Posted on 09/05/2020 8:35:17 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
no.
Absolutely no.
RE: no
Can you elaborate like this article did when the author says in effect: “Yes.”?
RE: Absolutely no.
Can you elaborate like this article did when the author says in effect: “Yes.”?
And "No" to your follow-up question.
RE: And “No” to your follow-up question.
This sounds like “Because I said so, and that’s the end of the discussion.”
No!
“...let us examine if one can morally consent to a vaccine while not consenting to abortion.”
the key word is “consent.” did the baby consent?
The answer has to be no.
Making a judgement of the value of the life of another human is slavery at its basest form.
If an adult makes, of his own free will, a personal decision to sacrifice his body to provide a source of protection to millions of others, it would be a different answer.
If we allow that it is okay to sacrifice the body of a fully developed human infant to provide that same source of protection, but we specify it is not unethical because the baby is only halfway down the birth canal and not all the way birthed, then it opens a moral morass.
If that rationalization is allowed, then the life of any human is not their own. Who is to say that, because I may have a certain type of DNA or tissue...or an organ for transplant (like...a heart) that could, for example, be used to keep an important party leader alive, that my own life can be rationally taken from me against my will.
RE: the key word is “consent.” did the baby consent?
Well, here’s the author’s argument:
What then is the similarity between organ recovery and tissue recovery following abortion? The parallel is that in both instances tissue is recovered following death.
Neither the need for organs nor the desire to advance research are the means by which death occurs or the impetus for it. Both merely involve how tissues are used after death has occurred.
There are two distinct moral acts under consideration. One act is abortion, which is wrong. Another act is the use of tissue after death which, in the case of vaccine research, has nothing to do with the mother’s decision to sinfully abort the child in the first place.
murder vs. an act of God? not even close. i want to make it to Heaven. that infinitely more important to me than living a few more years (or not). no guarantees with a vaccine.
RE: If we allow that it is okay to sacrifice the body of a fully developed human infant to provide that same source of protection, but we specify it is not unethical because the baby is only halfway down the birth canal and not all the way birthed, then it opens a moral morass.
According to the author, There is a similarity between Organ recovery and tissue recovery following abortion.
The parallel is that in both instances tissue is recovered FOLLOWING DEATH.
Neither the need for organs nor the desire to advance research are the means by which death occurs or the impetus for it.
Both merely involve how tissues are used after death has occurred.
There are two distinct moral acts under consideration. One act is abortion, which is totally wrong. Another act is the use of tissue after death which, in the case of vaccine research, has nothing to do with the mother’s decision to sinfully abort the child in the first place.
RE: murder vs. an act of God? not even close. i want to make it to Heaven.
Suppose a person was murdered.... is it wrong to use tissues from his organ for research after he is already dead? Does that make the researcher complicit in the person’s murder?
yes. good can come of murder, that’s the essence of a barbarian.
Organ recovery usually requires permission, either prior permission from the deceased, or later permission from his family, in the United States.
An unborn baby is unable to give his/her permission to being murdered. If he could, I doubt he would.
Now one could move to Red China where organ recovery is performed on living humans. Where do you draw the line?
I understand the distinction completely, and I disagree.
If the tissue is taken after death, the manner of death is obviously pertinent.
Otherwise, is someone wanted my kidneys to transplant into someone, it would be fine if that person plunged a knife into my heart and took my kidneys.
On the other hand, if the infant was stillborn due to no specific action or inaction of other humans and could not be saved, and the mother authorized the use of the tissue, few people would argue with that being a moral thing to do.
However, denying that there is a link between the fetal tissue to be used and the manner in which the the tissue was obtained is not much different than the Nazis killing millions in death camps and utilizing their gold teeth, glasses, shoes, and even hair to further their war effort.
Basically, “I murdered them and they are dead, and their hair and belongings just became available to us as a result, so we can, in good conscience, use them for whatever purpose we desire. It would be a waste to not use those resources.”
nope
next question
That’s a no-brainer for anyone with morals and integrity. Not only no, but hell no!
could have been a one word response yet look at how much hot air libtards expel and how much rationalization they do instead
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.