, Video with tags , , , , , , , on February 25, 2015 by saynsumthn

I came across this fascinating animated video series called Inside Pregnancy.

The fetal development series created by Baby Center is worth watching: