At the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, researchers took tissue from the sexual organs of 30 aborted baby boys and used it to answer what passes, in our degraded age, for a serious scientific question: where exactly does a man experience the greatest sexual pleasure?
The study, published in Andrology, mapped nerve endings in tissue taken from those aborted children and from adult men who had donated their bodies after death. From this, the researchers announced what the press eagerly packaged as a fresh sexual discovery, the male equivalent of an erogenous zone. And the media, true to form, greeted it with the usual smirk and sparkle, as if this were one more clever nugget of modern insight rather than what it actually was: a deeply corrupt piece of research built on the remains of dead unborn boys. The story (without the macabre back story) is all over social media.
What makes this story so revolting is not only the act itself, but the self-congratulation surrounding it. We are expected to admire the precision, applaud the methodology, and nod solemnly at the journal citation, as though moral ugliness becomes respectable when it is run through a microscope and written up in clinical prose. Apparently, if enough specialists handle a monstrosity with gloved hands, a society can persuade itself that it is witnessing progress. That is the lie at the heart of this story, and it is a particularly revolting one.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you want to help fight abortion, please donate to LifeNews.com!
Let us state plainly what the published language works so hard to hide. These were not abstractions. They were not “samples,” “specimens,” or “developing fetuses.” They were baby boys. They were aborted. Then their bodies were used to satisfy adult curiosity about sexual sensation. No amount of technical vocabulary can disinfect that fact. Euphemism does not clarify. It conceals. And when people reach instinctively for euphemism, it usually means they know exactly how indefensible the truth sounds in ordinary human language.
There is also something telling in the sheer triviality of the goal. These researchers were not working under the pressure of some terrible medical emergency. They were not trying to save children dying of leukemia, reverse paralysis, or treat a fatal disorder for which no other avenue existed. They were not staring into the abyss of human suffering and making a tragic choice at the border of necessity. They were trying to identify the most sexually responsive area of the male body.
That is the proportion here. Dead unborn boys on one side, erotic inquiry on the other. If a culture can place those two things in the same sentence without feeling shame, then abortion has not merely changed our laws. It has disfigured our moral imagination.
And that, in the end, is the real scandal. Abortion does not stop with the child’s death. It trains everyone around it to regard the unborn as available. Available to discard, available to repurpose, available to exploit. Once a child in the womb is stripped of personhood, every further indignity becomes possible. His death becomes manageable. His dismemberment becomes procedural. His remains become useful. The only remaining debate is who gets to benefit and under which grant proposal the benefit will be described.
That is why the defenders of this research sound so cold. They will say the abortions had already taken place, as though the prior injustice somehow creates a moral clearance sale on what remains. But a child’s death does not generate a right to use his body. It only exposes how completely he has been dehumanized. He is first denied protection in life, then denied dignity in death. He is dismembered by abortion and then dismembered again by research. And because the second use comes wrapped in the rhetoric of science, the public is expected to regard it as sober and necessary rather than parasitic and grotesque.
The mindset required for this is not difficult to identify. It is the mindset of people who have lost all moral proportion, who can stare at the remains of an aborted child and see not a human tragedy but an opportunity for data collection. It is the mindset of a professional class so anesthetized by method that it confuses the ability to do something with the right to do it. It is the mindset of a culture that still wants the language of human dignity while quietly exempting the smallest humans from its protection.
And the press, as ever, plays its miserable part. Instead of asking whether there is anything depraved about using aborted boys for sexual research, it serves up the study as lifestyle content with a lab-coat gloss. One more saucy headline. One more polished little item for readers who like their moral collapse served with a wink. That kind of coverage is not incidental. It is how a culture teaches itself not to feel. It trains the reader to react to horror as novelty, to greet degradation as curiosity, and to mistake detachment for sophistication.
A decent civilization should reject this without hesitation. The unborn child is not laboratory inventory. He is not “biological material.” He is not a convenient means to some salacious answer about adult pleasure. He is a human being, and the refusal to say so clearly is what made this study possible in the first place.
So let the researchers keep their charts, their jargon, and their publication credits. Let the press keep its snickering headlines. What remains is not a triumph of knowledge, but a confession of moral collapse. A society that can build erotic research on the bodies of aborted baby boys is not enlightened. It is dark, twisted, and far more barbaric than it dares admit.
LifeNews.com Note: Raimundo Rojas is the Outreach Director for the National Right to Life Committee. He is a former president of Florida Right to Life and has presented the pro-life message to millions in Spanish-language media outlets. He represents NRLC at the United Nations as an NGO. Rojas was born in Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba and he and his family escaped to the United States in 1968.
