Is Jacob M. Appel psychotic or a closet pro-lifer?

The striking benefit of a legal trade in fetal organs, unlike adult organs, is that it may provide all of the benefits that supporters desire without resulting in the exploitative harms that opponents fear. Such sales could prove the rare economic transaction in the medical field in which all participating parties can truly be said to benefit.

The first striking feature of fetal organs is that their supply, for all practical purposes, is unlimited. Unlike living kidney donors, who must then advance through life with only one functioning kidney, pregnant women who provide fetal kidneys could do so repeatedly without incurring the medical consequences of adult organ loss.

(Excuse me.  I just threw-up in my mouth a little.) Women would not "provide" fetal organs, their offspring would be ripped apart and their organs would be taken.  Possibly even for a profit.  Where does the "fetus" as a "participating party" benefit in this "economic transaction"?

Appel dismisses the possibility that women might be exploited in this fetal organ market simply because they have "reproductive rights" that will somehow magically protect them:

Would such a marketplace lead to the exploitation of poor women? I imagine those scholars who oppose compensation for surrogate motherhood and oppose the sale of eggs for in-vitro fertilization will argue that a fetal-organ market presents yet another way in which women's wombs might be commandeered under duress for the benefit of a society dominated by men. I would prefer to believe that a market in fetal organs would empower women to use their reproductive capabilities to their own economic advantage. If a woman has the fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy, why not the right to use the products of that terminated pregnancy as she sees fit? Many women would likely use the proceeds of such sales to finance college educations or to help raise their children. While being pregnant and going to college, or being pregnant and looking after a family, is certainly a challenge, who is to say it is any less desirable than pursing these goals while working at Wal-Mart?

Can Appel seriously believe the euphemistic language he hides behind?  Here is a picture of his "products of a terminated pregnancy."  Can he truly believe a woman is better off aborting her child for money than working her way through college at Wal-Mart?  That is an insult to every woman who got pregnant in college and worked her way through without selling her babies for parts.  (I know because I had a crisis pregnancy in college and worked two jobs to finish.)  Does he truly believe that a mother would sell off the body parts of one child to help pay for shoes for her others? 

Talk about insulting and degrading women while pretending to support and empower them.  (And taking a pot shot at the hard working Americans employed at Wal-Mart in the process.)

Appel has to be psychotic to truly espouse such callous nonsense.  Or he is just a closet pro-lifer on the verge of realizing where the door-knob is?