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: 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.