Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Opinion

Some scientists advocate creating human bodies for ‘spare parts.’

Published

7 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Heidi Klessig, M.D.

The Stanford researchers admit that some people may find these ideas about clones repugnant but justify them on the basis of research already in progress.

In the 2005 sci-fi thriller The Island, Scarlett Johansson and Ewan McGregor discover that they are clones, created as an “insurance policy” for wealthy people who might need them for “spare parts.” Now, scientists at Stanford are proposing that we make this dystopian fiction a reality. On March 25, 2025, Carsten T. Charlesworth, Henry T. Greely, and Hiromitsu Nakauchi wrote in MIT Technology Review:

Recent advances in biotechnology now provide a pathway to producing living human bodies without the neural components that allow us to think, be aware, or feel pain. Many will find this possibility disturbing, but if researchers and policymakers can find a way to pull these technologies together, we may one day be able to create “spare” bodies, both human and nonhuman.

These researchers say that “human biological materials are an essential commodity in medicine, and persistent shortages of these materials create a major bottleneck to progress.” Using techniques reminiscent of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (in which fetuses destined for menial tasks are selectively poisoned to diminish their intelligence), they propose using human stem cells and artificial wombs to create human clones which they call “bodyoids.” The article describes it this way:

Such technologies, together with established genetic techniques to inhibit brain development, make it possible to envision the creation of “bodyoids”—a potentially unlimited source of human bodies, developed entirely outside of a human body from stem cells, that lack sentience or the ability to feel pain.

The researchers say that these neurologically impaired human clones could provide an almost unlimited source of organs, tissues, and cells for use in transplantation. They admit that some people may find these ideas repugnant but justify them on the basis of research already in progress. They correctly point out that we are already using neurologically injured people as research test subjects.

“Brain dead” people who are biologically alive but who have been declared legally dead are currently being used as test hosts for the implantation of genetically modified pig livers and kidneys. These brain-injured people who are being used as xenograft hosts are certainly alive (since they are stable enough to be used as test subjects for implanted animal organs) until they are killed at the end of the experiment for further anatomical and microscopic analysis. The Stanford scientists use this ethically problematic practice to justify creating human clones for research: “In all these cases, nothing was, legally, a living human being at the time it was used for research. Human bodyoids would also fall into that category.”

The scientists admit that human cloning raises ethical problems, saying that the use of bodyoids  “might diminish the human status of real people who lack consciousness or sentience.” But the article is clearly written in the spirit of the ends justifying the means. In their call for action, the authors conclude, “Caution is warranted, but so is bold vision; the opportunity is too important to ignore.”

On the contrary, the value of every human being is what is too important to ignore. We value and protect every person because they are made in the image of God, regardless of the way they were brought into the world. Using unconscious people as research subjects is wrong, both in the case of brain-injured people declared “legally dead” (under the logical fallacy of  brain death), and also with this new proposal for bioengineering human clones. Salve Regina University philosopher Dr. Peter J. Colosi explains it this way:

You, as the person who you are, exist even when you are not conscious, and this means that other human beings who are not conscious could also do that. In the branch of philosophy that I am calling Christian personalism, there have been many convincing arguments developed to show the reasonableness of the presence of a person in all classes of nonconscious or minimally conscious living human beings.

Also, it is wrong to create people with the sole purpose of using them to fulfill our own desires. Dr. Colosi makes this clear:

Furthermore, the creation of human beings with the deliberate intent to destroy some of them for the sake of others…is a clear example of what Pope Francis has referred to as “The Throw Away Culture”: The throwaway culture says, “I use you as much as I need you. When I am not interested in you anymore, or you are in my way, I throw you out.” It is especially the weakest who are treated this way — unborn children, the elderly, the needy, and the disadvantaged.”

Creating people to be used as commodities for “spare parts” is unconscionable. Do we really want to be spending our taxpayer dollars this way? Yet Stanford Medicine’s Center for Clinical and Translational Research and Education just received a $70 million NIH grant. The purpose of this grant is to “accelerate the translation of newly discovered biomedical treatments into interventions that improve patient care and population health.”

Rather than accelerating, we need to stop, expose, and defund these morally abhorrent attempts to purposely bioengineer neurologically impaired human clones as a source of “spare parts.” A pro-life ethic protects all human life from experimentation and abuse.

Heidi Klessig MD is a retired anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who writes and speaks on the ethics of organ harvesting and transplantation. She is the author of The Brain Death Fallacy, and her work may be found at respectforhumanlife.com.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

2025 Federal Election

The Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Pat Murphy

The Liberals just proved they’ll do anything to win, including gutting key Trudeau-era policies

With the general election safely in the rear-view mirror, here are some observations.

The Liberal will to power

To me, the most surreal moment came during Mark Carney’s speech on the night he won the Liberal leadership. Raucous cheers ensued when he
declared the abolition of the consumer carbon tax and the retreat from the increase in capital gains inclusion rates. If you knew nothing about Canadian politics, you’d think this jubilation was in response to the assertion of long-cherished Liberal policies and principles.

But, of course, it was nothing of the sort.

In fact, the policies being jettisoned were Liberal in origin and had been hitherto fiercely defended. If you criticized the carbon tax, you were labelled a climate change “denier.” And if you were opposed to the capital gains changes, you were indifferent to increased inequality, the spread of child poverty and various other social ills.

This ability to shamelessly execute dramatic policy flips is indicative of the Liberals’ intense passion for power. And however cynical it may be, it’s one of the keys to their status as Canada’s “natural governing party.”

Thus we have Mark Carney presenting as someone who “just got here,” a tactic designed to disassociate himself from the previous Liberal government. It was  immaterial that he was an adviser to that same government, has stocked his team with its alumni and was an early advocate of carbon taxes. Instead of the enthusiastic net-zero hawk, he ran as the sober, economics-savvy technocrat whose banking and private sector experience is tailor-made for the current trade-war turbulence.

Does this mean that Carney has abandoned the ideological agenda of his unpopular Liberal predecessor? Not necessarily—and probably not at all.
Still, it worked politically. Will to power isn’t something to be sneezed at.

Conservative blues

There’s no sugar-coating the fact that it’s been a deeply disappointing election for the Conservatives. After being the “inevitable” government-in-waiting just four months ago, the combination of Justin Trudeau’s departure and Donald Trump’s trade war totally upended the electoral landscape. And to add insult to injury, their leader, Pierre Poilievre, lost his seat. That said, not everything is doom and gloom.

Compared to the actual results from the previous (2021) election, the Conservatives gained 25 seats. Or if you prefer adjusting the 2021 results to
reflect the new electoral boundaries, the seat gain comes to 18. Either way, the direction is non-trivially positive.

The popular vote share of 41.4 per cent is similarly impressive. Looking over the past 60 years, the Conservative median vote was in the 35 to 36 per cent range. You might call that their natural base. Only Brian Mulroney’s fragile coalition ever brought them north of 40 per cent.

And as Poilievre has been criticized for simply playing to the base, it’s fair to ask whether 41 per cent or thereabouts is the party’s new base. If it is, the
Conservative future is potentially promising.

Mind you, Poilievre might not be around to personally reap the rewards.

The NDP debacle

It was the worst of times for the NDP. Their support collapsed, dropping to its lowest ever level in terms of vote share, and they lost official party status. In the process, they shed over 70 per cent of their caucus and were wiped out in voter rich Ontario. Some of this misfortune may be attributed to their propping up the Trudeau government, thus tending to blur the difference between the two parties. So when Trump’s trade war hit, it was easy for NDP voters to flee to Carney’s perceived safe pair of hands.

To the extent that’s true, there’s a historical echo. Between 1972 and 1974, the NDP supported Pierre Trudeau’s Liberal minority in return for various policy concessions. Then the Liberals pulled the plug, winning a majority in the ensuing election while the NDP lost almost half of their seats. It was that will to power again!

This underlines the dilemma confronting parties like the NDP. Do they want to ruthlessly compete for power? Or are they content with shaping public debate, gradually making once-radical ideas seem mainstream and pushing the boundaries of what society sees as politically acceptable?

It’s a very real—and honourable—trade-off choice.

The pollsters

In a post-election interview, poll aggregator Philippe J. Fournier was generally satisfied with his model’s performance. And if you take margins of error into account, he was justified in doing so.

Nonetheless, his final projection had the Liberals at 186 seats and the Conservatives at 124. The respective actuals were 169 and 144. And he
significantly underestimated the Conservatives in Ontario while overestimating the Liberals in Alberta.

Vindication is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.

The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Ian Madsen

From overstaffed departments to subsidy giveaways, Canadians are paying a high price for government excess

Canada’s federal spending is growing, deficits are mounting, and waste is going unchecked. As governments look for ways to control costs, some experts say Canada needs a dedicated agency to root out inefficiency—before it’s too late

Not all the Trump administration’s policies are dubious. One is very good, in theory at least: the Department of Government Efficiency. While that
term could be an oxymoron, like ‘political wisdom,’ if DOGE proves useful, a Canadian version might be, too.

DOGE aims to identify wasteful, duplicative, unnecessary or destructive government programs and replace outdated data systems. It also seeks to
lower overall costs and ensure mechanisms are in place to evaluate proposed programs for effectiveness and value for money. This can, and often does, involve eliminating departments and, eventually, thousands of jobs. Some new roles within DOGE may need to become permanent.

The goal in the U.S. is to reduce annual operating costs and ensure government spending grows more slowly than revenues. Washington’s spending has exploded in recent years. The U.S. federal deficit now exceeds six per cent of gross domestic product. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the cost of servicing that debt is rising at an unsustainable rate.

Canada’s latest budget deficit of $61.9 billion in fiscal 2023-24 amounts to about two per cent of GDP—less alarming than our neighbour’s situation, but still significant. It adds to the federal debt of $1.236 trillion, about 41 per cent of our estimated $3 trillion GDP. Ottawa’s public accounts show expenses at 17.8 per cent of GDP, up from about 14 per cent just eight years ago. Interest on the growing debt accounted for 9.1 per cent of
revenues in the most recent fiscal year, up from five per cent just two years ago.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) consistently highlights dubious spending, outright waste and extravagant programs: “$30 billion in subsidies to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt. Federal corporate subsidies totalled $11.2 billion in 2022 alone. Shutting down the federal government’s seven regional development agencies would save taxpayers an estimated $1.5 billion annually.”

The CTF also noted that Ottawa hired 108,000 additional staff over the past eight years, at an average annual cost of more than $125,000 each. Hiring based on population growth alone would have added just 35,500 staff, saving about $9 billion annually. The scale of waste is staggering. Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail collectively lose more than $5 billion a year. For reference, $1 billion could buy Toyota RAV4s for over 25,600 families.

Ottawa also duplicates functions handled by provincial governments, often stepping into areas of constitutional provincial jurisdiction. Shifting federal programs in health, education, environment and welfare to the provinces could save many more billions annually. Poor infrastructure decisions have also cost Canadians dearly—most notably the $33.4 billion blown on what should have been a relatively simple expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline. Better project management and staffing could have prevented that disaster. Federal IT systems are another money pit, as shown by the $4-billion Phoenix payroll debacle. Then there’s the Green Slush Fund, which misallocated nearly $900 million.

Even more worrying, the rapidly expanding Old Age Supplement and Guaranteed Income Security programs are unfunded, unlike the Canada Pension Plan. Their combined cost is already roughly equal to the federal deficit and could soon become unmanageable.

Canada is sleepwalking toward financial ruin. A Canadian version of DOGE—Canada Accountability, Efficiency and Transparency Team, or CAETT—is urgently needed. The Office of the Auditor General does an admirable job identifying waste and poor performance, but it’s not proactive and lacks enforcement powers. At present, there is no mechanism in place to evaluate or eliminate ineffective programs. CAETT could fill that gap and help secure a prosperous future for Canadians.

Ian Madsen is a senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The views, opinions, and positions expressed by our columnists and contributors are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of our publication.

© Troy Media

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X