Economics. It seems like such a safe subject, right? Think of the television commercials that look at the ‘cause and effect’ of being Phil Shifley – they show how the most unforeseen outcome can be the answer to a scenario; but Occam’s razor is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the answer is the most obvious [most sense or path of least resistance]. Essentially, unless the math doesn’t jive, it’s conjecture. The math of this abortion equation does NOT jive….how can this have possibly been calculated when ‘cause and effect’ cannot be totally determined. Incidentally, cause and effect are philosophical, not statistical.
The abortion economic question is this: Was abortion the answer to lower criminal activity BECAUSE of their mother’s present economic and social status?
The author of ‘Freakonomics’ wrote: “The very factors that drove millions of American women to have an abortion also seemed to predict that their children, had they been born, would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives…….Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, however, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime. In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.”
Also know that the author commented that having a swimming pool in your back yard makes your child more likely to die than not having a pool. I might agree to that, and add that having a way to harm a child close at hand, whether it is a swimming pool or an abortion practitioner, to be a very BAD DECISION and can result in a child’s death. Further, the child can be taught to stay away from the pool, a fence with a locked gate can be installed, BUT an abortion is something a child does not accidentally fall into and drown. A choice was made FOR the child to die because of his/her economic status, and now the scenario of the swimming pool is safe from the child’s certain drowning death. To be clear, most poverty stricken families do not have swimming pools to be concerned about. Their argument is perverse and invalid, even offensive.
Following the absurdity of Freakonomics is, well, absurd. The likelihood of a child born in poverty becoming a criminal is the same as any person born, regardless of the child’s circumstances. Was abortion the answer to lower criminal activity BECAUSE of their mother’s present economic and social status? Some would assume that to be true. The truth is that most moms are much more concerned about their own poverty FIRST. The author of Freakonomics did not consider the truth of the situation, who actually aborts, and why.
QUESTION: Who here is responsible for how they were conceived? A compelling thought, a reasonable consideration.
Of course I have a problem with this scenario using abortion to kill would-be criminals, and particularly with the author of Freakonomics, because IF his so-called research is correct, then every third-world child would never live outside the womb because they will always be in poverty, malnourished and ill. Billionaires like Bill and Melinda Gates uses population control to decide who gets to be born in developing countries because of the unborn child’s circumstances and his/her parent’s economic status. Again, who here is responsible for how they were conceived?
Even if there is just one parent, a child’s life can have meaning and true purpose. A parent’s job is to bring up a child to be a good friend, parent, spouse, worker, and citizen. Cause and effect makes for interesting conversation but should NEVER determine the outcome of life and death for anyone that cannot testify on their own behalf.
We saw this article this morning and we wanted to expound on these 12 items. First, we know there is aborted fetal tissue [dead aborted children] in the research/ development and testing of vaccines. Even the media and big tech can’t deny that fact. But the failure of thought about this is obvious: Dead babies in your vaccines don’t matter when you have been coerced by the media and government, forcing your hand to decide between life or death, of a virus that has a 99% survival rate. So shame on anyone that justifies getting jabbed with a vaccine that uses dead kids FOR ANY REASON.
All footnotes and citations for the original article can be found here. Also note that these covid vaccines are FREE. That alone should scare you to death.
So here are the 12 faulty assumptions, justifications, of fetal tissue use in vaccines, our comments italicized:
1. “Only a few babies were used.”
While each individual cell line contains the cells of just one baby, many aborted babies are used in the process of creating a cell line. For example, under oath, scientist Stanley Plotkin admitted that there were 76 aborted babies used in just one vaccine study. Furthermore, with cell line WI-25 we know that it was the 25th specimen from the 19th baby. The two cell strains used by Covid vaccines are named HEK293 and PERC6. The name HEK 293 stands for a Human Embryonic Kidney from the 293rd experiment — we can be confident that more babies preceded the final baby used for HEK293.
It is clear that assumptions are exactly that, assumptions with nothing to back it up. Clearly, we need to do our due diligence for ourselves, our children, our elderly.
2. “The babies were of a very early gestation.”
Most of the babies whose tissue formed the basis of the different vaccine cell lines, were over 3 months when aborted. For example, under oath, scientist Stanley Plotkin admitted that all of the 76 unborn babies used in the study were 3 months or older. At 3 months, a baby is fully formed: “she has begun swallowing and kicking… facial muscles are getting a workout as her tiny features form one expression after another…”
It wouldn’t matter if the aborted child was a few weeks or not. A baby is a baby, is a BABY, IS A BABY at any gestation. Why does it make a difference to vaxxers? To justify using dead, aborted children, of course.
3. “Consent was given, so usage is ethical.”
Parties to a murder cannot ethically donate the body of their victim to research. Thus it follows that no meaningful consent exists. (Though the mothers involved are often, to varying extents, victims themselves.)
A dead child cannot give consent to use their body for research like born people can. So let’s do the math. The masses believe that these aborted persons were killed in the 60’s and/or 70’s. NO ONE was asked if they wanted to donate their dead child to research. An abortive mom may have been asked to donate after Planned Parenthood was CAUGHT SELLING ABORTED BABY PARTS FOR PROFIT.
4. “The baby was dead when the tissue was taken.”
With fetal tissue research, cell death renders the tissue unfit for purpose: tissues and organs must be harvested “within 5 minutes” and at times this occurs while the baby’s heart is still beating — this was also revealed during a Planned Parenthood court deposition. Thus, harvesting the organs can be a type of torture beyond the normal abortion procedure. Though we have no definitive proof live harvesting occurred specifically in the making of vaccine cell lines, since it is “no rare event”, there are legitimate grounds for concern.
True, there is no “rare event”. Also note that these children are used for embryonic stem cell research at major universities all over the country as well as big pharma. Using FRESH fetal tissue is much like organ donation; a person cannot be DEAD when their organs are harvested for transplant.
5. “Some were from miscarriages.”
“The requirements for ‘freshness’ of many human foetal tissues” mean it is extremely unlikely any were from miscarriages. “To obtain embryo cells, embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used…”
See comment on #4.
6. “Using a dead body is distinct from abortion.”
Some imagine that those involved in creating the cell lines have nothing to do with the abortion itself. However, in advance of the abortion of a fetus whose tissue will be used for research, there are a number of steps that take place. These include obtaining consent, conducting genetic screening, selecting the abortion method and other steps for optimal harvesting — all of which impact the abortionist’s conduct, creating considerable interplay with the agent seeking human material, who thus “becomes to some extent an accessory”. A parallel to Saul at Stephen’s stoning exists — Saul didn’t throw a stone, but as a consenting bystander he was not without moral guilt. In cases of live tissue extraction, research is still more directly connected to murder.
Again, using the Planned Parenthood’s harvesting FRESH aborted children for PROFIT case, it was noted in some of the undercover videos that the abortionist had to abort in a different way to procure these parts for sale, which is ILLEGAL.
7. “No one now profits from the abortion.”
Companies who developed the cell lines continue to be rewarded by their use, including in vaccines. Thus direct benefit accrues to agents complicit in the original murder.
Literally EVERYONE, but the dead child, profits from abortion. Abortion is a business with lobbyists and salespeople.
8. “Vaccines don’t contain the child’s actual cells.”
Vaccines produced in cell lines contain fragments of the child’s DNA — one study even found “a complete individual genome” of the aborted child. The divided cells the vaccine was grown in would have been the child’s as she grew.
Yes, you will have another person’s DNA in your body. And that person was murdered for your vaccine.
9. “No extra abortions are necessary.”
Despite claims to the contrary, normal cell strains “are in fact ‘mortal’”, bound by the “Hayflick Limit” of about 50 cell divisions. Since HEK293 becomes cancerous after time, it will need replacing — just as other early cell strains did. The use of vaccines eventually creates a need for further abortions to replace depleting stocks.
IT IS UNREASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT A SINGLE ABORTION IN THE 60’S OR 70’S FEEDS BIG PHARMA FOR ALL VACCINE RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING.
10. “The abortions were from decades ago.”
Though most abortions for vaccines were from before the 80’s, time cannot make murder moral. Moreover, a new Chinese cell line, WALVAX-2 was created in 2015, and as already explained, more lines will be necessary.
Again, it is unreasonable to even think that no more aborted persons are used in the continuing pursuit of toxic vaccines.
11. “No further babies are suffering as a result.”
While fetal tissue vaccines are widely accepted, general fetal harvesting is legitimised and impossible to ban — so it has grown instead, leading to many more babies suffering. For example, in 1982 a container of 16,500 fetuses was found at the US home of a former laboratory owner. In 2003, the Dutch company behind HEK293 sought aborted babies as far afield as New Zealand and Australia. Journal articles discuss “the fetal tissue economy” in Britain. In 2019, 2,200 fetuses were found at an abortionists home and the court depositions of Planned Parenthood staff showed harvesting continues at scale.
An unborn person suffers pain during their abortion death. It has been proven in ultrasounds that babies retreat from the abortion instruments. Wouldn’t you suffer if your were dismembered while alive?Babies feel pain. Period.
12. “The ‘greater good’ outweighs concerns.”
To acquiesce with evil against an innocent unwilling victim for the sake of communal blessing enters dark waters — all historic child sacrifice is based on this premise. “However, it may then be argued that these baby body parts would otherwise be wasted, thrown away. But not only does this justify abortion, but it is pure utilitarianism, that says pretty well anything is justified as long as the end is (potentially) good. In good medical science the end does not justify the means.”
Could not agree more. We know too many people who are getting the covid vax for the “greater good”, virtue signaling for others to see. Don’t buy it. They aren’t getting jabbed FOR YOU. And if they say that, simply say NO THANK YOU and why.
The moral implications and Christian implications far outweigh the secular truths that aborted humans are just as human as YOU ARE and deserved a life full of love and days. Abortion is evil enough, but using their dead bodies for any reason is unacceptable and despicable.
EP26: China should have never been a host country because:
1. The 'gift' of the virus at the exact right time in the US
2. Forced abortions and sterilizations since 1979 killing approximately 250-400 MILLION
3. Burning underground churches, confiscating bibles, imprisoning Chinese Christians
A changed mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Links to the episode:
"One Child Nation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMcJVoLwyD0
Women 'tied like pigs,' forced abortions part of China's 'one-child policy.
China's 'One-Child Policy' Results In Forced Abortion, Infanticide
Biden Hands the Keys to China
This is not an example of what can happen, it’s proof that it has.
READ MORE HERE:
Sidewalk Rescuing and Ministry, by a Minister