On the heels of learning that the Food and Drug Administration purchased aborted babies’ body parts and requested “fresh and never frozen,” comes another story that sounds as if it’s from a horror movie or one of human history’s darkest chapters:
Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have been conducting what have been called “Nazi-level experiments,” one of which involved grafting babies’ scalps onto lab rats.
As the Federalist’s Cheryl Allen reported Monday:
Nearly 100 members of Congress asked the Biden administration for details on the University of Pittsburgh’s federally funded research on aborted babies in a recent letter. Pitt officials should be working with law enforcement to conduct a full investigation of the grotesque, immoral, and potentially illegal actions the university has taken in its treatment of preborn human beings. Pitt should provide complete transparency regarding how the university obtains and experiments on these aborted babies.
Even Dr. Ronna Jurow, an ob-gyn who supports abortion, has raised significant concern over unethical treatment of aborted babies at Pitt. As an alumnus of Pitt, it troubles me to see my alma mater become a national hub for training students for controversial fetal experimentation, allegedly using staff employed by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business.
Just last year, it was revealed that Pitt has been engaging in experiments like scalping aborted babies and grafting their scalps to lab rats. Pitt researchers even proudly published pictures of babies’ scalps grafted onto the backs of rodents.
Yet the university might have transgressed against legality along with morality. That is to say, Fox News reported late last month that the congressmen’s “letter expressed concern that tissue may have been obtained through illegal abortion procedures.”
“‘We are alarmed by public records obtained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which show that the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) may have violated federal law by altering abortion procedures to harvest organs from babies who were old enough to live outside the womb,’” Fox quoted the legislators as writing.
After outlining an even more damning charge — what she calls the allegation that “aborted babies … were alive while their kidneys, livers, or hearts were cut out of their body” — Allen states that “Pitt’s own words should spark a full investigation, yet despite this evidence, those in the positions to act have thus far been silent.”
“Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala has done nothing,” the writer explains. “U.S. Attorney Stephen Kaufman declined to comment. Attorney General Josh Shapiro, an extremely pro-abortion politician with Planned Parenthood among his campaign donors, has given no response, except to tweet out his support for abortion-on-demand.”
Unsurprisingly, this dark endeavor also has some very familiar fingerprints on it. For some “of these inhumane experiments at Pitt are being federally funded through grants from the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, run by Dr. Anthony Fauci,” Allen also tells us.
The Pitt story reflects (and appears related to) the FDA’s baby-parts acquisition, cited in this piece’s first paragraph. That story’s gory details are found, watchdog group Judicial Watch announced last month, in hundreds of pages of records it acquired under a Freedom of Information Act case it had filed. Ghoulishly, the government really did demand that the infant body parts — intended for a “humanized mice” project — be “fresh and never frozen.” What’s more, a court has found that as with Pitt, the FDA’s actions very well might have violated federal law.
As shocking as these Dr. Mengele-type revelations will be to many, they’re not actually surprising — not to those acquainted with the beliefs prevailing in society today. Ponder the following:
If we have no souls and thus are merely some pounds of chemicals and water, we are nothing but organic robots. And what could be wrong with terminating a robot’s function? What could be immoral about using a robot’s parts to achieve some cherished end? In the Pitt case and under this philosophy, all that was done was that a part of one robot was connected to another robot, sort of like putting C-3PO’s head on R2-D2’s body. It may look odd to our eyes, but it’s hardly “wrong.”
If this analogy seems unacceptably frivolous, know that it addresses what’s merely an implication of atheism — or godlessness, if you will. Oh, this isn’t at all to say that every atheist would rubber stamp Pitt’s research; many no doubt find it disturbing. It is to say, however, that just as Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religionists don’t always learn and abide by all the tenets of their faith (for good or for ill), atheists generally don’t learn and abide by all the implications of their faithlessness. Thank God.
For those supposing I’m being harsh, consider that I’m being gentle. I accept that many researchers, weaned on moral relativism and the notion that the “end justifies the means,” have a feeling that they’re serving some greater good. They’re developing cures and therapies to ease man’s suffering, after all.
Yet this is why actions must not be governed by feelings, which aren’t good indicators of reality, but by Truth, by “right and wrong.” As I’ve often explained, however, another implication of atheism is that right and wrong, properly understood, do not exist. Only human preference does, leaving us with nothing but occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
“Science” cannot tell you what you should do, only what you can. This is why as with everyone else, scientists need to follow those divine “Thou shalt nots.” Without restraint, inquisitiveness begets iniquity.
