Replies

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.

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.”