Did you know it's become legal now to cannibalize and commercialize the "tiny bodies of murdered babies?" I'm referring, of course, to the legislation the president signed into law on June 10, "The Institute of Health Revitalization Act of 1993." I would point out that part two of this legislation has authorized for the first time in U.S. history government funded research using tissue from aborted fetuses.

This is a volatile topic for a lot of people. You have individuals who don't understand what the brew-ha-ha is all about, the fetuses, as they would term them, are being aborted and lost anyway, so some good may as well be made of these fetuses for medical and commercial purposes.

Research can be done. Cures can be found it is suggested for diseases such as Alzheimer¹s Disease. In fact, February 22, 1993, Newsweek, in anticipation of this legislation, entitled its cover story "Cures From the Womb" and gave it considerable space in the discussion of the possibility of turning up cures as a result of research on aborted fetus tissue. I also point out that there have been no cures to date from fetal tissue transplantation which is something that the article itself pointed out.

I guess the best way to talk about this is to read what has described in simple, straight-forward fashion the process that is involved in extracting the necessary tissue from a fetus to be used for research.

I realize two things before I read this. First, some are going to think that I'm just doing this for shock value. Probably anybody looking at an appendectomy for the first time is going to be so grossed out that they'd never want to have one of those done to them. But that doesn't imply that because they're grossed out that there's something morally inappropriate about that behavior. I assure you that I'm not doing this for shock value. I am trying to give you a window as it were into a process, into a medical procedure that is being performed on a regular basis with the sanction of our government, and that is having a vital impact on the nature of how we value human beings.

Sometimes it's possible to talk about an issue in the sterility of academia or an office environment or even a radio talk show. But when we actually get to look at the particular thing that we are discussing there is a moral quality to it that is self-evident because we're seeing it as it really is. That's really my purpose here. My purpose is to help you to have an insight or perspective on this procedure.

The second thing that comes to mind is that some of you might be thinking, along the lines that I mentioned earlier, that if these are bodies that are being discarded anyway, then why not use some of the remains for something good, because after all a corpse is a corpse. I think you will see that this goes far beyond merely recycling old human parts that are going to be tossed into the garbage. This becomes an added motivation for taking the lives of unborn children. And not only that, but we have taken one step further down the slippery slope in terms of the ghastly means and ways that we can terminate the lives of innocent human beings.

Having said that, let me just read a couple of paragraphs that describe the procedure.

"First, it's important to remember that a child born alive presents a major problem to an abortionist. It is the ultimate complication, because legally every effort must be made to keep a breathing newborn alive. And that's why the physician usually crushes the fetus' head while still in the uterus. However, a baby who is born dead is of less value to researchers because brain tissue and other organs quickly deteriorate when deprived of oxygen. Thus the abortionist must employ a means of extracting the body parts and brain matter from a living baby who is not yet expelled from the birth canal. The method is called dilation and extraction, or D and X.

"Over two days the cervix is dilated. Then an ultrasound device and forceps are used to reach in and grab the baby's feet. The little body is pulled downward until just the head remains in the cervix. Next the abortionist grasps the nape of the neck and cuts open the back of the skull with blunt scissors. A device called a cannula is then inserted into the wound and the brain material is sucked out. If kidneys and other organs are desired they are removed while the child is still partially in the vagina. Initially at least, these surgical procedures are performed on a live baby who has not specifically been anesthetized (although the mother's medication may reduce some of the pain). If puppies or kittens were subjected to such cruel treatment, the protests from the animal rights people would be heard around the world.

"At what gestational age does this ghastly procedure occur? Most fetuses are aborted during the first or second trimester, although many states do no prohibit an abortionist from waiting until a few weeks or even hours before the normal due date. Does this happen routinely? No, because there is no reason for a woman to carry a baby to term if she does not intend to let it live. But the advent of tissue harvesting changes the equation. A medical researcher may pay a pregnant woman to provide him with the mature organs he needs. Or a mother might be motivated to conceive and carry a child specifically to provide spare parts for a family member with Parkinson's Disease or failing kidneys. Growing babies only to be dismembered for the use of their organs appears to be on the horizon." And here the in the footnotes the Newsweek article. "Admittedly the new federal legislation prohibits the tissue donation linkages between mothers and relatives or mothers and researchers, but there is no enforcement provision in the law. Nothing prevents collaboration between women and their physicians. Officials at the National Institutes of Health have no power to police free-standing abortion clinics, and no other agency of government is authorized to nose around in the doctor/patient relationship. Abuses will occur just as millions of abortions took place before the Supreme Court legalized them in 1973. And when the public has been sufficiently desensitized, who can say where this practice is headed?"

This piece speaks pretty much for itself. One strains to be able to describe this process in civilized terms. This is another example of what I have come to call the "Death of Humanness."

I have been saying for a while--"our values are being velocitized." What that means is that when you get in a car that goes 60 mph it feels pretty fast until you get used to it. It doesn't feel fast at all. Then you accelerate to 90 and you think that's fast until you get used to that too. You can do that up and up. I call this concept of getting used to it "being velocitized." That applies to your values too, my friends. What was unthinkable yesterday, is thinkable today and ordinary and commonplace tomorrow.

I have two parting thoughts for you after reading that material.

First, that "new federal legislation prohibits tissue donation linkages between mothers and relatives or mothers and researchers." I guess mothers apparently can't have abortions just to give tissue for relatives or to researchers. I read that and had to ask why is that? Coming from the perspective that they're coming from, why is that a concern. If it's not wrong to kill human beings, and then use their body products for commercial purposes, how could it be wrong to kill human beings, in order to use their body parts for commercial purposes? I can't figure that out.

A second thought came to mind when I picture what necessarily goes on for doctors to accomplish this kind of thing. I thought for a moment of the mother. I imagine that most women are conscious during this operation. What must a mother be thinking as she watches her newborn child dangling between her legs--not crying yet because its head is still in her vagina, although it would cry, in many cases, if it was simply given some air--and then watches as a doctor methodically removes its vital organs and suctions out its brains while it's still alive, and then gives one last tug to expel the shapeless head and the lifeless body of her own flesh and blood? What must she be thinking? I'm mystified.

I have been to two different concentration camps, Majdaneck (little known but the largest in Europe) and Auschwitz, both in Poland. In the cell blocks that once housed human beings like cattle, awaiting their turn to be slaughtered, are displays of the product of the mingling of the Nazis' advanced technology and their enlightened ethic: lamp shades made of human skin, mattresses stuffed with human hair, and gold dug from the teeth of corpses on their way to the ovens. The rooms are scrubbed clean and the strong smell of disinfectant hangs in the air. Sometimes when I walk into public institutions when they've scrubbed with that same disinfectant I'm immediately transported back. That smell mixed with the images on display before me was enough to turn my stomach. This was unbelievable; this was unthinkable. But these were human beings who were in the way and expendable; and more than that they were a cash crop. Why waste what others can benefit from?

Men and women, what is the difference here? Once again we have human beings who are in the way and who society has branded "expendable." And the brand is no less vivid than the faded yellow star of David stitched to the striped uniforms of every Jewish inmate in Auschwitz. The star and the brand both mean the same thing: human garbage. And once again we have a cash crop.

I don't see the difference, except that the victims are smaller, and more defenseless: they're infants. Among the most heart wrenching images of the Nazi death camps--and there were many--were the images of children. Whole sections of the memorials are dedicated to them.

You see, we're still making lamp shades out of people's skin, we're still making mattresses out of their hair, and we're still stealing gold from their teeth, but now we smash the "gold" from their skulls while they're still alive and aware, while they're still kicking and feeling. At least the Nazis waited until their victims were dead.

At least that's the way I see it.