Damn.
It is evil but in fairness to Merck, they were not forcing these abortions on these women for their nefarious uses, but rather used what was already being thrown away. Not that it in anyway excuses the fact.
That's sick.
SB,
that's debatible. No one knows if there was coercion involved. In this instance... I am not inclined to assume innocence.
Am I really expected to believe that Merck didn't sell these women on "think of all the lives you're baby will save"?
I'm thinking that Merck simply bought the fetuses after the abortion was performed - this way they don't have to deal with potential lawsuits for the profits from the cell line.
Invid,
the abortions were performed in a special controlled envirornment to facilitate the harvest of cells. Merck was intimately involved in all aspects, as are all companies that do this sort of thing.. by necessity.
Ahh, well that changes things a lot doesn't it.
What wonderful >heavy sarcasm here< things we do with the gifts God gives us
Riddle me this Batman:
We use aborted fetus tissue to make a vaccine against Rubella.
Rubella doesn't do much harm except to babies inutero.
Why the hell do we vaccinate everyone and not just offer it as an option to women who are thinking about having children?
I'm still having trouble processing this. This reads like QB-VII.
This brings to mind of when Ashcroft was AG. He tried to legally force P.P. to open their books/files so it could be seen where they were getting their hundreds of millions of $ from. Boy did that fire up a s--t storm from the left. I have always suspected a lot of their money comes from selling these unfortunate innocents to "research" facilities and for body parts.
Passage in the Bible says judgement day will be easier on Sodom and Gomorrah then it will be on these vultures. Kind of gives me hope.
Nate, I seriously doubt that Merck was out soliciting abortions. A much more likely scenario is a clinic putting them in touch.
SB
Its not necessary for Merck to solicit abortions for coersion to enter the equation. All that would be necessary is for one woman to have second thoughts... or... for a member of the butcher squad to prevent any second thoughts by pre-emptively offering the "think how many lives you'll save".
Abhorrent. My stomach wants to twist just reading this. May they be destroyed - all of them.
this makes me physically sick.
Abhorrent is the right word CL. Shall we do evil that good may come of it? Not if you're a Christian.
If it already has been done, is it sin to allow good to come from it?
Is preventing, say, ten thousand deaths and mutilations of our children by the use of vaccines immoral in this context? I don't think it is. If a house was built by slave labor, even by the blood of slaves, is it immoral for me to shelter my children there in a storm?
JRL
The flaw in your premise is the assumed effectiveness of vaccines.
Vaccines never saved a millions of children.
Though I never said they did, it's immaterial to the larger point.
Why the hell do we vaccinate everyone and not just offer it as an option to women who are thinking about having children?
Invid | 11.19.07 - 11:50 am | #
I'm going to go out on a limb here - a gut feeling - but there is no "option" involved because they desire for children to be "vaccinated and innoculated" for nefarious purposes. Remember, "make a law make a business".
I've said it before and I'll say it again (though not claiming it in this thread specific topic):
Anyone who believes AIDS comes from a green monkey or is naturally occurring in general has not researched the topic much. Ft Detrick, MD under instructions from the WHO is a more likely explanation. (and of course the WHO were following instructions as well). Can anyone recall where the "terrorist" anthrax was traced to? military grade you say? go to the head of the line.
Anyone who truly believes that the (corporate) State requires childhood vaccinations/innoculations merely as a "good for the children" is deluded.
Commenting by HaloScan
