Burning Babies’ Bodies For Energy . . . How Did Societies Slip So Far Into The Flames?

By DEXTER DUGGAN

Society has become a burning building whose basement is bottomless. Trapped people keep sinking deeper as the flames rage all around.
It’s a descent into hell without end. It’s Dante’s Inferno. But while the force of Satan is felt everywhere, you still don’t see him because the path only continues descending toward his lair. Why won’t it ever end? How did it get started?
Abortion on demand was legalized one way or another as a step forward. The back-alley abortion mills moved forth onto Main Street as legal “pro-choice” mills. Abortion becomes another type of birth control. Women start being maimed by the legal abortions. The descent doesn’t stop.
Babies who manage to survive abortion are killed. To prevent possible survivals, babies’ limbs are cut off, their brains sucked out, and their spines severed. Babies’ body parts are sold for anything from medical research to food flavorings and cosmetics.
People who criticize these practices as horribly wrong are attacked and hushed by the leading media, judges, and politicians, trying to hound and penalize the critics out of public life.
Media and politicians know and fear that ordinary people would demand the evils cease if these were reported and criticized frequently.
In late April, Canada’s B.C. Catholic newspaper revealed that aborted babies were being shipped south into Oregon along with medical waste to be burned at a plant in order to produce electrical energy.
A month earlier, from across the Atlantic, news reports revealed that some English hospitals also were burning aborted babies in a “waste to energy” program.
In each case these incinerations were ordered stopped and investigated. The parallels with National Socialist cremations of the unwanted seemed too horribly obvious, although that historical parallel with Germany usually went unspoken.
While burning babies’ bodies along with trash was felt to be scandalous, continuing to slay these victims without a second thought remained an everyday event.
Millions of abortions around the world each year produce lifeless remains. As some pro-lifers happened to observe before these recent news stories, the babies’ bodies don’t just disappear, “poof,” into thin air. Something must be done with them after they’re killed.
As for why they continue to be killed en masse as unwanted trash, instead of receiving the protection befitting the innocent humans they obviously are, one need go back only a few decades, when their innocence and worth were fully recognized in the law, tradition, and public opinion.
However, as medical advances revealed ever more about unborn babies while the 20th century progressed, certain people came onto the scene in the 1960s, intent on ending babies’ lives without limit. And it wasn’t only the topic of abortion that was turned upside down.
Those who lived through the 1960s will recall a decade that quickly became inverted morally. It began with a crew-cut business executive with a wife and four kids and ended with a wild-haired, drug-taking, blaspheming college student with five live-in “girlfriends.” We inherit the 1960s even today.
In April 1965 the popular, widely circulated Life magazine, whose photo format had become a 20th-century U.S. tradition, photographically documented the miraculous “Drama of Life Before Birth.” In less than eight full years after that, on January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the pertinent legal and medical facts void and all these lives unworthy of value.
The 1965 Life article began with a remarkable photo for that decade, showing a young unborn baby’s upper face, with eyes closed.
“This is the first portrait ever made of a living embryo inside its mother’s womb,” the article began. “It is one of an unprecedented set of color photographs — strikingly complete in their clinical detail but at the same time strangely beautiful — of human embryos in their natural state.”
Technology was demonstrating facts, and supporting ethics, that had grown and developed over thousands of years. Hundreds of years before Christ, the Hippocratic Oath emerged among the pagan Greeks and forbade abortion and euthanasia.
As medical science advanced in the 19th century, U.S. physicians conducted what has been called a crusade against lax practices that allowed abortion. The American Medical Association petitioned states to strengthen their laws against abortion.
After National Socialist doctors made a mockery of medical ethics in 20th-century Germany, including using abortion against the unwanted, the Declaration of Geneva was written in postwar 1948 to affirm historic medical morality, including respect for human life from conception.
Not everyone was happy, however, with the idea that every life had intrinsic worth. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger long championed the idea of breeding a better class of people. It was “family planning” to choke off the “human weeds.”
Sanger’s views gained new currency as radical movements expanded in the 1960s — environmentalists, feminists, quality of lifers, population controllers. Hardly had the 1970s begun when the September 1970 issue of the professional journal California Medicine outlined what needed to happen in an editorial titled, “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society.”
Noting the traditional medical ethic of serving the dignity of each human life — which enjoyed the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage, and was reflected in law and social policy — the editorial suggested the time was beginning to arrive for a change. This included permissive abortion as well as restricting life for the already born.
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced,” California Medicine editorialized, “it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.
“The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices,” the editorial continued.
“It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted, the old one has not yet been rejected.”
Nor did the “new ethic” stop with abortion, the editorial said, explaining that “the problems of birth control and birth selection are extended inevitably to death selection and death control, whether by the individual or by society, and further public and professional determinations of when and when not to use scarce resources.”
Having conceded that everyone knows abortion takes a human life, the editorial concluded by looking forward to helping prepare for the “new ethic.”
“It is not too early for our profession to examine this new ethic, recognize it for what it is and will mean to human society, and prepare to apply it in a rational development for the fulfillment and betterment of mankind in what is almost certain to be a biologically oriented world society,” California Medicine said.
Less than three full years later, the U.S. Supreme Court pronounced its mandate to sweep aside protection for the unborn, and to put the nation — and also the whole world, as America influences it — onto the steadily descending path to the Inferno that is Barack Obama’s playground.

Facing God’s Judgment

Some of the 1960s’ pro-abortion radicals, like Bernard Nathanson, MD, sincerely thought permissive abortion would be a social improvement, but they, including Nathanson, changed their minds as the facts became plain. Others among the radicals liked abortion as part of a wider strategy to change the very basis of humanity; morality and facts wouldn’t and didn’t get in their way.
Unborn babies’ heads already were being severed and experimented upon outside the U.S. in 1973 as the remorseless medicine of the National Socialist era revived. The Supreme Court simply enabled routine medicine without ethics to move onto these shores.
At every step of this bottomless descent, the communications media whose responsibility it is to examine the implications have instead distorted, censored, and propagandized, all with the goal of advancing the culture of death.
The society we see today owes much to this media handiwork, with vital information withheld, manipulated, twisted, and transformed.
Today liberals love it when Pope Francis hugs and kisses the disabled and unsightly, but pro-abortionists cheer the deaths of even perfectly healthy babies, to say nothing of the ill ones.
Many media people say they’re not very religious. That makes sense in a way. Who among them would want to have to face God at judgment over how they’ve twisted society?
The good news is that they still can repent and expose the wrongs. The bad news is that they believe the news is only what they say it is.