Conversations concerning the rubella vaccine and fetal experimentation in general have jammed our telephone during the last month. I have heard such statements as, “let’s drop this: it’s not an issue we can win,” “there’s nothing wrong with this vaccine,” “good can come from evil,” and so on. Most opinions are strongly-held. This had touched a number of nerves.
I will agree that this is a difficult matter, not as black and white as many would like. But that is all the more reason to discuss it and not shy away for fear of “fanatic” and “extremist” labels.
To probe, educate and to learn
When something is wrong from one point of view and right from another, discussion is essential. A seal harvest is wrong to some and accepted by others, who see it as an economic necessity for those in the industry. A nuclear freeze is supported by some and rejected by others, who prefer the concept of military strength as a deterrent. No one suggests that these, and many other, matters should be avoided just because we cannot reach a consensus. The object of discussion is not only to gain acceptance for a particular point of view, it is also to probe and to educate and to learn.
It is curious how the division of opinion over the rubella vaccine follows sexual lines: nearly all women I’ve talked to find it repugnant and unacceptable; men tend to argue that “what’s done is done” or “it’s all we have” and that we should continue using it.
Whether or not the matter of the vaccine is regarded as important in itself, it does not raise the whole matter of human experimentation. Many of the experiments being performed now are so grisly and so inhuman that it is difficult to believe they were devised and carried out by supposedly rational adults.
The Nuremberg Code on Human experimentation declares that, for research to be ethical, the subject must give consent, that the person is violated if consent is not obtained. Obviously, the unborn baby is unable to consent: surely, the mother of that child cannot give informed consent, either, as she has not been informed of what is involved.
Abortionists work “openly,” but their work is shrouded in a carefully-cultivated mystery. Would any abortion counselor, would any doctor, agree to tell his or her client, “we want your permission to take your baby after the abortion and send him off to a lab so that he can be cut up, or treated with chemicals to test his reactions”? Such counseling would be an admission that a child is involved – not a fact those in the abortion business want to provide. It might even cause the mother to reconsider and to refuse the abortion, or, at the very least, to realize what she is doing. Such counseling would be considered “unkind” treatment – to the woman, of course: the child’s treatment is to be ignored as diligently as possible.
Can you imagine the discussion between the doctor and a woman whose second-trimester baby is about to be removed from her womb? “Please sign this form. It allows us to take your baby and, while she is still alive to do some experiments. Now, the baby probably won’t live for long, but we want to test our theories on how long various organs will keep going. It’s a worthwhile thing to so and you will be contributing to man’s knowledge and to science.”
It’s bizarre to imagine that these conversations – or conversations like them – would ever occur. It is far more grotesque that they don’t.
Obviously, most women who abort do not have or want the knowledge necessary to give “informed” consent to anything connected with either the welfare or the disposal of the child. And yet, as the child cannot speak, the “consent decision” rests with the mother. I suspect that many women who abort would not agree to experimentation on their aborted child.
Some women do suspect, and some are fully-conscious, that their child is being destroyed; nevertheless, they go ahead with the abortion. That these women choose to ignore the humanity of their child in favour of their own needs does not mean they view that child as so much garbage or as a refined type of guinea pug. They don’t want to view the baby as anything; their main need is to preserve their ignorance.
We must continue to expose
If any kind of consent is ever offered, I suspect it would focus on “an examination of uterine tissue,” and probably it would divert attention to the health of the mother’s womb. That, to my mind, does not constitute informed consent.
It is a telling omission that pro-abortion feminists (both male and female) do not insist on a woman’s right to informed consent before an abortion. One can only assume that “choice” does not include a right to an informed choice. Are these people alarmed, perhaps, that some women would not have an abortion if they knew the facts?
However difficult or distasteful it is, we must continue to expose what is being done with these aborted children, to be particularly vigilant when we suspect a cover up. It may well be that we will lose support in some quarters, but I’m not at all sure that theirs is the kind of support that we need.
Is this vaccine, or this particular form of it, so valuable that we must never expose the circumstances under which it was produced? Is it right that we are only discussing the means of production now – five years after it was accepted exclusively for use in Canada? Do we not have to examine the sources of many other vaccines and drugs, and the methods of testing them?
I don’t have any ready or easy answers, but I have far too many questions. If the questions aren’t asked – and I suspect we’re the only people who care enough to ask them – we’ll never have the answers. Ignorance may be bliss but we are not totally ignorant and we cannot allow our questions to be ignored.
