"Knowing and doing are so intimately related that if you do not act in the light of what you claim to know, you do not really know it." - James W. Sire
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
A Human Parts Industry
Zygotes and Stem Cells
Developing Humans NOT Bio-Mechanical Parts
I find it fascinating the many of the arguments and parallels used to justify Abortion and Stem Cell Research were also used to justify slavery in the 19th Century and the Holocaust in the 20th Century.
Slavery in the Mid 19th Century:
The Argument: They are NOT really "human" and as such they are really "useful" and indispensable to us for our health and well-being. This was the kind of argument that Slave Owners and Southern Politicians used to maintain their material wealth and thus in a related manner "well-being." In like manner, Great Britain's Pro-Slavery politicians of the 18th and 19th centuries, used this argument tirelessly against the great emancipator, William Wilberforce, for over 30 years – declaring that the entire British Empire - an empire that was so vast that "the sun never set on it," would have its entire economic system collapse through the outlawing of slavery.
Some sources are estimating that the Abortion Industry makes almost a Billion Dollars a year. Just Planned Parenthood alone claims 4,000,000 activists, supporters and donors
In terms of Stem Cells that come from embryos or an aborted fetus, they are now being used to research how to manufacture new parts for the living - who in turn are suffering from disease, birth defects and old age. Imagine, if you would, people intentionally participating in and producing embryos simply to manufacture parts and harvest them for someone else. It is that cold and that crass – that evil. In principle, this is no different than that dark subversive human parts harvesting industry – that exists throughout the world - designed to kidnap selected people for the sole purpose of removing their organs, so that some other more privileged person can have harvest those same organs, to replace their damaged or diseased one(s) – stolen - without their permission - ripped from their bodies because those in power have not come to terms with their mortality, their physical reality and their arrogance.
The Holocaust
The Argument: They are NOT (the Jews) really "human;" and in addition look how they rob us from having those things that are "useful" and indispensable to us for our health and well-being. The Nazi's believed: "If we allow them to continue to exist among us, then they might threaten the Aryan - Ubermensch existence beyond us" - as if that were logically possible...
Unforeseen pregnancies can interrupt our current manner and standard of living. A child in the uterus can and eventually does affect one's resources – in many cases they can appear to threaten one's quality of life economically as well as the inconvenience associated with its existence. The overwhelming and vast majority of abortions and the fetus' that come from them are performed because of "convenience" not because of necessity. The horrifically detailed accounts of the Nazi's experimentations on pregnant women, children and adults are legion and legend.
Abortions aside… producing zygotes and embryo's simply for their human parts making capacity transcends most of what can be called evil in this world.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemoller
It may not be popular, it may offend and it may even cause me to lose some valued relationships… I still choose to speak up.
Rich Grassel
A Letter to Instructor Paula Anderson and Central Connecticut State University
Who Is Protecting Whom?
As a faculty person in an institution of Higher Education for eleven years, it has recently come to my attention the deplorable treatment of a student of yours named John Wahlberg. What a horrible example of academic freedom, intellectual honesty, and a clear violation of the First Amendment. So what if some students felt "scared and uncomfortable?" These students are ADULTS are they not? Would anyone on your campus, not believe for second, that many of those same (alleged) students in Ms. Anderson class, on any given Friday night, observe if not participate in all kinds of risky behaviors- that should make them "scared and uncomfortable"? In addition, are there not other presentations given by other students throughout the course of the year, on other subjects, that make other students "scared and uncomfortable?" In the spirit of consistency, are they in like manner censured and reported to the Campus Police? When a student asks for directions to the Campus Police Headquarters, could they use the word "Gulag" as a synonym instead? Thankfully it appears as if at least your Campus Police (professional skilled labor - right?) maintained their reason - noting that Mr. Wahlberg owned Firearms legally.
Question: Does Ms. Anderson participate in an academic enterprise, or provide nanny services? If students felt "scared and uncomfortable" then it would be HER responsibility to help those students in class process the information in a redemptive manner. Pedagogically: It would seem prudent, if not scholastically respectable to not ask students to discuss controversial subjects in class, and then NOT BE PREPARED to process that subject in a helpful and informative manner - in a kind of let say Renaissance Spirit. A fair, cursory survey of the role of Firearms in the History and current Culture of the United States could have done much to inform those students in her class.
I wonder.... Just how safe do you think many of your students now feel when it comes to the pursuit of study and discussion of those subjects that Ms. Anderson (and by extension YOUR university) deems to be dangerous, risky and politically incorrect? I am quite sure that many of them now feel much more cautious (read "scared") and inhibited (read "uncomfortable") to engage in the free world of ideas. I had heard, although I cannot confirm this, that Mr. Wahlberg was required to be psychologically evaluated before he could return to class. IF this is true, I could conclude nothing other than your institution as being ideologically totalitarian (now I am "scared" and "uncomfortable"). Imagine what some students and observers could only conclude: "Because you don't value, behave and THINK like we do... we are concerned that you might be mentally ill." Have the life and writings of Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn not taught us anything? How about the little book written by George Orwell - Animal Farm? Ms. Anderson might want to read that again (if she has) - particularly the very last chapter about how (strictly and metaphorically speaking) really ended up looking like who! Is Ms. Anderson from the former Soviet Union?
The incredible irony is that Mr. Wahlberg was discussing, in the spirit of academic freedom, ideas that some people can use to protect themselves in the face of unforeseen violence. Were you there to protect him when academia threatened to do violence to his intellectual freedom and his first amendment rights? I genuinely hope that Ms. Anderson has been educated by your administration thoroughly on these matters and that the rest of your faculty have had opportunity to discuss and process this tragic event in the kind of informed manner that everyone is served and edified by it. If not, I am afraid it would be the height of scholastic hypocrisy.
Sincerely
Rich Grassel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
