Pregnant? We Can Help.

EDITOR'S NOTE: First published in 1995, this article remains surprisingly relevant. Tissue and cells from embryos and fetuses are more in demand than ever. Investigations have revealed that abortion clinics are a conduit for baby parts, shipping them to researchers across the country for a wide variety of uses. The National Institutes of Health continues to debate whether taxpayers should fund experiments using cells and tissues from aborted babies or the embryos leftover after fertility treatments.

Shortly before this brochure was revised for republication in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled invalid the state of Nebraska's prohibition of a procedure some abortionists use to obtain intact tissue, organs, and limbs from late term babies. This method, known as 'partial birth abortion,' is shockingly similar to the one Dr. Nathanson described below. Yet, we now know that researchers desire cells and tissue from babies at every stage of gestation, not only from the later weeks of pregnancy.

Finally, the promise of wonderful cures from these experiments has still not been realized, and many alternatives to fetal and embryonic transplants continue to be investigated.

WHEN A BAPTIST MINISTER advocated government funding of fetal tissue transplants from aborted babies, he claimed to represent the pro-life view. Sprinkling his presentation with biblical citations, he told a congressional subcommittee that it was "pro-life" to support any treatment that saves lives. He asserted that God approved of tissue transplants in general because He performed the first one - the creation of Eve.

Fetal tissue and embryonic stem cell transplants are proposed treatments for a variety of ailments: Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases, epilepsy, spinal injuries, stroke, diabetes, hemophilia, and birth defects. An estimated 10 million Americans could be helped by the surgical injection of embryonic and fetal tissues or cells into affected areas. Researchers say that this tissue is not rejected like other transplants, and that it multiplies and flourishes, differentiates and synthesizes the way tissues from adults do not. They say it stimulates the growth of healthy cells, restoring health to affected individuals.

A truly pro-life response

In opposing the destruction of unborn human life, the pro-life movement rejects any use of the bodies of electively aborted babies, or of embryos leftover after fertility treatments. Such pragmatism, which considers the unborn little more than an assemblage of spare parts, further diminishes their value. Babies can't spare the parts without losing their lives. Tissue from several babies is often required for one transplant.

• Fetal tissue transplantation and embryonic stem cell experimentation also legitimize abortion in the minds of those who procure tissue, perform abortions, and have their babies aborted.
• Women have been known to offer to become pregnant in order to provide compatible fetal tissue for loved ones.
• A 1995 study by the University of Toronto found that among women who would consider having an abortion, 17 percent would more likely abort if medicine could use their aborted tissue.

Advocates perform a bizarre twist of logic to justify the use of embryonic and fetal tissue. They deny the humanity of the unborn but acknowledge that such procedures work precisely because the donors are human. Back when the debate began, Drs. Paul O'Connor and Paul Ranalli, of the division of Neurology at the University of Toronto, said, "One simply cannot have it both ways. The first-trimester fetus cannot be simultaneously both a 'blob' and a human being with a specialized brain structure suitable for transplant. And after eight weeks, the fetal brain only becomes more mature, more developed, more specialized" (National Right to Life News, 5/12/92).

Unborn babies have been healed in prenatal surgery when doctors applied tissue from other unborn babies to their wounds. This surgery leaves no scars, however Dr. Patrick Lappert, of the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at the Naval Medical Center asks, "What distinguishes between an 'unborn patient' deserving of the utmost care and operative planning on the one hand and 'abortion material' suitable for [transplantation] on the other?"

No matter how promising the use of this tissue is in alleviating the suffering of others, no sufferer should expect another person to die in order that he or she might live. One woman diagnosed with Parkinson's disease courageously declared, "I have made up my mind that I will refuse any prescription or treatment that involves using fetal tissue. My life is no more valuable than that of the baby who would be giving its life - not for my life, but for my comfort."

Of course, the Bible does not mention fetal tissue transplants, but it is clear we should have respect for human life. God hates hates the shedding of innocent blood, and who is more innocent than the unborn child? (Proverbs 6:17).

Exodus 21:28 commanded Israelites to destroy an ox that killed a man or woman. It was to be stoned, and not eaten. One can imagine the arguments against wasting such a valuable commodity. They are echoed in the debate over fetal and embryonic transplants: "Why not use the bodies of aborted babies for doing good? Instead of incinerating them, why not let their bodies serve the living?" In God's economy, however, human life is far more valuable than any gain from the loss of that life.

In 2 Samuel 23:15-17, David refused to drink water his fighting men risked their lives to obtain. He operated on the principle that human life is precious, and that one life is not to be placed over against another. Both are infinitely valuable. A benefit to one never justifies killing the other.

How is tissue obtained?

As early as 1992, long before the debate over partial birth abortion, former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson described the gruesome procedure by which brain cells are obtained from unborn babies: "Pregnant women at 13-18 weeks are placed on an operating table, the cervix is dilated, the bag of water is broken, the fetal head is guided into position just above the open cervix, the fetal skull is then drilled open and a suction device is placed into the brain. The brain substance is then suctioned out and placed immediately on ice to preserve its viability, then the fetus is aborted, i.e. destroyed in the abortion process. Similar procedures are used to harvest fetal pancreas, fetal liquid and fetal thymus" (ALL About Issues, March-April 1992).

Recent investigations into the sale of baby parts confirm his testimony. The very idea of such barbarism, performed on perfectly healthy babies, is enough to cause even the staunchest abortion supporters to oppose the procedure. It ought to discourage anyone from using tissue gained by it.

Clearly, it is the act of retrieving tissue that kills the unfortunate "donor," not a separate, prior event. Such a procedure also endangers women. Done later in pregnancy, it takes longer than normal abortion procedures. Abortion advocate Janice Raymond fears a market for products from the womb will greatly increase the number of abortions and turn women into factories for spare parts.

Groups such as Opening Lines and the Anatomic Gift Foundation station medical technicians inside abortion clinics to sort and prepare tissue for delivery to researchers. The International Institute for the Advancement of Medicine advertised for doctors who will use certain abortion methods in order to obtain intact tissue. "Fee-for-service" schedules list prices the tissue procurement organizations command from researchers for various parts and show that desirable tissue also comes from babies aborted at eight weeks gestation or earlier.

How successful have these transplants been?

Scientists are quick to report the smallest successes of fetal or embryonic tissue transplants, and announcements are greeted with a flurry of excitement. But so far, few, if any, long-term results have been reported. As Richard Doerflinger noted, one telling indicator of a lack of success is the demand for government funding (NRL News, 6/99). If such research shows so much promise, why aren't private investors lining up to cash in?

Indeed, a closer look at reported successes reveals little hope for suffering individuals. One study found that younger Parkinson's patients benefited from injections of fetal brain tissue, but most patients are elderly. The study also reported improvements in control group patients who had the placebo operation. Another study, reported in the journal Nature Neuroscience (12/99), touted the positive results of a fetal transplant for only one patient out of seventeen.

In University of Toronto Magazine (5/00), Dr. Ranalli commented: "A series of limited, uncontrolled case reports provided little evidence of real success, despite tremendous hype that continued to capture the public imagination. Finally, a well-designed study funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health revealed that the use of fetal tissue was essentially worthless. . . . The world of medical research may be passing by fetal tissue transplantation. It is now over a decade since the experiments began and precious few advances have occurred. On the other hand, new medications continue to be added to the armementarium in treating Parkinson's disease and there are now two brain surgery procedures, which do not require fetal tissue, that have been proven effective at extending the functional longevity of patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. . . . The research world has largely moved on, turning the page on yet another attempt by abortion advocates to fashion an altruistic spin on modern medicine's most shameful ongoing practice."

Work with embryonic stem cells has also captured a lot of attention, with the promise that scientists can manipulate them for seemingly limitless applications. A New York Times article (5/30/00) noted, however, that "the biggest challenge is trying to get the stem cells to reliably turn into a single desired type of cell, which is usually done by exposing the cells to certain growth factors or implanting particular genes in them. This cannot be done yet for embryonic stem cells, though there has been progress" (emphasis added). One would never have known this was the case, given all the hoopla. Or that other stem cells - from newborns' umbilical cords or adult bone marrow - can be coaxed into developing into any type of cell. Until recently, it was thought we had our full complement of brain cells at birth, but scientists have found that some embryonic stem cells survive dormant in the adult brain and may be stimulated to enable the brain to repair itself.

Advocates of fetal and embryo tissue transplants accuse the pro-life movement of hypocrisy. They say that we have already benefited from tissues obtained from aborted babies by having polio vaccines. Vaccine cultures were supposedly cultivated in cells from aborted babies. This claim is erroneous, however. Dr. Peter McCullagh, Senior Fellow in Developmental Physiology at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at Australian National University, says that "by the time that production of polio virus to be tested as a vaccine in human subjects commenced, cells from monkey kidneys had become the preferred source of tissue." He cited many possible sources for the tissues and went on to say that "the entirety of world production of polio vaccine between 1968 and the late 1970s appears to have been achieved with the progeny of one fetal cell line. . . . Attempts to assert that polio vaccine could not have been developed if fetal tissue had not been used represent selective amnesia" (NRL News, 4/7/92).

Are there alternatives?

Alternatives to fetal tissue and embryonic cell transplants include the following:

• Drugs. The drug Cognex has been approved for Alzheimer's patients. Methylprednisolone and 4AP show promise of lessening the effects of spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis. The benefits of creatine, an over-the-counter muscle building supplement, are being investigated as treatment for patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease). Myotrophin, a genetically engineered drug, could also help ALS patients.
  
  A host of drugs are available for Parkinson's disease, among them Parlodel, Permax, and Eldepryl. Three new drugs - Mirapex, Requip, and Tasmar - were approved in 1997 alone. Scientists continue to study GPI-1046 (a treatment that recovers damaged nerves in Parkinson's patients), which may also have applications for Alzheimer's disease, MS, head and spinal cord injuries, and stroke.
   
• Natural substances. A nerve hormone, AM424, stimulates the growth of nerve cells, and can alleviate Alzheimer's and deafness. Gm1 ganglioside is found in the membranes of many nerve cells and derived from mammals such as cows. It stimulates damaged brain cells to self-repair and has helped people with spinal cord injuries.
   
• Other Sources of Cells. Cells from a patient's own body can be cultured to produce healing tissue. Procedures such as this have been used to cure blindness. Pancreatic islet cells are transplanted into the livers of diabetics in order to produce insulin. Scientists are experimenting with pig neural cells implanted in the brain as potential treatments for Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases. Learn more about stem cell research.
  
  
• Implanted electronic devices. The Freehand System, creates an artificial nervous system allowing paralytics the use of their hands. The Activa Tremor Control System continuously stimulates the brain of Parkinson's patients to block tremors.
   
• Gene therapy. A genetically altered cold virus is transferred to the brain of a Parkinson's sufferer. It produces a protein that actually stops cell death. Fetal tissue transplants only replace dopamine that is lost when cells die.

• Surgical procedures. Pallidotomy and thalamotomy have been shown to improve muscle function in Parkinson's patients.

Related articles:
When does the unborn look human?
What about human cloning?

Contacting us is easy...