Archive for embryo

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.

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.

Cool 3D robotic embryo and fetal models

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on February 17, 2015 by saynsumthn

TurboSquid brags on their website that they are the world’s source for professional 3D models. As best as I can tell, the company makes 3D models for presentations, games, and other visual marketing needs.

But a few of their 3D models caught my attention, like these Robotic Embryo models.

KRobotic Embryo

Robotic Embryo

The company says online that, “TurboSquid models are used by game developers, news agencies, architects, visual effects studios, advertisers, and creative professionals around the world. Whether you’re a 3D artist or not, you’ve probably seen TurboSquid models hundreds of times and didn’t know it – which is fine with us!

TurbioSquid Search

“Our goal is to save artists the time of making a great model, and instead let them add their own personality to their creations. Our customers tell us they save 27 hours per model purchased, which can be a lifesaver in a time crunch.”

The company develops 3D Models used in sports, animals, medicine and now, even film.

turbosquid searches 2

turbosquid searches

But…if you search under the term – ABORTION this is what will appear:

Tye in abortion

The company makes a 3D Model for unborn human fetuses in the early stages of development – here is one at 8 weeks:

3D Human Embroy 8 weeks

In addition, they offer late term unborn children 3D Models as well:

3D abortion

This fetus model is a part of their Embryo development collection. :

Capture

The group also has a wider selection under their fetal model page:

Turbosquid Fetal Models

The models range in price from approximately $30.00 well into the hundreds of dollars.

At TurboSquid’s start in 2000, letting anyone upload and publish something for sale instantly was revolutionary – people wondered what kinds of craziness could happen. We’ve come a long way since then, and more than 2.5 million people have joined TurboSquid, with over 25,000 artists in our community working to satisfy the modeling needs of artist-customers worldwide,” the company writes on their website.

Ayn Rand’s attack on pro-lifers + religion

Posted in Abby Johnson, Ayn Rand with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 18, 2010 by saynsumthn

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. She first achieved fame in 1943 with her novel The Fountainhead, which in 1957 was followed by her best-known work, the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged.
Rand’s political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally limited government.She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism…but as much as some “Conservatives” praise her views, Rand was an atheist opposed to faith as opposite of “reason” and profoundly pro-abortion under the idea of personal rights, for women while denying even that the fetus exists or is alive, something which has proved to be scientifically false. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, of heart failure.

An Embryo is not alive.” – Ayn Rand

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”
“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

(SOURCE: “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, Ayn Rand pp. 58–59)

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

(SOURCE: “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3)

“I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.

“By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, Ayn Rand, June 1981, 3.)

“A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 2.)

Ayn Rand on Religion:

Ayn Rand, “It has to be either reason or faith , I am against God for the reasons that I don’t want to destroy reason. I am against those that conceived that idea.” Watch interviews below:

Here Glenn Beck praises Ayn Rand – WHY ???

Rand’s Morality is not based on FAITH- but on her MIND and REASON alone, “his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own actions…”
Here she speaks to Mike Wallace about her Book which attacks basic RELIGIOUS morality : Atlas Shrugged ! ” I Say that man is entitled to his own happiness…nor should he sacrifice himself for the happiness of others.”

German court approves of 2010 Eugenics- IVF genetic defects okay to let die.

Posted in Eugenics, Germany with tags , , , on July 7, 2010 by saynsumthn

German court allows gene diagnose of IVF embryos
(AP) – 7-6-2010

BERLIN — Embryos created during in vitro fertilization can be screened for genetic defects before being implanted in the womb, a German high court said in a landmark ruling Tuesday.

The Federal Supreme Court in Leipzig ruled in support of a Berlin gynecologist who had carried out screening on embryos for three different couples and implanted only those that were healthy. The embryos with hereditary genetic defects were left to die off.

The high court’s ruling upheld a decision by a Berlin state court that the doctor’s action did not violate German laws for the protection of embryos.

The 47-year-old doctor, who was not identified by the court, brought the case to court himself in 2006 to clarify the legal situation. He was first acquitted by a regional court in Berlin, but the city’s state prosecutor appealed.

“The accused, a gynecologist who focuses on fertility treatment, has been acquitted of the allegation of threefold violation of the embryo protection law,” the court said in its verdict, ruling that in vitro fertilization, without any restrictions, is allowed.

The doctor had treated three couples between 2005 and 2006 who could not get pregnant naturally. In all three cases, one of the partners carried the risk of a congenital genetic illness that would have “very likely led to a miscarriage, the death of the newborn right after the delivery or the birth of a critically ill child,” the court wrote.

Judge Clemens Basdorf told German news agency DAPD that the examination of IVF embryos should be legal “if there is a danger of grave genetic defects for the desired children of the patients.”