Velocitizing Morality

[Butters]

O.K., Let’s start with this,

“And I demand an apology or for you to prove that I am ignorant and culturally bigoted and your broadbrush slur against Americans. That is a defamation of my character, and as I am involved in this debate I cannot also act as a Moderator, but I will request Moderator involvement if you do not retract that slur. You have been caught expounding on a subject you know little about, and have now resorted to personal unsubstantiated slurs. I am investigating the issue with the report about the Chinese (see the end of this post for additional information). If you notice Koukl cited a nonpro-life source for that information (thus he was not behaving ignorantly or irresponsibly) and it was used anecdotally, and you have either failed to grasp that or are misrepresenting its use as a diversion from the main point.”


O.K. I apologize, and I retract the statement. In it’s place I will say that in my opinion MANY Americans are culturally ignorant and bigoted. Feel better?

Now as to the article in your OP,

I did not need any direction from Vork, Ms. Warren, the claims regarding China are well known to me, and really the reason I responded.
If you were interested in the TRUTH, Ms. Warren, you could have easily found out that the Eastern Express was a tabloid rag with an anti Chinese bias, and journalistic integrity far below that of the National inquirer.
If you were interested in the TRUTH, Ms. Warren, you could have easily found out that these claims are circulated and repeated by fundamentalist Christians, anti-abortionists, and anti-Chinese groups for years, and every single allegation is traced back to this same single source.
If you were interested in the TRUTH, Ms.Warren, you could have checked ant number of reputable sources, and found that this article is BS. (I apologize for the profanity, but the word lie is not strong enough to cover accusing a population of cannibalism)
Of course I find it ironic that you can become indignant at my comments about Americans, when you have no problem accusing an entire population of cannibalism!

If you had been interested in the TRUTH,Ms. Warren, you could have easily found out that there are no displays of lampshades made of human skin at Majdaneck or Auschwitz, if these objects ever existed, they certainly never survived the end of the war, and none exist today.

So, you post an article containing a couple of well known lies, what are people supposed to make of it? I still contend that fetuses being killed to harvest their stem cells for profit is also a lie. I you have evidence of this occurring, I recommend you take it to law enforcement, as this is ILLEGAL. If you have evidence of a doctor performing a post-viable abortion in a case were the health of the mother was not at stake, please inform local law enforcement, as this is Illegal. (See post above)
HOWEVER, what disturbs me is that although you cannot truthfully claim that thousands of these procedures are done each year, I cannot truthfully say they are not. No one knows, as stats are not kept. In an issue this emotional for some, the lack of hard facts is extremely disturbing, and I would like to see this changed.
Sooo Ms. Warren, basically you have managed to do just what I warned you about. But spreading lies, misinformation, and responding with kneejerk reactions, you are managing to alienate someone that is somewhat sympathetic to your cause, quite a shame really.

[Butters]

"You are out of line here, bud. I suggest that you apologize."

I have done so. I see you haven't asked Ms. Warren to apologize for accussing the Chinese people of cannibalism.

[Alden]

Maybe that's because she hasn't?

The report, ignored by the U.S. media, but carried by UPI, the Japanese Economic Newswire, Agency French Press and The [London] Daily Telegraph, indicated that doctors at the state-run Shenzhen Health Center for Women and Children hand out bottles of thumb-sized aborted babies to be made into meat cakes or soup with pork and ginger.

This is an anecdote. Supposedly, this was reported by the above news agencies. It comes to us by way of Mr. Koukl. Dee Dee, did not say "I, Dee Dee Warren, say that the Chinese people are cannibals." In fact, she agrees that this story is perhaps disputed, because she hasn't been able to verify it.

[Dee Dee Warren]

And the FACT is that I reproduced the ENTIRE Daily Telegraph article which does not accuse the whole Chinese population of anything but describes an alleged practice by a certain segment. As if... a paper carried a story about wife-swapping clubs in America, and then someone claimed that quoting such a story proves that the person quoting such a thing must believe that all Americans are swingers. Nonsense. Butters got caugth speaking from ignorance and did not take to kindly to being corrected. You have no proof that this article is false (if so produce it - I checked out the urban legend charge and found no such allegation that the article was false)... the part that was denounced by the urban legends site was a later use of this article by certain people, not the original article. Did that FACT escape your notice Butters?

Here is another fact (you are not a careful reader or researcher).....

Ms. Warren, you could have easily found out that the Eastern Express was a tabloid rag with an anti Chinese bias, and
journalistic integrity far below that of the National inquirer.

I did not quote the Eastern Express, please quote where I did. I quoted the London Daily Telegraph. Provide proof that the story is not true. If not... the point remains of the original article which point you have not dealt with. You keep bringing up "thousands" which I have already dismantled as irrelevant. And I already provided proof that it is NOT illegal across the board, but in the MAJORITY of the cases is for convenience, not the LIFE of the mother (I did not use the nebulous term of health). You did not deal with the facts but are seizing upon a peripheral issue.

If you had been interested in the TRUTH,Ms. Warren, you could have easily found out that there are no displays of lampshades made of human skin at Majdaneck or Auschwitz, if these objects ever existed, they certainly never survived the end of the war, and none exist today.

And again, quote where the article said that there were such objects on display... another peripheral red herring. It is you who keep quoting inaccuracies about one article which is not that difficult to keep straight.

[Butters]

Well, now I’m wondering if you even read the article you posted, Ms. Warren.

“And the FACT is that I reproduced the ENTIRE Daily Telegraph article which does not accuse the whole Chinese population of anything but describes an alleged practice by a certain segment. As if... a paper carried a story about wife-swapping clubs in America, and then someone claimed that quoting such a story proves that the person quoting such a thing must believe that all Americans are swingers. Nonsense. Butters got caugth speaking from ignorance (he has not dealt with a whit of that) and did not take to kindly to being corrected. You have no proof that this article is false... the part that was denounced by the urban legends site was a later use of this article by certain people, not the original article. Did that FACT escape your notice Butters?”

From the O.P.,
“A Hong Kong newspaper has reported that aborted human fetuses are being used as health food in Communist China.
The report, ignored by the U.S. media, but carried by UPI, the Japanese Economic Newswire, Agency French Press and The [London] Daily Telegraph, indicated that doctors at the state-run Shenzhen Health Center for Women and Children hand out bottles of thumb-sized aborted babies to be made into meat cakes or soup with pork and ginger.”

Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but this article does not reffer to any certian segment of the Chinese population, only that they are being used as health food, maybe only health food nuts a supposed to be doing this.

"I did not quote the Eastern Express, please quote where I did. I quoted the London Daily Telegraph. Provide proof that the story is not true. If not... the point remains of the original article which point you have not dealt with."

I'm sorry to burst your bubble Ms. Warren, but the original article appeared in the Eastern Express, this is your original source, but I guess you didn't bother to search for the original source.


If you had been interested in the TRUTH,Ms. Warren, you could have easily found out that there are no displays of lampshades made of human skin at Majdaneck or Auschwitz, if these objects ever existed, they certainly never survived the end of the war, and none exist today. ”



"And again, quote where the article said that there were such objects on display... another peripheral red herring. It is you who keep quoting inaccuracies about one article which is not that difficult to keep straight."


I am disapointed Ms. Warren, it seem you did NOT read the entire article before you posted it.

From the O.P.,

"I have been to two different concentration camps in my life, Majdaneck (little known but among the largest in Europe) and Auschwitz, both in Poland. The rooms were scrubbed clean and the strong smell of disinfectant hung in the air. Sometimes when I walk into public rooms scrubbed with that same disinfectant I'm immediately transported back.

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."


Of course, I'm being charitible and assumming that Mr. Koukle is only speaking metaphorically when he says this,

"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."

Execpt for the gold from their skulls part, as we both know that this is illeagal.

"And I already provided proof that it is NOT illegal across the board, but in the MAJORITY of the cases is for convenience, not the LIFE of the mother (I did not use the nebulous term of health)"

Excuse me, but I don't recall you proving this at all, and is really the one thing we both agree should not be happening.


And no your forced apology is not sufficient as it concerns me personally. You have accused me of being bigoted against the Chinese without proof, and I demand an unequivocal apology.

Well, it is to bad that my apology seems forced to you, I gave it all the sincerity I could. It seemed to me that although I said "Americans" It would have been inferred that I didn't mean ALL Americans, as this would have included. In fact, you seem to agree with me,

"As if... a paper carried a story about wife-swapping clubs in America, and then someone claimed that quoting such a story proves that the person quoting such a thing must believe that all Americans are swingers. Nonsense."

I have apologized once, I have retracted and corrected my statement, and no further apology will be forthcomming.

You have posted an accusation of cannibalism against the Chinese people, without ever checking it's accuracy, and have in effect accused the Chinese people of cannibalism yourself by merely posting it.
Have you even checked this story out YET?

[Dee Dee Warren]

And while I await time to respond to your red herring distractions from the main issue.. are you ever going to deal with that??

[Dee Dee Warren]

You have posted an accusation of cannibalism against the Chinese people, without ever checking it's accuracy, and have in effect accused the Chinese people of cannibalism yourself by merely posting it.
Have you even checked this story out YET?

Have you proven it is false YET? No, you have not. You have made accusations that it is and have yet to provide proof that it is. If the original source was the Eastern paper you cited, the FACT is that the London Daily Telegraph, a REPUTABLE paper, picked up the story and carried it. It is perfectly reasonable for any researcher such as Koukl to rely upon stories ran by reputable papers, as I doubt you Butters have gone and done all the original source work on everything you quoted if you believed it was checked out a reputable organization. Your accusatins are shallow distractions. Now it may interest you that your accusations have been brought to Mr. Koukl's attention as I just got off the phone with his assistant. She will be inquiring of him about your two accusations. But she requested, as do I, proof from you, not just hurled elephants, that the quoted news story has been proven false. If it has, they will issue a correction, as will I. The ball is in your court. You are not only accusing me and Mr. Koukl, but are also accusing the London Daily Telegraph. If you have proof, pony it up.

[Butters]

Ms. Warren, I believe you will find very little about this online, but here is something to get you started. As you have made the accusation, it is encumbent on you to prove the validity of your post. One article by a now defunt rag is not enough evidence to accuse a people of cannibalism. I have not posted the pictures mentioned in this article, but you can find them on several Christian sites. I am also not claiming that the source below is not biased, but as far as I have been able to detirmine, it is factually correct. A quick trip to your local library will give you all the info you need.



Eating Fetuses: The lurid Christian fantasy of godless Chinese eating "unborn children."

by Miss P. Dixon, 10.2000



Blood Libel: Eating Childen
Blood libel [1] is the practice of accusing one's enemy of eating children. Originally traced to pagans slandering early Christians it quickly adopted the form it would take for the next two thousand years - that of Jews murdering and eating Christian children, primarily for Passover. The practice of blood libel has been revived in the US by Christian conservatives, and is now aimed at their latest enemy, and most promising market: the Chinese.

Beijing, 1995: The Godless Triad
The United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing in 1995, was hosted live on the Internet - one of the first of such events on the Web, and thousands of women the world over logged on. Conservative Christians could not fathom why the rest of the world was not outraged by the convergence of their three arch enemies: women, the communist Chinese, and the Clintons. James Dobson, of the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family book and radio empire, covered the event in his August 1995 newsletter titled, Position on United Nations Conference on Women. Uncertain that he could move apathetic Americans with bland facts, Dobson quoted a World Magazine article about the Chinese dining on aborted fetuses as evidence of this godless triad.

If [capital punishment] isn't enough to turn one's stomach, consider this: According to World... human fetuses have begun to appear on menus of Chinese restaurants as a delicacy and health tonic.

At the request of WORLD MAGAZINE (see notes below) I have removed the photo of La Mindy. A description will have to suffice. Picture a helmet-haired bottle-blond with a toothy plaster smile in a pastel Land's End mock turtle and you've got an image truer than her original photo.
World Cultural Editor Mindy Belz
World Magazine's [2] Cultural Editor Mindy Belz broke the story of fetal cannibalism to the Christian West with her article "Unspeakable Delicacy". Belz's source was "The Eastern Express," a small, now-defunct, English-language tabloid out of Hong Kong. Bruce Gilley authored the piece titled Aborted Babies Sold As Health Food for $10 in March of 1995.

I recently wrote to Ms. Belz to ask if she had followed up on the story, if the practice of fetal cannibalism has continued or if she considered running an update, or retraction. She replied bluntly that she didn't "see any reason to." I then asked "If [this story] is true, why has this atrocity not continued to be a focal point for your magazine?" She has not replied.

I had less luck getting a reply from Bruce Gilley, the author of the Eastern Express article. Now a "reputable" contributor to Far Eastern Economic Review, and author of Tiger on the Brink: Jiang Zemin and China's New Elite it's understandable that Gilley may want to distance himself from the fabrication that helped launch his career. That Bruce Gilley could pen such puerile nonsense, playing off the blatantly racist notion that "the Chinese will eat anything" [3], has to cast serious doubt on both his journalistic integrity and his relationship with the Chinese among whom he lives and earns his daily bread.

The Rutherford Institute: Eating Babies, Is Nothing Sacred?
In 1996 The Rutherford Institute furthered this salacious rumor with an entire issue of their magazine dedicated to Chinese fetal cannibalism. The graphics above and below were hand painted by the imaginative founder of the Rutherford Institute, John W. Whitehead. Reflecting the biblical notion that human life is spoken into being, rather than developed over nine months in a human womb, Whitehead depicts a happy fetus marching dutifully into a cannibal's mouth, following its umbilical cord to a human stomach. That the umbilicus normally attaches to the placenta, contained in a female uterus, escapes the anatomically challenged artist.


Judie Brown, the founder of the American Life League, interviewed for the Rutherford issue about fetal cannibalism replied,

I've read the articles, but I must tell you that contacting pro-life people who work and live in China has brought serious doubt about those stories to my mind...Apparently there is an ongoing investigation by the Chinese government into these reports. And in one of the news reports, two particular clinics are cited and neither of them even exists. [4]

Ignoring this verified discreditation, writer John Trott continues in 'Eating Babies, is Nothing Sacred?'

A photo depicts Zou Qin [a doctor in a Chinese clinic] smiling, holding up a tiny fetus which hasn't made it to her bowl yet. The stories are gruesome and almost unreal. Eating babies? [5]

The Catholic fringe organization, Human Life International, picked up the story in a 1996 article titled Does 'partial-birth' abortion portend the return of pre-historic cannibalism? Liberally quoting the self-discredited Rutherford Magazine, HLI writes,

Communist China has already seen this regression in modern times, where reports of fetal cannibalism have surfaced.

More than a dozen mainstream, and fringe Christian "pro-life" organizations ran the Chinese fetus eating rumor in their newsletters and on their web sites. No concern for the veracity of the original reports was shown, such was the reputation of World Magazine among Christians seeking news delivered in World's "interesting" and "arresting fashion" [1].

Congress' Fetal Position
The rumors of Chinese fetus-eating were swallowed by the most gullible members of Congress, including Representatives Frank Wolf (R-Virginia), Chris Smith (R-New Jersey, Co-Chairman of the House Pro-Life Caucus), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), and Mark Souder (R-Indiana).

Representative Smith, best remembered for hitching his star to Cuban urchin Elian Gozales and almost single-handedly responsible for holding up our dues to the United Nations, lobbied in Congress against Most Favored Nation status for China.

Not only do these human rights problems get worse every single month that we continue to truckle to China, but they keep discovering new horrors. ...there are even some credible reports that late-term unborn children are actually being consumed as a new health food. [6]
Representative Frank Wolf openly admitted his animosity toward the Chinese. The following testimony was added to the Congressional Record.
This is fundamentally an evil group of people. This is the evil empire of modern times... This is a fundamentally evil group of people, and I worry that 3 or 4 years from now we will have to deal with those people on a military basis. [7]
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen offered the following testimony,
And, we know that these practices violate every known standard of human rights since God made Man. There are reports that aborted fetuses are sold and eaten. [8]

And Representative Mark Souder (R-Indiana) claims the

...latest health fad in the southern boom town of Shenzhen to be the consumption of human fetuses, which are believed to improve complexions and general health. Unlike the serving of endangered reptiles, a human embryo as food trade is not illegal or underground in China. [9]

And in a "Sense of Congress" statement in 1995 it was suggested to the president that he decline visiting China "unless there is dramatic overall progress on human rights in China and Tibet" including an end to the use of "human fetal remains for consumption as food." [10]

Summary
There are too many doubts cast on the Chinese fetus eating story for any thinking person to accept it as true. There is the lack of an original verifiable source. The tabloid in which the story first appeared is now defunct, and no other verifiable sources are provided. There is the lack of physical evidence, for instance, a copy of the menu on which the supposed fetus dish appears. There is the testimony of Judie Brown, of the American Life League, stating that the clinics mentioned in Bruce Gilley's article do not exist. And there is the complete lack of followup on a topic that warrants it.

Are Bruce Gilley, Mindy Belz, and Representatives Wolf, Smith, Ros-Lehtinen, and Souder so unconcerned with their own credibility that they will repeat any story they hear as long as it furthers their own political agendas, or careers? The vicious practice of blood libel goes back thousands of years. And the commandment against bearing false witness against your neighbor goes back even further. Bruce Gilley, Mindy Belz, and Representatives Wolf, Smith, Ros-Lehtinen, and Souder need to be held accountable for the racist slander and libel that they've perpetuated against the Chinese.

Nothing is more pornographic than lies engineered for racist ends, or to further careers and/or ideologies. But for some Christian "pro-lifers," and one publicity hungry journalist, the hope continues that we'll swallow anything.

Addendum

05.01 - Several readers have brought to my attention photographs of an Asian man holding a dish which appears to be a fetus. The photographs were first sent, anonymously, to rotten.com, a shock web site famous for dealing in disturbing photographs. These were later picked up by Hal Turner, a radio talk show host whose efforts veer toward alarming his right-wing audience.

06.01 - According the Taipai Times the photographs referenced in the preceeding paragraph were created by Shanghai-based performance artist Zhu Yu, in a piece entitled "Man-eater." Zhu stole the fetuses from a medical school and claimed to eat them for "art's sake." His work centers around issues of life, death and eternal life. See also How to Deal with Rights - A Criticism of the Violent Trend in Chinese Contemporary Art, by Wang Nanming.

A Malaysian tabloid had published the photos and a story alleging that a Taiwan restaurant was serving human fetus. The government of Taiwan demanded a retraction and the tabloid, Perdana, complied adding an apology.

03.02 - I received two emails from someone claiming to be Nat Belz demanding that I remove the name Nat Belz from this article. The first email arrived on March 10, the second on March 13. Both relayed that Nat Belz no longer worked for World Magazine and hadn't for several years, though I never claimed that he did. The second letter said that I was using the name of Nat Belz without his "permission" and that if I didn't remove it within 72 hours I would hear from his attorneys. For those who didn't notice the name, it's in the second footnote.

12.05.02 - Matthew Worthington, an Associate Publisher at World Magazine wrote asking us to remove the photo of Mindy Belz which I obtained from a sister website. He denied that World Magazine had anything to do with Bob Jones University, but expressed no concern about the racist views promoted by Mindy Belz and the magazine for which he works.

Note: According to IFAS, "The slick magazine's corporate name is God's World Publications, and it is owned by Bob Jones University in South Carolina."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES

1) Blood Libel: The Roots of Racism and the Fear of Sex in the Pro-life Movement, by Miss P. Dixon, October 1998.
[back]

2) World started out as a children's magazine called "It's God's World," designed as a Christian version of the secular "Weekly Reader." The children's version has since changed its name to God's World News and Nat Belz (husband of Mindy Belz) was the corporate creative director. The Editor of the grownups' version, World Magazine, is G.W. Bush guru Marvin Olasky and the publisher is Joel Belz. Mindy Belz has written for World Magazine since its inception, and wrote the cover story for the first issue. World Magazine is supported by Bob Jones University, which only recently lifted its ban on interracial dating. World Magazine's mission is "To report and analyze the news on a weekly schedule in an interesting, accurate, and arresting fashion, and to combine reporting with practical commentary on current events and issues from a perspective committed to the Bible as the inerrant Word of God."
[back]

3) Bruce Gilley's article begins with "No one could accuse The Chinese of being squeamish about the things they eat - monkeys' brains, owls' eyes, bears' paws and deep fried scorpions are all items on The menu. But most dishes revered as national favorites sound as harmless as boiled rice when compared to the latest pint de jour allegedly gaining favour in Shenzhen - human foetus."
Bruce Gilley, "Aborted Babies Sold As Health Food for $10," Eastern Express, March 1995.
[back]

4) "Our Culture of Death: An Interview with Judie Brown," no author mentioned, RUTHERFORD (January, 1996) p. 15.
[back]

5) "Eating Babies, Is Nothing Sacred?" by John Trott, RUTHERFORD (January, 1996) p. 7.
[back]

6) Testimony of Representative Christopher Smith, China Policy Act of 1995, H.R. 2058, Congressional Record: July 20, 1995 (House), Page H7273-H7302. Note: No "source" article mentions the use of "late term" fetuses. This is Congressman Smith's own imaginative elaboration.
[back]

7) Testimony of Representative Frank Wolf, Providing for Consideration of House Joint Resolution 182, Disapproving Extensions of Most-Favored-Nation Status to Products of People's Republic of China, and House Joint Resolution 461, Regarding the People's Republic of China, Congressional Record: June 26, 1996 (House), Page H6950-H6963.
[back]

8) Testimony of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, China Policy Act of 1995, op.cit., Page H7273-H7302.
[back]

9) Testimony of Representative Mark Souder, "Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act," Congressional Record: June 28, 1995 (House), Page H6446-H6480.

Representative Mark Souder's home page still links to testimony concerning the eating of fetuses. The following conversation occurred in hearings:

Mr. REES. OK. There's one other question I want to ask Mrs. Gao and it's a very sensitive issue and I apologize for raising it, but about 3 years ago, in a Hong Kong newspaper, there was a terrible, shocking story interviewing people anonymously who claimed to work in family planning centers in China that there was actually a market that some family planning employees would sell the aborted babies, the aborted fetuses, to be used as a sort of a health food for certain people who thought that this would make them strong or restore their youth. Have you heard about anything like that happening? Do you know of anything like that in your personal experience?

Ms. GAO. [via interpreter] She's not heard of fetuses, but she does know that there's actually a very strong market for the afterbirth.
Testimony between Grover Joseph Rees, Subcommittee Staff Director and Chief Counsel, and Ms. Gao Xiao Duan, Former Administrator, Planned Birth Control Office, People's Republic of China.
from 1998 Forced Abortion and Sterilization in China: The View From The Inside Hearing, before the Subcommittee on Inernational operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, 105th Congress, Second Session, June 10, 1998, p. 40.
[back]

10) American Overseas Interests Act of 1995 Sec 2705, Declaration of Congress Regarding United States Government Human Rights Policy Toward China(a)(2)(b)(1), May 23, 1995, Page: H5389 (House)
[back]

[Butters]

"And while I await time to respond to your red herring distractions from the main issue.. are you ever going to deal with that??"

Actually, I forgot what the main issue was.
If it is the accusation that doctors are aborting post-viable babys in order to sell their stem cells, I haven't seen proof of this, and again, if you have this, I recommend again to contact law enforcement.

If it is the accusation that doctors are performing this as a matter of convience, I would recommend the same.

You will not change your position on this issue, and neither will I, although I will contine to investigate the case above, it seems to me, that the only thing I would ask for in the way of legislation is more accountability.

[Alden]

Speaking of shallow distractions:

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."

Then you said:

If you had been interested in the TRUTH,Ms. Warren, you could have easily found out that there are no displays of lampshades made of human skin at Majdaneck or Auschwitz, if these objects ever existed, they certainly never survived the end of the war, and none exist today.

Your not one of those who denies the holocaust atrocities are you?

Here's part of a forensic report on one of those lampshades

The tissue consists of bundles of
collagen showing occasional epithelial and sweat
gland remnants. Granular black pigment granules
are seen between some of the bundles.

3. Based on the findings in paragraph 2, all three
specimens are tattooed human skin.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/imt/nc...nca-06-3423-ps

Or here's another piece on the lampshade thing:

'Frau Koch was also the amateur of tattooed skins. Inspections were held at the hospital, the more noteworthy chests and arms put to one side, and the owners killed and skinned. The skins were then submitted to her and she chose those which she liked and ordered them to be made up. The lampshade which Koch presented to her has earned them both places in the lowest category of bipeds' (Christopher Burney, Dungeon Democracy, printed in Burney, Solitary Confinement and The Dungeon Democracy, London, 1984, pp.148-49). http://www.nizkor.org/features/techn...y-koch-01.html

[Butters]

O.K. First, I am in no way a holocaust denier. There can be no reasonable doubt that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazi's.

BUT- Mr. Koukle claims to have seen these objects on display at Aushwitz. This is a lie. Don't misunderstand me, I am saying that this is a lie. There are not, and never have been lampshades made of human skin on display there.

AND- While I cannot categoricaly deny that these objects ever existed, I have my doubts. The forinsic report you cited, was of human skin. There is no question that human skin was taned by the Nazi's, however, this is still done today by forinsic experts, and does not lead to the conclusion that any articals were ever fashioned from them.

If you are truly interested in this, please feel free to research it further, and also feel free to let me know what you find, start by doing some research on Aushwitz, maybe even make a phone call.

Now in Sachsenhausen, there are PHOTOGRAPGHS of alleged human skin lampshades, but these were presented by the communist government, so I have to take them with a grain of salt. Once again, I'm not denying they never existed, but if you really research this, the evidence is contradictory, and skechy at best.

And just in case anyone missed it.

I AM NOT DENYING THE HOLOCAUST

I spent 8 years in Germany, and I know it happened. One thing that always shocked me was for an old man I've been drinking with say,"Well, what Hitler did was wrong and all, but if he hadn't, think about how many Jews would be around today" this was said to me a total of 5 times by different men, and never failed to shock me each time.

AND- any Germens out there please hold off on the hate mail, my wife is German, I love Germans, and the younger generation has not been indoctranated with hate for the Jews by the Church, as their parents were.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I post in spurts.. I will be back but may be absent for a bit. Nature of life and other debate obligations.

[Butters]

That's quite alright Ms. Warren, I probably won't be back until tomorrow myself.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Sometimes I don't get to post too much substantively except on the weekends.. I have a few other threads to catch up on. Tell everyone to behave so that there are no moderating issues, and that will help

[Dee Dee Warren]

Okay Butters, I have some time to post some more and have some information for you. In response to some of your criticisms, I did do the necessary research speaking directly with Mr. Koukl’s Asssistant who then spoke with him. First on the issue of the lampshades made of human skins, Mr. Koukl responded that it was his recollection from visiting the concentration camps 25 years ago (now I do not know how old Greg is but I have seen his picture and would guess mid-thirties which would make this visit in his early teens) that he saw such items; however, he admitted that he could have been incorporated things he heard over the years into his recollection, and I was asked to do the research to determine if such things were ever on display. I contacted the Holocaust Musuem, who although would not “officially” comment, did tell me that such things have never been on display to their knowledge.

Second, I forwarded the information you posted about the sotry of fetus-eatikng ikn China. You did acknowledge that the source of your information was hardly unbiased (in fact rabidly anti-Christian). I was told, and I believe rightly so, that this story was picked up and carried by a very reputable London newspaper which gives the readers the indicia of credibility and that they would have checked out the story. It is impossible to know at this poiknt whether they did or not. One would hope that the London Telegraph did check out the stoy before running it, but it is possible that they did not. It is perfectly reasonable for any commentator on current evetns to take at face value stories reported in reputable papers, and one does not have time to run down everything reported.

In summary, Stand to Reason thoroughly appreciated these concerns being brought to them and have deleted those points from that article. The fact is now though, and we will proceed, that the points were tangential to the main point smade. That does not meanthat inaccuracies do not go unchallenged but just to point out that they were not vital to any of the argument. And you jumped to some inflammatory concusions which you have yet to retract in full and have read into my and/or Mr. Koukl’s motivations racism of which you have no proof.

Now back to the point… this is what is being performed…:

A D&X abortion is performed on living, partially delivered late-term children. While the little body and legs dangle from the birth canal with the head just inside the cervix, the back of his skull is cut open. The doctor inserts a canula into the hole, vacuums out the living brain tissue and transfers it to a controlled environment for future sale. The physician then crushes the skull of the unborn child, removes him from the birth canal and disposes of the body.

If it is the accusation that doctors are performing this as a matter of convience, I would recommend the same.

Why? It is not illegal.. did you not read what I wrote before….


“The American Medical News – the official newspaper of the AMA – documented Dr. Haskell’s forthright admission during a tape-recorded interview, ‘And I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range…. In my particular case, probably 20% [of these abortions] are for genetic reasons. And
the other 80% are purely elective.’ Dr. MacMahon voluntarily submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a sample of 175 partial-birth abortions he performed. In its official report the committee notes that 22% of the total abortions were for reasons of depression, not protection of the mother’s life. Interestingly in the National Abortion Federation material the
reasons cited for why some doctors prefer this procedure have nothing to do with the life of the mother. It ‘prevents unnecessary bleeding and has a low complication rate. Reaction from the patients is positive and they found the surgery less painful and difficult than they expected.’ Some families just ‘want
a chance to say good-bye.’ These may be important considerations, everything being equal, but note that no doctor mentions threat to the mother’s life, even in the pro-abortion material. There’s a reason the doctors don’t emphasize it:
there is no threat. Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mr. Sinai Hospital in Chicago said, ‘There are absolutely no obstetrical situation encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life
of the mother.’” http://www.str.org/free/commentarie...on/abobject.htm)

So they are being performed for reasons other than the genuine risk to the actual LIFE of the mother. That has been the main point all along.

If it is the accusation that doctors are aborting post-viable babys in order to sell their stem cells, I haven't seen proof of this, and again, if you have this, I recommend again to contact law enforcement.

That was not the accusation as phrased. The accusation was that the human corpses from such abortions were being used in government-funded research. It was not said that such abortions were being performed solely for that purpose, it matters not, we are “cannibalizing” upon our dead children.

Now.. however, the Senate has passed a bill banning this procedure which now needs to go the House. If it were illegal as you have stated this would not be necessary.

I have said pretty much the numbers are irrelevant. We would not allow this to performed on ONE dog. National Right to Life provides this information:

According to Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (1997), and other sources, it appears that partial-birth abortions are performed 3,000 to 5,000 times annually. (Even those numbers may be low.) Based on published interviews with numerous abortionists, and interviews with Fitzsimmons in 1997, the “vast majority” of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, on healthy babies of healthy mothers.

And here is additional information from the National Right to Life on this issue….

Why Are Partial-Birth Abortions Performed?

On the ABC television show This Week on November 24, columnist George Will suggested that there is a close relationship between reported cases involving the murder of newborns, such as a case in Delaware that recently received national media coverage, and society's tolerance of practices such as partial-birth abortion.

In response, ABC News correspondent Sam Donaldson asserted:
First of all, there's no evidence that this couple [in Delaware] would have been able to have a partial-birth abortion. That is an operation, George, as you may know, that's used very rarely because of the life of the mother being jeopardized or some other rare circumstance.

Unfortunately, Mr. Donaldson's assertion-- like similar statements by many other journalists-- cannot be reconciled with the statements of doctors who have themselves performed thousands of partial-birth abortions.

For example, the Record of Bergen County, New Jersey on September 15 published an investigative report by "women's issues" staff writer (and Columbia journalism professor) Ruth Padawer, who found that at a single abortion clinic in Englewood, New Jersey-- only a few miles away from the homes of the young couple in question- doctors acknowledged that they perform over 1,500 partial-birth abortions a year. Moreover, the story quotes doctors at the clinic as stating that "only a 'minuscule amount' are for medical reasons." The Record reported:

"We have an occasional amnio abnormality, but it's a minuscule amount," said one of the doctors at Metropolitan Medical, an assessment confirmed by another doctor there. "Most are Medicaid patients, black and white, and most are for elective, not medical, reasons: people who didn't realize, or didn't care, how far along they were. Most are teenagers."

The September 17 edition of the Washington Post contained the results of an investigation conducted by staff writers Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several abortionists (not those in New Jersey), and concluded:
It is possible-- and maybe even likely-- that the majority of these [partial-birth] abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or other developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy.... Instead, the "typical" patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.

Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio, has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions. In a tape-recorded interview, Dr. Haskell told American Medical News, "I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range. . . . In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective."

Dr. Haskell also wrote a paper in which he said he uses the method "routinely" in his walk-in abortion clinic, adding, "Among its advantages are that it is a quick, surgical outpatient method that can be performed on a scheduled basis under local anesthesia."

The late Dr. James McMahon of Los Angeles developed the partial-birth technique, and used it thousands of times. In a written submission to the House Judiciary Committee in 1995, he admitted using the method even during the final three months of pregnancy on babies with no "flaw," for such reasons as mere youth of the mother, or "psychiatric" difficulties.

In an interview with American Medical News, Dr. McMahon explained that "after 20 weeks where it frankly is a child to me, I really agonize over it," but added, "Who owns the child? It's got to be the mother."

In short, anyone who will set aside wishful thinking and the manufactured claims of abortion-industry lobbyists, and examine documentation as such as that cited above-- and there is much more of the same sort-- can only conclude that the overwhelming majority of these late-term procedures are performed for entirely non-medical, "personal" reasons. A small subset of partial-birth abortions involve babies with severe abnormalities, but medical specialists regularly deliver such babies alive, usually vaginally, without jeopardy to their mothers. In September over 300 physician-specialists--including former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop-- issued a statement "partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility."

The bottom line is that it is being performed, and we are not talking about once or twice yearly. It is being performed predominantly on healthy children with NO indication of genuine risk to the life of the mother (which I deny is a problem solved by partial birth infanticide to be begin with). And it is infanticide plain and simple. The baby is delivered, it is human, it is alive, and only its head is left in the birth canal, and it is murdered. If it moves another few inches it would be murder by all accounts. Do we determine whether or not a baby (and NO ONE denies that these are babies, not of that “fetus” nonsense here) can be murdered depending upon where it’s head is located? Come on!!

And another word on “the life of the mother” issue:

As stated by Helen Avari (LA Times 4/12/96) [yes she is a pro-life activist – I am not claiming lack of bais, just presence of common sense] –

“….The President [Clinton] said over and over again that partial birth abortions are needed to protect the mother’s health. The preponderance of medical evidence supplied by the very people who perform these brutal abortions says the exact opposite. So does common sense. It absolutely defies reason to claim that once a child is almost completely delievered vaginally with only its heads remaining inside the moterh’s body, that it culd possibly be essential to her medical health that the child be stabbed and the contents of its head suctioned out. Once delivery is that far long, delivering the child a few more inches does not imperil a woman’s health. It does however, produce a dead child rather than a living child.”