ACTION

Would you feed your dog chopped up babies? Geraldo Rivera would.

The ’stache-sporting commentator clashed last week with Fox News’s Greg Gutfeld concerning the recent Center for Medical Progress (CFP) tapes which revealed top-level Planned Parenthood officials negotiating prices for harvested fetal organs. Geraldo didn’t find the tapes particularly shocking and quickly became indignant that anyone would.

The exchange began when Geraldo asked Gutfeld, “Are you saying that women should not have the ability to consent whether or not their aborted fetus will be used for research?” Gutfeld said they shouldn’t, to which Geraldo replied, “That’s crazy.” After much talking over each other, Geraldo asked “What if I want to make it dog food?”

Yes, dog food. He actually said that.

I think what Geraldo meant is that it’s nobody’s business what a woman wants to do with her aborted child. I don’t think that it’s a misrepresentation of Geraldo’s views to use the word “child” either, as several comments he made in the course of the debate seem to imply that he believes the thing being ripped from a woman’s womb is in fact a child. So Geraldo concedes that we’re discussing baby corpses here, he’s just not bothered by it.

Like a lot of people, I reeled in disgust at Geraldo’s callous remark but I also found myself wondering why. We’re now so far down the slippery slope that the peripheral issue of how to use the byproducts of abortion moves front and center. The rest has all been decided.

Is it any wonder that Planned Parenthood’s phalanx of defenders have argued that the CFP videos are much ado about nothing? Its organ harvesting is always conducted with the woman’s consent, they claim, and is always done on a not-for-profit basis. Leaving aside for a moment the fact that neither of these two assertions is even true, that’s still a pretty shoddy defense. The Nazis didn’t make money on their organ harvesting either but that didn’t make it right.

But alas, there is a great gulf in this country between what is right and what is legal. In America you can legally kill an unborn child and legally sell her liver, brain, and heart; but if you charge one penny more than the costs of procurement and shipping, that’s a crime! What a silly point to quibble about—Planned Parenthood says that they don’t charge more for butchered baby parts than what it costs them, and it’s on the rest of us to prove they’re lying. (Watch the videos—it’s all about the money.) Lost in the shouting and cross-talk is the fact that they kill children.

Which makes Geraldo’s indifference almost understandable. Who cares what we do with the “products of conception” once we’re done sucking them out with a shop vac? Now is not time to get squeamish. We have to do something with our truckloads of mashed baby, so why not sell it to Alpo? It’s better than keeping it in jars in Kermit Gosnell’s refrigerator.

But people tend to get themselves in a tizzy when we creatively repurpose dead baby parts. Here’s a small example that I think illustrates the public’s unease with using aborted children for the betterment of humanity—last year, it was reported that Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) was using fetuses to heat hospitals across the UK. The 15,000 incinerated fetuses were part of a “Waste-to-Energy” plan that used medical refuse and ordinary trash as a fuel. And who could be against that, except perhaps some sadist who delights in people dying of hypothermia? As it turned out, some people got their knickers all in a bunch and the NHS quickly put a stop to the practice—not the killing of babies, mind you, but the burning of their corpses for heat.

The NHS’s Chief Inspector of Hospitals, Sir Mike Richards, seemed oddly fixated on the wrong issue, namely that no one asked the mothers for permission. Said Sir Richards, “I am disappointed trusts may not be informing or consulting women and their families. This breaches our standard on respecting and involving people who use services…”

So there’s the real scandal—women didn’t consent to burning their children like firewood. But why should anyone ask them? To even pose the question implies that dead babies are somehow different from other kinds of medical waste.

Dead babies have also been used to generate electricity. The Covanta Waste-to-Energy facility in Oregon discovered in 2014 that it too was burning “products of conception” purchased from British Columbia. The hacked-up children were mixed in with ordinary trash and were thus unknown to the plant officials who bought garbage en masse from Canada.

Like the NHS, Covanta also acted swiftly to halt the burning of unborn children, though I don’t understand why. Who are they to deprive us of an abundant renewable resource? We could even construct a baby sludge pipeline from Canada directly to trash-burning reactors here in the States. Think of it like Keystone XL, only Obama wouldn’t veto it. Energy independence is national security!

What if dead babies could make those wrinkles around your eyes vanish? Surely that be a worthy use for something that’s just going to be thrown away anyway. The Swiss cosmetics manufacturer Neocutis admits that it used an aborted fourteen week fetus in the development of one of its rejuvenating skin creams. From its website: “A small biopsy of fetal skin was donated following a one-time medical termination and a dedicated cell bank was established for developing new skin treatments. Originally established for wound healing and burn treatments, today this same cell bank also provides a lasting supply of cells for producing Neocutis’ proprietary skin care ingredient Processed Skin Cell Proteins.”

Well that’s a relief. So they only used one dead baby to get the project started. No more dead babies will be necessary. I’m at a loss to explain why it’s morally acceptable to use one dead baby to look young and beautiful but not a pile of them.

Geraldo's dog food proposal isn’t that much different than what we already do with the unwanted waste of our copulations. We don’t yet feed aborted kids to Fido but we do use them to keep warm, to pamper our skin, and to keep the lights on. And why shouldn’t we? It’s pretty gross, for sure, but that argument is rather anemic. No compelling reason remains why we shouldn’t go full Swiftian and put our abortion byproducts to use as fertilizers, lubricants, soaps, and in any number of yet unfathomed applications. If we can go about our daily lives without thinking about the abortion clinic we drive past every day, we can also choose not think about the dead babies keeping us warm through the winter months.

A society that kills the unborn has already conceded the moral argument against abortion. If killing the unborn is not immoral, then who can find fault with feeding their corpses to dogs? Certainly not us.

Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/who-are-we-to-say-that-aborted-children-dont-belong-in-dog-food/