HOW THE SCIENTIFIC CULT HAS INFLUENCED PERCEPTIONS ON ABORTION

A few days ago, someone shared a short video, titled ‘It’s OK,’ and it is about 4 minutes long and worth watching. It is made by a group opposing abortion called Choice42. Of course, the abortion issue is heavily debated and often evokes emotions. But, what matters here is that the video is well researched, objective, and explains how the scientific cult has influenced perceptions on abortion. In particular, it details how scientists are paid to cut and disembowel live, little babies on laboratory benches under the guise of improving the futures of those who pay them, and the rest of the world.

This scientific cult has developed well-organised, methodical ways to do this, and prides itself in its cleverness. And so, the anti-abortion organisation made the video with the intent to expose this issue. And the video certainly is very moving – and is meant to be because pulling little people apart without anesthetic for the alleged benefit of others is something that, when removed from its veil of scientific progress, can be hard to think about.

THIS HAS NECESSITATED THE DEHUMANISATION OF A FOETUS

Of course, what we have seen is incredibly hard to watch – but it is fact. Aborted foetus tissue is used in the development of many vaccines. So, considering how utterly difficult it is to watch this, the question then becomes: how did the scientific cult nudge society to deem this acceptable? Well, on the one hand, society was not always this open to abortion (especially in the drastic applications it is advocated for today); and so, this was kept hidden from broader society for the longest part. It was in hearings that this information would come out.

For instance, you’d recall that we highlighted here on ‘The War Room’ that a lot of vaccines that are presented as simple clear solutions ACTUALLY contain fetal tissue that was taken from aborted babies. In fact, kindly have a listen to Stanley Plotkin’s contribution on this. By the way, Stanley Plotkin is widely regarded as a leading author and contributor to vaccinology. He has also been a consultant to Moderna, one of the main manufacturers of the Covid vaccine. But, it was under oath that he admitted to the use of fetal tissue from aborted babies in vaccines.

Then on the other hand, in recent times, there has been a campaign aimed at normalising the dehumanisation of unborn children, and making even late term abortion less taboo – and this has been through the corruption of language; and also a lobby for legislated murder. More specifically, there has been a debate on the definition of a baby, and contrasting that to a foetus. The purpose is to justify abortion at a certain stage, particularly the stage where the unborn baby is called a foetus and not a baby. Well, in this debate, one of the most famous (and concurrently one of the most ridiculed) arguments against the claimed inherent moral correctness of abortion is the argument on foetal potential. This argument maintains that the foetus’ potential to become a person and enjoy the valuable life common to persons entails that its destruction is prima facie morally impermissible.

Now, many who reject the argument do so because they believe that it results in what is often called the “sperm/ova problem”, which claims that if we regard the potential of a foetus to become a person as a morally relevant reason against killing a foetus, we must also hold the same of human gametes, who also possess the potential to become persons. For example, a Bonnie Steinbock claims that to say that abortion is morally wrong because a foetus has potential to become a person would mean that even abstinence would have to be considered morally wrong.

This is an obviously ridiculous argument and a strawman at best, because abstinence does not involve the killing of a fertilised egg where the likelihood of it developing into a person has commenced. There is simply no conception where abstinence is concerned. BUT, the argument of foetal potential is significant because it is one of the ways we explain the stewardship that adults have in regard to babies. Newborn infants lack the psychological maturity to possess goals, aims, beliefs, or purposes. And yet, this does NOT exclude them from moral consideration – which is to say, we still regard them as people capable of developing these conscious goals and beliefs, and adults thus take on the responsibility to care for them until the infants are grown and operate as adults with a stewardship capacity of their own.

But, when the strawmans are put aside: it is crucial to recognise that the capitalisation on the word foetus is about trying to reduce unborn babies to inanimate cells who do not possess the attributes of a human life and human potential  – in other words: dehumanisation! This is all an effort to normalise people lying to themselves, in effort to justify the killing of an unborn child. This attitude is seen in a number of abortion conglomerates. It is seen even in a number of practitioners. In fact, kindly recall what a Dr Cesare Santangelo said as he explained in detail how he lets babies die after they are born alive in botched abortions. This was 2012, and yet it is said that he still practises!

THEN AFTER DEHUMANISATION, IS THE OBJECTIFICATION OF FOETUSES

Then, after the dehumanisation of unborn babies or foetuses, follows the objectification of these babies. This is to say, that unborn babies are seen not as unborn babies but a collection of organs and cells that can be harvested for an intended use. So much so, that human fetal cell lines are used to culture a number of vaccines today. They are listed on the CDCs Vaccine Excipient list as WI-38, MRC-5, HEK293, PERC.6. In more detail, WI-38 is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of an aborted female fetus. And MRC-5 (also called Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted male fetus.

In addition, Human Embryonic Kidney cells 293, also often referred to as HEK 293, are a specific cell line originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells grown in a tissue culture. And the PERC-6 cell line was derived from human embryonic retinal cells taken from an elective abortion. Now, the newest cell line created in 2015 for vaccines: WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3-month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies. The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a “water bag” abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation.

Then you might ask, which vaccines utilised aborted fetal materials? There is a long list of them; and it includes: the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine/MMR. There is also the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis vaccine (the DTaP/TdP). There is the varicella (or chickenpox) vaccine and the shingles (zoster) vaccine. The hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines; the rabies vaccine; and even some coronavirus vaccines! And so, this is clearly a long established practice in the vaccine industry.

Which also brings us to one of the enablers of this practice, being the ever notorious and ironically named “Planned Parenthood”. Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast ran the biggest abortion clinic in the western Hemisphere in Houston, Texas. This abortion clinic not only aborted babies up to 6 months, but they sold the aborted babies for experiments. Why is this important to note: first, it emphasises that they are not an entity advocating the safety or life of the mother, they function with a blatant disregard for the life of an unborn child. But to further appreciate the gravity of the truth that these people are controlled by demonic forces, kindly have a listen to how they speak about the bodies of the children that were aborted.

But, while the footage we just watched was recently released, it is not the first time that Planned Parenthood is implicated in an abortion scandal. More specifically, you’d recall that we recently discussed a judge ruling, on the 19th of June this year, from a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey accusing Planned Parenthood of transporting minors out of state for abortions will move forward. The lawsuit is based on conversations between Planned Parenthood staff and a man from a conservative activist group who secretly filmed the staff while inquiring about an abortion for his fake 13-year-old niece. The video, which was captured in December, was posted on social media by the conservative activist group and self-proclaimed right wing news organisation that often conducts undercover stings.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which runs the Kansas City area clinic where the video was taken, asked that the judge dismiss the lawsuit shortly after it was filed. Furthermore, at a hearing in early June, John Andrew Hirth, an attorney for Planned Parenthood, said there was no proof the Kansas City area clinic broke the law. However, the Boone County Judge, Brouck Jacobs, found merit for moving forward with the case.

THIS DEHUMANISATION OF FOETUSES ALSO HARMS FATHERS DISPROPORTIONATELY

It must be stated explicitly that this is nothing short of child sacrifices, and ironically, much like we saw from what were deemed backwards and pagan societies like the Aztecs and Norse civilisations. I say this because people who are not possessed by a spirit that disregards human life do not speak of killing children so casually and cavalier; they also do not formulate mechanism to enable abortions to take place at the expense of the law. They also do not set up shop outside a political convention so people can simply abort a child, as though it is a simple and inconsequential to-do item on their list for the day. THEREFORE, institutions like Planned Parenthood, who sensationalise abortion (beyond considerations about a mother’s life or rape cases) might well be a manifestation of demonic spirits that demanded child sacrifice. Their works, which we’ve just heard about, do not show an organisation that is providing a health service, they are providing an avenue to kill unborn babies. Today, groups like feminists and other liberals make the argument that abortion is permissible simply because women should get to make a choice about whether they want to carry a baby – for them it is an argument of the woman’s agency, and in no way about life.

But, as far as abortion is concerned, men are actually horribly affected by the disproportionate focus on women and their bodily autonomy when it comes to the Democrat’s federalised abortion plan. Women veto the decision on abortion, despite the father’s wishes and plea – and this is not in instances where the mother’s life is threatened by a health emergency or an case of rape – it is a generic practice that women (at any point and time) can choose to abort the baby.

He is right: it is an evil law that killed his daughter, which is why we must recognise the underlying spiritual war when it comes to abortion. But, in the status quo, this evil  is driven by two things: first is the third wave feminist principle, I mentioned earlier, that women’s choices supersede all other choices; and the second driver is that unborn babies are treated as non-living things in order to justify their guilt-free murder. You’d recall that we discussed this when refuting the alleged distinction between a foetus and a baby (despite the fact that the word foetus means offspring).

THE DOMINO EFFECT: ORGAN HARVESTING LAWS HAVE FUELED A DEVALUATION OF LIFE

Well, this has undoubtedly created a concerning domino effect, where organ harvesting is progressively being prioritised over the inherent value of human life. And this should surprise no one because laws are a socialisation agent; which is to say that when the government creates precedent that something is acceptable, this has the potential to influence society’s attitudes about that subject of interest. And to drive this further, let’s talk about this medical phenomenon called “brain death:”.

The term “brain death” was essentially created for organ harvesting. This is because there is big money in it for the hospitals. To appreciate this, you have to understand that a human body represents revenue and there are people who put systems in place to take lives for that revenue. In fact, one body can even generate as much as $11 million! Well, how this happened is that a government law in the US created precedent. In particular, the “Uniform Anatomical Gift Act” is legislation with a lot of slick language designed to get a person’s organs. The bill presumes that everyone is an organ donor. Here’s more on how the brain death phenomenon came about; and the assumptions embedded in the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.

As you can imagine, hospitals have thus not been humane in their approach: it has become standard practice to rush to pull the plug on a patient said to be brain dead. As a result, loved ones of patients are having to battle hospitals to keep them from pulling the plug on a patient that they see as a means of getting money through organ harvesting.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso