Cannibal Cloners
I had written this with the intention of trying to get it published, but the piece didn`t gel at first, and most of my points were already made by others before I could get it off, so I decided to publish it right here at Birdblog. My regular readers will recognize many of the links which I have put in this:
CANNIBALISM
[Cf. F. cannibalisme.]
The act or practice of eating human flesh by mankind. Hence; Murderous cruelty; barbarity. Berke.
The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by humans. The term derives from the Spanish name (Caríbales or Caníbales) for the Carib people, first encountered by Christopher Columbus. Reliable firsthand accounts of the practice are comparatively rare, causing some to question whether full-blown cannibalism has ever existed. Most agree that the consumption of particular portions or organs was a ritual means by which certain qualities of the person eaten might be obtained or by which powers of witchcraft and sorcery might be exercised. In some cases, a small portion of the dead person was ritually eaten by relatives. Headhunters (see headhunting) sometimes consumed bits of the bodies or heads of deceased enemies. The Aztecs apparently practiced cannibalism on a large scale as part of the ritual of human sacrifice.
Once there was a horrifying illness, one which struck only a single tribe on the island of New Guinea, a disease which caused shaking or spasms and twisted the faces of the victims into masks of mirth. This dreaded disease, called Kuru or ``trembling`` in the language of the Fore tribe became known to the Western world by its alternate name ``laughing sickness``-so named because the victims appeared to be convulsed in laughter, and were often subject to inappropriate outbursts during bouts of madness. It struck women and children of the tribe, but seemed not to touch the adult males. It caused hallucinations and insanity, and did terrible damage to the brains of the infected individuals, who suffered slow paralysis and a horrible, lingering death.
Researchers tried to find the cause of this terrible disease and came to an awful conclusion; Kuru was transmitted through mortuary cannibalism! It seems that the women of the tribe, upon preparing the bodies of their dearly departed, dismembered the corpses and ate them, feeding some of the dead relatives to their children. Brains in particular were considered a great delicacy, and the women delighted in steaming them with herbs and feeding their children the neurological organs of their grandparents. Men, it turned out, avoided cannibalism because they believed human meat made them vulnerable in war.
As it turns out, Kuru is a disease caused by an infectious agent called a Prion which is a fatal, protein based agent that causes degenerative neurological disorders. It is related to Mad Cow Disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy ), Scrapies (a disorder which strikes sheep), bovine spongiform, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), among others. It is transmitted by consuming the brain tissue of infected people, and it can lay dormant for years or even decades. The Kuru plague ended when the Papuan government banned cannibalism in the 1960`s.
The point about cannibalism as practiced by primitive tribes is that it is intended for purposes of magic; to transfer a warrior`s strength, or to bring some sort of mystical power to the cannibalizer, or simply to absorb the soul of the a lost relative so they remain among the living. Most cannibals, unlike the Fore, consume their enemies to steal their power, while not eating their relatives. Still, all cannibalism involves magic to grant the cannibal certain gifts inherent in the person to be eaten.
This coming November, Missourians will be voting on an amendment to our Constitution called the Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative ,which ostensibly bans human cloning and guarantees that state government will not be able to interfere with Missourians having access to any cures produced by embryonic stem-cell research, as well as protecting the ability to conduct such research here. I say ostensibly, because the proposed amendment would do none of the aforementioned, and in fact guarantees human therapeutic cloning.
The claim that the Amendment bans human cloning is a black lie; the authors of the initiative have changed the definition of cloning to mean reproductive cloning i.e. implanting a clone into a woman`s uterus and bringing the clone to term. But what is a clone? A clone is a delayed genetic. You can fertilize an egg in the old fashioned way then encourage it to split (you`re cloning the embryo) and thus you have formed a twin-or more. That, however, was not the way Dolly was made in Scotland; in that particular instance an unfertilized egg had the genetic material removed, then the nucleus from the cell of another animal was inserted into the egg, which produced an embryo which was genetically complete and identical to the donor sheep. This is known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (scnt). Amendment 2 does not consider this method for producing embryos for ``harvest`` cloning, so they claim they have banned human cloning. The fact that these embryos could be brought to term if desired should logical operational definition, but the amendment makes it illegal to implant these embryos, so the proponents of amendment 2 say they have banned human cloning. Until Row v.Wade and the pro-abortionists twisted the definition, human life was generally considered present after conception.
For example, the Hyppocratic Oath taken by the ancient Greeks says the following:
4. i. And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it],
ii. nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel. And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary.
Thus the ancient Greeks illustrate their understanding that both abortion and euthanasia were wrong, and this further illustrates that the Greeks understood the unborn to be human.
It also suggests that many medical doctors are on the wrong side of this issue; this is their oath, after all.
The proponents of embryonic stem-cell research would have us believe that these embryos are not human life because they were not created in the usual way, and are not intended to be brought to term. They try to confuse the issue, claiming that this is no different than transplanting, say, skin cells or other organs. Wrong! A skin cell will never become anything but a skin cell while an embryo will, if implanted in a uterus, become a fetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a teenager, etc. That is why there is nothing morally wrong with stem-cell research which focuses on adult or placental stem-cells; it does not require taking a human life. You have to kill many babies to conduct embryonic research.
Another lie they have been propagating is that the amendment bans the sale of human eggs. It does nothing of the sort; it allows numerous exceptions for compensation for ``lost wages``, medical ``compensation``, etc. We have been seeing numerous adds on college campuses advertising for young women to donate their eggs for profit. In fact, fetal farming is rapidly becoming a serious issue, and the advances being made are guaranteed to make the language of Amendment 2 obsolete in a short time.
They lie to us about the need for a constitutional amendment, pretending that Missouri has somehow ``banned`` stem-cell research. The fact is, the state has done nothing of the sort but is merely not using state revenue to fund it. That is, of course, the ultimate purpose of the proposal. Private foundations have never been banned from financing embryonic stem-cell research-they just don`t like throwing money down a rat-hole. ESC has never been a wise investment, so the proponents of this want to force the taxpayers to shell out for what is clearly dubious research.
In fact, the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures entire website is a farce, with a large number of ``cures`` from stem-cells presented as the reason to push for more research. The site conveniently neglects to tell the reader that these have all come from research conducted with adult or placental stem-cells, which have not required the cloning and murder of innocent human beings. There has never been any viable therapy developed from embryonic stem-cells. They have also omitted the preamble to Amendment 2, which tells the reader what laws, and portions of the Missouri constitution will be overturned by this amendment.
Furthermore, while a number of (largely wealthy) moderate Republicans support the effort (including retired former Senator John Danforth), the principle financiers are Jim and Virginia Stowers who, through the Stowers Institute, have financed the initiative to the tune of $25.75 million dollars. Why? Because their biotech firm stands to make gargantuan profits from government-financed research.
Robert Novak verifies the untruthfulness of this campaign. Also, you can visit Missourians Against Human Cloning for more on this.
So, as the writer asks in this op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader, why do they have to lie? Because the truth is so frightening and disturbing that, if understood by the public, the measure would never see the light of day; I suspect that the public, if told the truth, would see this as a form of ghoulish medical cannibalism. However, their untruthfulness seems to be paying off with the public largely supporting the measure in these final days.
The cannibal consumes the butchered bodies of a fallen foe or a loved kin to absorb magical powers into himself, while the embryonic researcher butchers the powerless embryonic child to steal her stem-cells, thereby absorbing the magical powers of healing. Much like Viktor Frankenstein (another apt analogy), these cold-blooded pursuers of knowledge dig around in fetal graveyards seeking the bits and pieces of dead bodies to use for their own purposes. In some ways, the Fore women have purer motives; they seek to keep a portion of their dead relatives alive by feeding on them, while the researcher, like the true monster in Shelley`s Frankenstein, lusts after knowledge to the point of sacrificing others for that sake.
In both cases a dead human being is consumed for the welfare of the recipient, in both cases a physical attribute is being transferred from one person to another-and there is a price to be paid. The Fore suffered from a horrendous disease that twisted their faces into a mocking rictus of faux laughter, while the embryonic stem-cell therapy, instead of healing, tends to twist into cancer.
In fact, the situation with embryonic stem-cells and abortion is rapidly becoming truly cannibalistic; in England women are actually being injected with the tissue of aborted babies for cosmetic reasons http://www.lifenews.com/nat2486.html, while an abortion doctor in the Kansas City area (interesting location, no? He`s from the same town as the Stowers) was accused of physically eating fetuses and the man could not be charged with a crime because there is no law against eating a preborn child.
What is going on here? We have waltzed merrily down the slippery slope, and our view has become that of a Karl Marx or Joseph Mengele; we are increasingly apt to view people as merely the sum total of their physical parts. Materialism, the triumphant worldview of the socialist and atheist, has infected our culture as surely as those prions infected the Fore, with these, the first fruits of our Brave New World.
A civilization which sees human life in terms of utility, rather than believing there is an intrinsic value in our humanity and that human life is a sacred gift, will ultimately have no problem with the liquidation of the elderly, the handicapped, the sick and feeble of mind. We start now with the cloning of human being to be destroyed for the convenience of others, then, if this comes to be accepted, we will advance by degrees until our civilization becomes a walking graveyard. Is this really the kind of world we want to bequeath to our children? A world in which our utility determines our value, where the strong and the useful are given the lives of our weak and unnecessary? A world where the useful and powerful strip the bodies of the weak and powerless for spare parts, much like a wrecker strips a junk automobile?
The stem-cell initiative offers the perfect means to break the moral noose around the Deathheads necks. If people can accept the idea of killing the unborn for medical purposes, the argument against any abortion is finished. That is why so many in the Left are such ardent supporters of this ghoulish and completely unnecessary practice. As I have argued previously, the advocates of easy, society sponsored death-Deathheads-exalt the power of mortality in impotent imitation of the creative power of God. These are the Humanists, the Materialists, those who seek to displace the Throne of the Almighty with the lawnchair of Man. To those minions of the divinity of the most low, this issue is perfect because it retains the Sacrament of Exterminating of the Sick with a black-mass type Eucharist of human flesh. They can knock the supports out from under those who argue for the sanctity of life, because they can now claim that in taking this life they may be able to give life in return. It can no longer be said to be purely a destructive act; the killing has a purpose! With the power of Death in Man`s hands, we now have a promise of Life-at least for some.
But, again, there is a price to be paid for traveling the wrong way down the street of morality, and the cancer problem is, I am certain, simply a warning for us not to do this terrible thing. We have so many alternatives, which have born fruit, yet we have too many insisting on creating children for this black Eucharist of cannibalism. Call it Karma, call it Divine Punishment, or Natural Law, or evolution in action, call it whatever you like, but there is a tendency in this Universe to suffer for willful moral failings, and if we in Missouri open the gates of biological hell, we should not be surprised at what rough beasts slouch forth.
CANNIBALISM
[Cf. F. cannibalisme.]
The act or practice of eating human flesh by mankind. Hence; Murderous cruelty; barbarity. Berke.
The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by humans. The term derives from the Spanish name (Caríbales or Caníbales) for the Carib people, first encountered by Christopher Columbus. Reliable firsthand accounts of the practice are comparatively rare, causing some to question whether full-blown cannibalism has ever existed. Most agree that the consumption of particular portions or organs was a ritual means by which certain qualities of the person eaten might be obtained or by which powers of witchcraft and sorcery might be exercised. In some cases, a small portion of the dead person was ritually eaten by relatives. Headhunters (see headhunting) sometimes consumed bits of the bodies or heads of deceased enemies. The Aztecs apparently practiced cannibalism on a large scale as part of the ritual of human sacrifice.
Once there was a horrifying illness, one which struck only a single tribe on the island of New Guinea, a disease which caused shaking or spasms and twisted the faces of the victims into masks of mirth. This dreaded disease, called Kuru or ``trembling`` in the language of the Fore tribe became known to the Western world by its alternate name ``laughing sickness``-so named because the victims appeared to be convulsed in laughter, and were often subject to inappropriate outbursts during bouts of madness. It struck women and children of the tribe, but seemed not to touch the adult males. It caused hallucinations and insanity, and did terrible damage to the brains of the infected individuals, who suffered slow paralysis and a horrible, lingering death.
Researchers tried to find the cause of this terrible disease and came to an awful conclusion; Kuru was transmitted through mortuary cannibalism! It seems that the women of the tribe, upon preparing the bodies of their dearly departed, dismembered the corpses and ate them, feeding some of the dead relatives to their children. Brains in particular were considered a great delicacy, and the women delighted in steaming them with herbs and feeding their children the neurological organs of their grandparents. Men, it turned out, avoided cannibalism because they believed human meat made them vulnerable in war.
As it turns out, Kuru is a disease caused by an infectious agent called a Prion which is a fatal, protein based agent that causes degenerative neurological disorders. It is related to Mad Cow Disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy ), Scrapies (a disorder which strikes sheep), bovine spongiform, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), among others. It is transmitted by consuming the brain tissue of infected people, and it can lay dormant for years or even decades. The Kuru plague ended when the Papuan government banned cannibalism in the 1960`s.
The point about cannibalism as practiced by primitive tribes is that it is intended for purposes of magic; to transfer a warrior`s strength, or to bring some sort of mystical power to the cannibalizer, or simply to absorb the soul of the a lost relative so they remain among the living. Most cannibals, unlike the Fore, consume their enemies to steal their power, while not eating their relatives. Still, all cannibalism involves magic to grant the cannibal certain gifts inherent in the person to be eaten.
This coming November, Missourians will be voting on an amendment to our Constitution called the Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative ,which ostensibly bans human cloning and guarantees that state government will not be able to interfere with Missourians having access to any cures produced by embryonic stem-cell research, as well as protecting the ability to conduct such research here. I say ostensibly, because the proposed amendment would do none of the aforementioned, and in fact guarantees human therapeutic cloning.
The claim that the Amendment bans human cloning is a black lie; the authors of the initiative have changed the definition of cloning to mean reproductive cloning i.e. implanting a clone into a woman`s uterus and bringing the clone to term. But what is a clone? A clone is a delayed genetic. You can fertilize an egg in the old fashioned way then encourage it to split (you`re cloning the embryo) and thus you have formed a twin-or more. That, however, was not the way Dolly was made in Scotland; in that particular instance an unfertilized egg had the genetic material removed, then the nucleus from the cell of another animal was inserted into the egg, which produced an embryo which was genetically complete and identical to the donor sheep. This is known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (scnt). Amendment 2 does not consider this method for producing embryos for ``harvest`` cloning, so they claim they have banned human cloning. The fact that these embryos could be brought to term if desired should logical operational definition, but the amendment makes it illegal to implant these embryos, so the proponents of amendment 2 say they have banned human cloning. Until Row v.Wade and the pro-abortionists twisted the definition, human life was generally considered present after conception.
For example, the Hyppocratic Oath taken by the ancient Greeks says the following:
4. i. And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked [for it],
ii. nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel. And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary.
Thus the ancient Greeks illustrate their understanding that both abortion and euthanasia were wrong, and this further illustrates that the Greeks understood the unborn to be human.
It also suggests that many medical doctors are on the wrong side of this issue; this is their oath, after all.
The proponents of embryonic stem-cell research would have us believe that these embryos are not human life because they were not created in the usual way, and are not intended to be brought to term. They try to confuse the issue, claiming that this is no different than transplanting, say, skin cells or other organs. Wrong! A skin cell will never become anything but a skin cell while an embryo will, if implanted in a uterus, become a fetus, then a baby, then a toddler, then a teenager, etc. That is why there is nothing morally wrong with stem-cell research which focuses on adult or placental stem-cells; it does not require taking a human life. You have to kill many babies to conduct embryonic research.
Another lie they have been propagating is that the amendment bans the sale of human eggs. It does nothing of the sort; it allows numerous exceptions for compensation for ``lost wages``, medical ``compensation``, etc. We have been seeing numerous adds on college campuses advertising for young women to donate their eggs for profit. In fact, fetal farming is rapidly becoming a serious issue, and the advances being made are guaranteed to make the language of Amendment 2 obsolete in a short time.
They lie to us about the need for a constitutional amendment, pretending that Missouri has somehow ``banned`` stem-cell research. The fact is, the state has done nothing of the sort but is merely not using state revenue to fund it. That is, of course, the ultimate purpose of the proposal. Private foundations have never been banned from financing embryonic stem-cell research-they just don`t like throwing money down a rat-hole. ESC has never been a wise investment, so the proponents of this want to force the taxpayers to shell out for what is clearly dubious research.
In fact, the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures entire website is a farce, with a large number of ``cures`` from stem-cells presented as the reason to push for more research. The site conveniently neglects to tell the reader that these have all come from research conducted with adult or placental stem-cells, which have not required the cloning and murder of innocent human beings. There has never been any viable therapy developed from embryonic stem-cells. They have also omitted the preamble to Amendment 2, which tells the reader what laws, and portions of the Missouri constitution will be overturned by this amendment.
Furthermore, while a number of (largely wealthy) moderate Republicans support the effort (including retired former Senator John Danforth), the principle financiers are Jim and Virginia Stowers who, through the Stowers Institute, have financed the initiative to the tune of $25.75 million dollars. Why? Because their biotech firm stands to make gargantuan profits from government-financed research.
Robert Novak verifies the untruthfulness of this campaign. Also, you can visit Missourians Against Human Cloning for more on this.
So, as the writer asks in this op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader, why do they have to lie? Because the truth is so frightening and disturbing that, if understood by the public, the measure would never see the light of day; I suspect that the public, if told the truth, would see this as a form of ghoulish medical cannibalism. However, their untruthfulness seems to be paying off with the public largely supporting the measure in these final days.
The cannibal consumes the butchered bodies of a fallen foe or a loved kin to absorb magical powers into himself, while the embryonic researcher butchers the powerless embryonic child to steal her stem-cells, thereby absorbing the magical powers of healing. Much like Viktor Frankenstein (another apt analogy), these cold-blooded pursuers of knowledge dig around in fetal graveyards seeking the bits and pieces of dead bodies to use for their own purposes. In some ways, the Fore women have purer motives; they seek to keep a portion of their dead relatives alive by feeding on them, while the researcher, like the true monster in Shelley`s Frankenstein, lusts after knowledge to the point of sacrificing others for that sake.
In both cases a dead human being is consumed for the welfare of the recipient, in both cases a physical attribute is being transferred from one person to another-and there is a price to be paid. The Fore suffered from a horrendous disease that twisted their faces into a mocking rictus of faux laughter, while the embryonic stem-cell therapy, instead of healing, tends to twist into cancer.
In fact, the situation with embryonic stem-cells and abortion is rapidly becoming truly cannibalistic; in England women are actually being injected with the tissue of aborted babies for cosmetic reasons http://www.lifenews.com/nat2486.html, while an abortion doctor in the Kansas City area (interesting location, no? He`s from the same town as the Stowers) was accused of physically eating fetuses and the man could not be charged with a crime because there is no law against eating a preborn child.
What is going on here? We have waltzed merrily down the slippery slope, and our view has become that of a Karl Marx or Joseph Mengele; we are increasingly apt to view people as merely the sum total of their physical parts. Materialism, the triumphant worldview of the socialist and atheist, has infected our culture as surely as those prions infected the Fore, with these, the first fruits of our Brave New World.
A civilization which sees human life in terms of utility, rather than believing there is an intrinsic value in our humanity and that human life is a sacred gift, will ultimately have no problem with the liquidation of the elderly, the handicapped, the sick and feeble of mind. We start now with the cloning of human being to be destroyed for the convenience of others, then, if this comes to be accepted, we will advance by degrees until our civilization becomes a walking graveyard. Is this really the kind of world we want to bequeath to our children? A world in which our utility determines our value, where the strong and the useful are given the lives of our weak and unnecessary? A world where the useful and powerful strip the bodies of the weak and powerless for spare parts, much like a wrecker strips a junk automobile?
The stem-cell initiative offers the perfect means to break the moral noose around the Deathheads necks. If people can accept the idea of killing the unborn for medical purposes, the argument against any abortion is finished. That is why so many in the Left are such ardent supporters of this ghoulish and completely unnecessary practice. As I have argued previously, the advocates of easy, society sponsored death-Deathheads-exalt the power of mortality in impotent imitation of the creative power of God. These are the Humanists, the Materialists, those who seek to displace the Throne of the Almighty with the lawnchair of Man. To those minions of the divinity of the most low, this issue is perfect because it retains the Sacrament of Exterminating of the Sick with a black-mass type Eucharist of human flesh. They can knock the supports out from under those who argue for the sanctity of life, because they can now claim that in taking this life they may be able to give life in return. It can no longer be said to be purely a destructive act; the killing has a purpose! With the power of Death in Man`s hands, we now have a promise of Life-at least for some.
But, again, there is a price to be paid for traveling the wrong way down the street of morality, and the cancer problem is, I am certain, simply a warning for us not to do this terrible thing. We have so many alternatives, which have born fruit, yet we have too many insisting on creating children for this black Eucharist of cannibalism. Call it Karma, call it Divine Punishment, or Natural Law, or evolution in action, call it whatever you like, but there is a tendency in this Universe to suffer for willful moral failings, and if we in Missouri open the gates of biological hell, we should not be surprised at what rough beasts slouch forth.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 6:45 PM
2 Comments:
You ask what 'rough beast will slouch forth?' But you already know. It will be Moloch himself, he of old, he of Phoenicia and Canaan and Carthage and ancient Syria.
Dostoyevsky wrote that once we abandon God, all is permitted. It will be as you say, that the powerful will treat the weak as spare parts. It has already started.
Frankenstein, ghouls, vampires, cannibals...what a collection of horrors we have chosen to release upon ourselves.
On the subject of cannibalism, some death-cultists do regard Kaffir girls quite literally as 'uncovered meat'
"Based on an article in the Manchester Metro newspaper blogs started to publish the fact that her body may have been turned into burgers and kebabs and served up at the 'Funny Boyz' takaway."
From
http://tottenhamlad.blogspot.com/2006/10/remembering-charlene-downes.html
Post a Comment
<< Home