During a heated exchange on Fox’s “The Five” about the Planned Parenthood videos, “liberal co-host Geraldo Rivera suggested to fellow co-host Greg Gutfeld that aborted babies should made into ‘dog food.’” He went on to say that he wants “a cure” for various diseases using aborted unborn baby body parts. Gutfeld took Rivera to task for his callous comments telling Rivera that he hopes he lives a long life “on the backs of dead fetuses.”
A number of years ago, I watched an interview that Geraldo Rivera did with an abortion clinic owner. I think it was a 20/20 episode when Geraldo was working for ABC with Barbara Walters.
Geraldo was holding a glass vial that contained a small aborted baby. He held it up to the clinic owner’s face and said, “This sure looks like a baby.” The clinic owner turned her face away.
Why did she turn away? Because Geraldo was right. What she wouldn’t look at looked like a baby, because it was a baby.
Apparently a lot has changed for Geraldo since then. He describes what he considers to be a “good abortion,” that is, a procedure that snuffs the life out of an unborn baby:
“You know what a good abortion is? A good abortion is in a clean place where the woman’s health is protected as opposed to a back alley – as opposed to a back alley where the woman dies where some butcher cutting her to pieces. Why do you think we’ve got Roe v. Wade and the rest of this….This is baloney.”
As long as killing an unborn baby takes place in a clean place, Geraldo is OK with the procedure. He’s against “some butcher cutting” a pregnant woman “to pieces,” but it’s a high ethical standard to cut her unborn baby “to pieces” and sell the unborn babies body parts for a better humanity.
Geraldo made it worse for himself with this comment: “I want a cure for cancer. I want a cure for heart disease and Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s.”
“It was then that Gutfeld schooled his liberal co-host: ‘God bless you. I hope you live long on the back of dead fetuses, Geraldo… No, I’m using your argument. I’m validating your argument. You want to live longer on the back of fetuses.
Geraldo dug a deeper immoral hole for himself by telling Gutfield, “bury your head in the sand and ignore the reality of how medicine gets done, how research gets done.”
Geraldo has buried his head in the sands of history. Here’s a wake-up call.
“There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the American Union, in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially.”1
Let’s not forget the Nazi medical experiments that were used to further the cause of medical science. The Jews were going to be exterminated anyway, so why not use them and their body parts to advance science?:
“Nazi human experimentation was a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners (including children), largely Jews from across Europe, but also Romani, Sinti, ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs and disabled Germans, by Nazi Germany in its concentration camps mainly in the early 1940s, during World War II and the Holocaust.
“Prisoners were forced into participating; they did not willingly volunteer and no consent was given for the procedures. Typically, the experiments resulted in death, trauma, disfigurement or permanent disability, and as such are considered as examples of medical torture.”
The unborn babies didn’t give their consent to be aborted and to have their organs and other body parts used to advance medical science.
The question whether the data gleaned from Nazi medical experiments should be used today in a research setting is still debated. The following is from Baruch C. Cohen’s article “The Ethics of Using Medical Data from Nazi Experiments”:
“[A]fter reviewing the graphic descriptions of how the Nazis conducted the experiments, it became increasingly difficult to remain objective regarding its subsequent use. The difficulty of objectively analyzing the use of Nazi data was further complicated by the use of the amorphous term, ‘data.’
“‘Data’ is merely an impersonal recordation of words and numbers. It seems unattached to the tortured or their pain. Once cannot fully confront the dilemma of using the results of Nazi experiments without sensitizing one’s self to the images of the frozen, the injected, the inseminated, and the sterilized.
“The issue of whether to use the Nazi data is a smokescreen from the reality of human suffering. Instead of the word ‘data,’ I suggest that we replace it with an Auschwitz bar of soap. This horrible bar of soap is the remains of murdered Jews. The image sensitizes and personalizes our dilemma. Imagine the extreme feeling of discomfort, and the mortified look of horror upon discovering that one just showered with the remains of murdered Jews. The ghastly thought of the Nazis melting human beings (and perhaps even one’s close relatives) together for a bar of soap precludes any consideration of its use.
“How could any civilized person divorce the horror from the carnage without numbing one’s self to the screams of the tortured and ravaged faces of the Holocaust? Indeed, it is only with this enhanced sensitivity to the suffering that one can accurately deal with the Nazi ‘data.’”2
Blacks, often thought of as less than human, were also subjected to medical experiments to further advances in medicine. There was the Tuskegee Syphilis “clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African-American men in Alabama. They were told that they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government. . . .”
“None of the men infected were ever told they had the disease, nor were any treated for it with penicillin after this antibiotic became proven for treatment. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the men were told they were being treated for ‘bad blood,’ a local term for various illnesses that include syphilis, anemia, and fatigue.”
Since it was for “science,” and blacks weren’t equal to whites, a utilitarian ethic was considered legitimate for what turned out to be “the most infamous biomedical research study in U.S. history.”
Geraldo Rivera and many liberals like him are some of the biggest hypocrites. They are the first to bring up some charge of “micro-aggression,” and they are the last to condemn the killing of tens of millions of unborn babies.