{{{WATCH}}} Human Aborted Kidney and Heart Implanted in Rats (GRAPHIC MATERIAL!!)

The REST OF THE Planned Parenthood story…

 I realize that women have been aborting unwanted babies for centuries, but  that does not make it right. I understand the arguments both for and  against using the fetal tissue for the betterment of humans. But there has to  be a point where we stop, step back, and look at the moral ambiguity of what  science is capable of versus what is right. At what point do we decide which  life is more important? And when does it become an issue of economics?  Who decides which lives are more valuable, the unborn versus the elderly  versus the wealthy? This is just a tiny fraction of the ethical and unknown  questions. What about the DNA that is transferred through the blood to the  fetal organs from the animals? How is that going to affect the donor recipient?  There has to be some small percentage of transfer, otherwise mothers would  not receive DNA from their babies. I know from a purely scientific standpoint  the aborted fetus is just wasted tissue that should be used for some form of  benefit. That it does not matter once the tissue is removed, who cares whether it is used to fuel a hospital furnace or save a life of another child. Right/wrong, God/science? At what point is the point of having gone too far? They, the Genetic Literacy Project, call it xenotransplantation, but in actuality it is transhumanism.The name of the Redwood City, California bio-tech company is Ganogen, Inc. They do not receive any federal, state, or local funding. It is strictly, privately funded. They get their ‘discarded fetal material’ from a Placerville, California company called Stem Express, who harvests the tissues from dead fetuses. The donors of the fetal tissue have already decided to have the abortion, before they are asked about donation. The donors are made aware of the fact that the tissue may be implanted into animals and that the donor will receive no form of remuneration.

 “The researchers transplanted the fetal kidneys into adult rats that lacked an immune system (so as to avoid tissue rejection), and connected the animal’s blood vessels to the organs using a challenging procedure that involved tiny stitches, about three to four times smaller than the width of a human hair. One of the main reasons that previous attempts to transplant fetal organs into animals have failed is due to a difference in the blood pressure between human fetuses and adult animals. In most adult animals, including rats, the average blood pressure is about three times higher than it is in human fetuses. If a fetal organ is transplanted without adjusting the pressure, “the organ basically hemorrhages everywhere,” Gu said. To get around that problem, Gu’s team developed a device, called an arterial flow regulator, which they fitted around the rat’s blood vessels to decrease the pressure of the blood flowing into the fetal kidneys. “About a month after the researchers transplanted the fetal kidneys into the rats, the scientists surgically removed the animal’s own kidneys. The rats that received the transplanted kidneys survived an average of four months after transplant, and one even survived for 10 months”, Gu said. “By comparison, a control group of rats that did not receive a transplanted kidney lived for only three to four days after having their kidneys removed,” the researchers said.

 Now, you have seen an aborted baby’s heart beat in a rat, what do you think? Would you want  your dying child to have that heart? You have seen kidneys from an aborted baby growing in a  rat, would you want one in your child, to get them off of dialysis? And what would the ramifications  be ten years from now? How much rat DNA would be in your child? Would your child be less human?  What if that kidney was transplanted into a pig so that it could grow large enough for an adult, if you  were dying, would you want it? What about the argument that clinical trials of drugs that are safe in  animals and not safe in humans, that this would solve that problem? Why not transplant the entire   fetus in an animal and save multiple lives?WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? Do you remember  the Doctor Gosnell case? The abortion doctor who killed babies? Why would infanticide even be a crime if we can reanimate and grow pieces and parts and eventually the whole? Look closely at this picture, this one one of Gosnell’s victims, what if that kidney growing in that rat was from this baby? Would that make this child’s death a crime just because he was born alive? Watch the video again and look at this picture… Do you really think the three CEOs of Ganogen, Inc. are doing this for altruistic reasons? I doubt that very much, I think they get off on playing GOD and they want to be extremely wealthy. Sooner or later, something is going to go devastatingly wrong…what then?

{NSFW} State Says “Choose Life” is “Patently Offensive”

*****WARNING: NOT SUITABLE FOR WORK*****WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONTENT*****WARNING: EVERY/ALL CONTENT ADVISORIES APPLY*****

 

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals holds that New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has the right to ban “Choose Life” license plates on the grounds that such a statement is “patently offensive.” If drivers purchased the plates, the purchasing price was split between the DMV and the non-profit. The Children First Foundation (CFF), an organization promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion submitted [the “Choose Life” tag design]. The DMV claimed it was simply carrying out a ban on plates concerning politically divisive topics. Judge Rosemary Pooler, a Clinton appointee, agreed with New York’s position in her majority opinion. She took this view even though she also ruled that license plates are private speech subject to First Amendment protections. Despite these protections, however, she said that so many New Yorkers could find a plate advocating an anti-abortion position ”patently offensive” that the DMV was justified in suppressing the speech.

I wrote this article once already, but due to political correctness, it was pulled. Even though I followed the rules and gave all of the appropriate warnings, it was still evidently too graphic too show. I could not let it go. If there was ever a case that was so clear-cut between GOOD VERSUS EVIL….this is it. Now if a group of militant LGBT supporters submitted a rainbow tag, not a single word would be said. “Black Lives Matter”, “My Body/My Choice”, or “Feminist United”, nothing would be said. These would never fall into the “patently offensive” category; which by the way, is usually reserved for obscenity only. Choosing Life is the most important aspect of this case, but not the only aspect.

Mz. Pooler, you need to go back to what ever online legal school you attended and get a refund. You cannot have the Constitution both ways. Either there is freedom of speech or there is not, make up your mind. Just because someone might find “choose life” offensive does not, nor will it ever deem it “patently offensive”. That is the equivalent of saying a tag that says “breath” is “patently offensive” because somebody might get offended that you are emitting CO2 when you exhale!! You, Mz. Pooler need an education on what constitutes “patently offensive” and what does not. Furthermore, basing your legal ruling on some alleged, possible situation is so patently politically correct it is sickening. Mr. Clinton should have stuck to just screwing women instead of appointing them, because you, Mz. Pooler are a fine example of how badly he sucked at that job.

Mz. Pooler, do you have a better understanding of what is “choosing life” and what is “patently offensive”?? We, as a nation, have sunk so far into the quagmire that we are drowning in the muck. When “choose life” is “patently offensive”, we are already dying on our knees and too ignorant to see we never had a chance to fire the first shot on our feet.