Humanizing Mice–with the Assistance of Aborted Children

My thanks go to Michael Rozeff [i] for the push needed to write this article.

“The Department of Health and Human Services says it has granted a second 90-day extension to a contract it has with the University of California at San Francisco that requires UCSF to make “humanized mice.”…These creatures are made by implanting mice with human tissues taken from late-term aborted babies.” [ii]

According to this article, the federal government is spending up to $95, 000, 000. 00 of taxpayer money to finance various research experiments which use human tissue from aborted babies.

Just to make it perfectly clear, let me rephrase this information.

The Department of Health and Human Services, through its arm, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is funding research at the University of California in San Francisco (UCSF) which uses tissue from aborted babies to create “humanized mice”. So far, payments to the university equal $10,596,960 and if the contract is extended through the full term, will total almost $14, 000, 000. Not only that, but the contract requires the university to do this.

Did you get that? To create “humanized mice”. Humanized mice!

Not only does the federal government allow, condone, and endorse the killing of unborn babies, but it also pays to have those babies literally ground into a soup from which specific cells are extracted to be used in research on mice. Supposedly this is done to facilitate medical cures for diseases like HIV or Alzheimer’s.

And you are paying for it, as am I. Does this make you hopping mad, or what?

The real kicker in this whole thing, though, is not the news itself, but what is unseen behind the news. Rozeff pointed this out in a blog post [iii] on Lew Rockwell and basically challenged the pro-life community to do something about it.

One of the main arguments of the pro-abortion side has been that unborn fetuses are not really human beings, not actually persons. Truth be told, this faction has invested an incredible amount of time, energy, and resources in dehumanizing the unborn child, calling her a “blob of tissue”, a “product of conception”, “uterine contents”, “protoplasm”, et al, in the attempt to persuade people that she wasn’t worth getting all worked up about. After all, abortion is only a matter of evicting parasites and trespassers. Nothing to see here. Move on!

This line of thinking eventually reached the US Supreme Court. On January 22, 1973, Roe v. Wade Day, the unborn fetus was determined to be a non-person, somewhat less than human, and declared to be fair game for any woman who was willing to kill her child. This has been the official policy of the US government since and the various states have followed suit—some vigorously, some less so, but they have all gone along with the plot.

Due to this news report, however, it is now evident that the federal government, research universities, and the researchers themselves admit, implicitly at least, that unborn children are human much earlier than the Supreme Court determined.

“This tells us that the fetus is sufficiently human at 18 weeks to be able to lend human characteristics to the mice. This means that the U.S. and the scientists implicitly accept as fact that a fetus at 18 weeks is a human being…”—Michael Rozeff [iv]

More even than this, Rozeff writes that,

“Scientists at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill use fetal tissue from 14 to 19 week pregnancies to make humanized mice. Perhaps others will find that even earlier tissue is being used to transfer human properties. But 14 week tissue means that scientists are implicitly accepting as fact that a 14 week fetus is human, human enough to qualify for their tests and sometimes subsidies funded by taxes.” [v]

The gist of his argument is that the pro-life community needs to be made aware that the federal government recognizes, by its very behavior, that unborn children as young as 14 weeks from conception are human beings. Humanized mice could not be produced from fetal tissue if this were not true. This information needs to be shouted from the rooftops, spread widely, and used to bring pressure to bear on officials within the government who have the power to change the status quo.

Let’s get this straight, people. Our own government is admitting that innocent human children are being killed and used for purposes which may or may not benefit society at large. Certainly the research facility benefits as does the research team. The administrative team at the NIH benefits from this practice. I am sure Planned Parenthood benefits from it. Maybe the mice will learn someday to talk with us. The single most important person in this whole sorry affair, however, had to die violently for this to happen.

Shall we do evil so that good may come? I think not. The lives of people who have already been born are not more important than the lives of people who have not. In fact, if anything, we should be placing more importance on those who have yet to be born, because they represent mankind’s future. Without them, we will cease to exist.




[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

Without Question: The Beginning of Human Life

Within the abortion debate, one of the most pervasive tactics of the pro-abortion side has been to paint the unborn child in a dehumanizing manner. Consequently, the unborn child became a fetus [i], the embryo became a clump of cells, protoplasm, uterine content, etc. In addition, groups such as Planned Parenthood use the technology of ultrasound, not to show women a true picture of their unborn baby, but to deceive [ii] them into proceeding with a planned abortion. Deception and dissembling have been hallmarks of the abortion lobby from the very beginning. In fact, their tactics resemble those of a State or society which seeks to “dehumanize” its enemies [iii], i.e., especially in the time prior to and amid a war, political conflict, or social reconstruction [iv].

This has led to a considerable amount of confusion regarding the humanity of the unborn embryo or fetus. When does human life start? Is the fetus a human being? If not, when does it become one? These questions are all separate from the ones concerning person-hood, which is not the thrust of this article. In fact, the question of the beginning of human life and the time that life attains person-hood are two separate questions and must be addressed by different methods. Person-hood is a matter of belief, opinion, persuasion, subjectivity, etc., and is susceptible to a wide variety of influences—religious, philosophical, social, financial, etc.

There is only one qualified discipline which can state emphatically (and has hard evidence to back it up) when a new human life begins—embryonic science. This is strictly a scientific matter and science has clearly stated what so many believe or feel to be true.

“…scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization, the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte, usually referred to as an “ovum” or “egg”), which simply possess “human life”, to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.” –Dianne M. Irving, M.A., Ph.D [v]

In other words, what Dr. Irving has said is that when a sperm cell and an egg cell fuse (conception), a new, unique, individual human being has begun. The sperm and the egg were individual human cells before the fusion, after that, they are something completely different—a live human being which had never existed before. Of this, there can be no doubt. The life of every human begins at conception. This is unassailable, indisputable fact.

Dr. Irving goes on to explain (and goes into intense detail) why a human being comes into existence at conception. She lists and destroys several myths which have been promoted over the years and decades concerning this issue and never equivocates from the main premise–that a human being comes to life at the moment of conception.

“The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin.”—Dianne M. Irving [vi]

From the moment of conception, a human being exists within the womb–zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus—right up to the point of the delivery as a newborn baby. At every stage of development, this is a live human being. Whether he is a person or not doesn’t matter. Whether she has rights or not is irrelevant. He is a human being. She is a human being. As such, abortion is a procedure which literally kills a human being. Abortion has probably killed hundreds of millions of human beings in the 20th century alone.

Every person who is alive today, every person who has ever lived, started out in exactly the same way—as a newly conceived zygote with all the genetic material necessary to become the persons we are today. We should be grateful that our mothers didn’t simply decide to throw us away.

[i] The term “fetus” generates a lot of heat on both sides of the aisle. The pro-abortionists use it almost exclusively and refuse to use the terms unborn baby or child for obvious reasons. The pro-lifers prefer “baby” or “child” and generally avoid using the term fetus, again for obvious reasons. Fetus, though, is simply a Latin word which can have many meanings, however, all of them are related to reproduction and refer to very young, immature offspring. It is medically correct and refers to the stage of human development in the womb from embryo (about 8 weeks) until birth. I do not generally make distinctions between fetus, baby, and child, but use the terms interchangeably.



[iv] Nazi Germany, for instance, successfully used this tactic against the Jews. Today, political parties attempt to divide the electorate into what are basically enemy camps.

[v]  Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D (International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 1999, 19:3/4:22-36

[vi] Ibid. Section B, Fact 1.