Last updateFri, 24 Oct 2014 5pm


Law 3

Law 3:   A person's form, including their genome, embryo, or body can not be subjected to non-therapeutic inheritable alteration or enhancement without informed consent.

During World War II Nazi Germany engaged in human experimentation that resulted in the death and suffering of many innocent human lives. In 1949 the Nuremberg Code was established to provide ethical guidelines for "human therapeutic research."  It was adopted by many governments, including being written into the laws of the state of California. It's first and foremost tenet is that,

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision."

Wikipedia points out that "The Nuremberg code includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants." It goes on to require that "No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects."

Today the bio-tech industry and its research franchises in the Universities are routinely violating these important bastions defending human life and dignity. The Australian Stem Cell Research Center acknowledges this fact in their fact-sheet on embryonic stem cell research, "The overwhelming issue for most people opposed to embryonic stem cell research is that obtaining inner mass cells inevitably leads to the destruction of the blastocyst (early stage embryo). For those that view a fertilized egg as a human life this is most distressing." For human experimentation to lead to the "inevitable" destruction of the early human child is a violation of the 1949 Nuremberg Code and well along the slippery slope that will lead to other egregious violations of human dignity.

Princeton Professor Peter Singer has long advocated that a certain class of infant be used as an organ farm and harvested to benefit others. This is now being defended within medical schools as acceptable and moral. Lest we be accused of extreme rhetoric, Nancy S. Jecker, Department of Medical History and Ethics, University of Washington School of Medicine promotes it this way, "This paper investigates the scope and limits of parents' and physicians' obligations to anencephalic newborns. Special attention is paid to the permissibility of harvesting anencephalic organs for transplant. My starting point is to identify the general justification for treating patients in order to benefit third parties." "Treating patients" in this context always leads to the childs immediate death as the beating heart is removed from her chest. "Heart failure" is then listed on the death certificate as the cause of death. Child sacrifice would be nearer the mark.