Oct 24 2006

Dead Child, Just Trash

Published by at 2:34 pm under All General Discussions

This is what happens when people are told lies and misinformation about when life begins and what is a human being – dead babies as trash. Science is ABSOLUTELY clear on when a human individual is created. It is at conception when the egg and sperm combine their traits to create the one and only new human individual.

Each human has their own natural ‘bar code’. A built in ID that cannot be mistaken with any other person (except identical syblings like twins) or form of life. And that one and only unique ID is the DNA. With tens of thousands of genes in the human body, the combinations of genes is nearly infinite. And while there are commonalities and identical patterns (human beings are not apes), there is still enough diversity available to ID just about everyone on the planet.

If you do a DNA test on an embryo (where ’embryo’ defines the stage of life, not the species or form of life) you can test it against the parents and the result will clearly show the living organism is not a ‘part’ of either parent. All the ‘parts’ of an organism (cells, tissues, organs, limbs) have one DNA pattern. Just one. They all have the same ‘bar code’ in each cell. That is why a hair follicle, saliva, cheek cell, skin cell, or tooth root can be used to identify an individual. That is why it works and is legally binding. The science doesn’t allow for interpretation. The fetus is a unique human being.

The dead babies or fetuses each have their own DNA, we can test and the results WILL NEVER WAIVER. The DNA shows the dead organism (living being) was unique, and not a limb or sack of cells from a parent. If left to nature, these babies would not die but grow into a toddler, a child, a teen, etc following the remaining stages of life. But these victims were not allowed to live ‘naturally’.

Now if a family needs to face the tough decision to abort a child, it should still be treated with the respect due a human being, – not as biological debris (as the Nazis treated the dead Jews in the holocaust by piling bodies up in trash piles and in-ground dumps). This is so callous as to make the stomach heave in revulsion.

This is what liberalism has wrought. To treat young human beings like a terrorist treats an infidel. How can the West pretend to be superior when we throw out dead babies in the trash while we are horrified by the slaughter of a human being like a lamb to the slaughter. Liberalism is the ulitimate consumer ideaology: take what you want and destroy the rest – even if it is alive.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Dead Child, Just Trash”

  1. Mark78 says:

    Utterly repulsive.
    How people can equate a fetus with just another body part will always be beyond me.

    Most of these people are brainwashed libs and certainly have never seen an ultrasound or a living baby pulled from a woman.

    Utterly disgusting.

    Probably the top reason why I have no respect whatsoever for the libs who talk about deaths in war and have no problem killing an utterly defenseless baby.

  2. Limerick says:


    AJ: what is your take on Steele’s statement on the M.J.Fox ad about stem cell research?

  3. kathie says:

    Life, Liberty and the Pursute of Happiness are the foundation of our nation. Life being the first. Why would someone care about how many soldiers are killed in battle but not care about how many babies are aborted. Forty thousand babies are aborted in New York City each year. Either life is precious or it is not. If it is precious you do everything to protect it. No one should ever be thrown away.

  4. Barbara says:

    The libs are such hypocrits. Where is PETA? They are so totally against using animals in lab research that they harass lab worker’s families and threaten their children, but it is all right to use human beings in lab research? Science has not fully explored adult stem cell research yet. It is not time to give up on adult stem cell research or even to do both similtaneously. We need to see how far adult stem cell can go before we are reduced to killing babies. Besides, we are put on this earth and must deal with the luck of the draw, not to sacrifice another human being to save ourselves. That is totally selfish. If these are frozen embryos that are used, what is wrong with donating them to couples who cannot conceive? This way a life is not wasted. We do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies. And I certainly would not put this right in the hands of politicians.

  5. The Macker says:

    AJ, Mark78,Limerick,Kathie,Barbara,
    Kudos for your clear thoughts in defense of humanity.

    I doubt if civilized society can endure as long as some members of our kind are considered expendable.It is dehumanizing to sacrifice the weakest of our species for the benefit of others among us.

  6. Ken says:

    Strata, a question. What percentage of fertilized eggs fail to attach to the uterus? This is not a trick question on my part but one which merely indicates a search on my part to define for myself when life
    begins. If a significant percentage fails to attach it perhaps would undermine certain definitions?

  7. AJStrata says:


    I believe the answer is zero. If memory serves eggs move down the fallopium (sp?) tube and attach to the uterus were they can be fertilized. Faliure to attach results in them being flushed and that month is out for procreation. Some eggs do not attach firmly and can fall off. There is no way to know the percentage of eggs which have attachment problems since a problem appears the same as a non-pregnancy.

  8. aj4erj says:

    “Science is ABSOLUTELY clear on when a human individual is created. It is at conception when the egg and sperm combine their traits to create the one and only new human individual.”

    I don’t think it’s wrong to kill a fertilized egg or an early stage embryo. The fact that a fertilized egg is a “human individual” doesn’t seem important to me. I also think it’s okay to take a truly brain dead person off life support.

    My beliefs are based on the fact that a fertilized egg (or a truly brain dead person) is not conscious, has no self awareness, can feel no pain or remorse.

    What do you base your beliefs on?

  9. AJStrata says:


    Well, despite your strange rationalizations, there is a difference between someone who has sustained severe brain damage and has no hope of full life and an embryo which has the potential for any life. The fact the difference means nothing to you is only a reflection on you – not the life you c ould care less about.

    I am sure many feel the same way about you. They could care less what happens to you, Thankfully you understand there are those of us who think differently.

  10. AJStrata says:


    LJStrata has corrected my recollections (as I knew she would being so much more intimately involved with the female process of conception). The egg fertilizes and then, as zygote, attempts to attach to the womb. As I said before, the answer is still zero. A fertilized egg transmuted into a zygote – it is no longer an egg. And as I said before, the percentage of non-pregnancies due to poor zygote attachment verses other non-pregnancy conditions is unknown.

    But I am still impressed by your serious questions which deserved a serious answer.

  11. AJStrata says:


    My beliefs are based on what science knows and doesn’t know. When you can prove to me conciousness is not evident in an embryo you have a point. Since science doesn’t even know how to measure consciousness you are guessing wildly and wrecklessly. I know better than to listen to people who grasp.

  12. aj4erj says:

    “My beliefs are based on what science knows and doesn’t know. When you can prove to me conciousness is not evident in an embryo you have a point. Since science doesn’t even know how to measure consciousness you are guessing wildly and wrecklessly.”

    Fertilized eggs and early embryos don’t have brains. There is a lot of scientific evidence that consciousness depends on the brain. People who suffer brain damage can lose consciousness. If you get knocked on the head you can lose consciousness. General anaestethics cause people to lose consciousness by affecting the brain cells.

    Are your views based on the belief that an embryo “is” conscious or are they based upon the “possibility that an embryo is conscious”? If the former, what causes you to belive an embryo is conscious? If the latter, how do you balance that probability against the probability that embryo research will lead to medical advances? Might not reasonable people disagree on that?

    It is also relevant to this discussion that there is in fact scientific evidence that consciousness does not come from the brain but from our spiritual nature. Quite a few respected scientists accept this evidence.


    If one accepts a spiritual source of consciousness then the issue depends on the time at which and the conditions under which a soul is associated with biological body. It might even be the case that a soul is not associated with an embryo or is not associated with an embryo destined for scientific research.

  13. Barbara says:

    The point of all this discussion is the slippery slope. At what point does a fertilized egg become a embryo and when does an embryo become a baby? Who thinks he/she is super wonderful enough to make this decision to kill a potential human being? This whole discussion is moot to the liberals backing this stem cell research. After all, they have no problem killing an 8-month term baby while it is coming out of the birth canal much less a fertilized egg or an embryo. I would never ally myself with these monsters in any form or fashion for any reason in the world.

  14. AJStrata says:


    It doesn’t matter when embryo turns to fetus – these are stages of the life of the organism. Does it matter when a baby becomes a toddler in terms of whether it is a human being? Of course not. That is the essence of my point. The term “adult” can be applied to a human or a chimpanzee. But it is always applied to an individual organism of a species. If we are going to use scientific terms in this debate we better get used to using them correctly. There is nothing ‘potential’ in the human being part. From inception those cells are a unique human being. Check the DNA and you will find that is an undeniable fact. A fact that can be held up in court using the same DNA tests that identify criminals.

  15. Barbara says:


    I agree with you 100%. I was trying to make the people on this site who feel that embryos are not people see the fallacy of their ideas. All the stages of life from conception to birth are about real people. I used the word ” potential ” because not all babies are born alive and certainly not all in vitro babies who fail to adhere to the womb and I knew someone would bring up that argument. It does not matter that some of these babies fail to become human beings. The fact of the matter is that these babies deserve a chance at life and only God decides who lives and who dies, not some crooked politician with his own ax to grind. Besides, I have thought all along that we do not know who we are killing with abortion and now stem cell research. We do not know the potential of these lost lives and what they could have accomplished if they had been allowed to live.

  16. Ken says:

    My question about attachment involved my stand on abortion,
    which I consider reasonably conservative, allowing for exceptions of (proven) rape and incest and the life of the mother. Most Catholics
    are unaware Aquinas taught ensoulment came after several weeks, earlier in the male, I believe.

    AJ sounds as if he accepts the current Roman Catholic Church
    definition, which leaves me wondering why he ignores the Papal
    condemnation of the Iraq War as immorally pre-emptive. A not
    450,000 to 650,000 lives are at question here.

    Obviously if the feasibility of varied types of stem cell research is being debated here, a whole different issue than abortion is at stake and one in which I express no firm opinion.

    Is there no medical technology which can be/have been utilized to offer evidence on the attachment issue? Again, if a high percentage of…. zygotes can be shown not to come to fruition, there are implications.

  17. Ken says:

    Substitute “zygote” for fertilized egg and my question remains.
    If a significant percentage do not attach and come to fruition,
    there are implications. Modern medical techonology offers no

    I am against abortion except in cases of rape and incest and life of the mother…a reasonably conservative position. Aquinas taught
    ensoulment takes place weeks after conception, earlier for the male I believe. ..If Strata accepts the modern Catholic definition, seems he should also accept the Papal condemnation of the Iraq War as
    pre-emptively immoral.

  18. Barbara says:

    What happens to DNA if alien stem cells are injected into a person? Does this change his DNA to something else?
    Can a person commit a crime and have alien stem cells injected so his new DNA does not match what is at the scene of the crime? Would this research put present DNA evidence in jeopardy?