How to explain why using aborted fetal cells is wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sealabeag

Guest
Hi,
I was chatting to a friend today about the fact that some foods and vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cells.
She agrees that abortion was wrong, but is not a practicing catholic. She’s just kind of traditionally liberal, or in this climate, politically central. However, I couldn’t adequately explain to her why the above is morally wrong. From her point of view the abortion was wrong but the abortion wasn’t done for the purpose of obtaining the cells, therefore using the cells is ok. She has a kind of utilitarian view.
I’m trying to find a way of explaining it that is clear. But I understand that sometimes seeing these things is simply a grace, so maybe I just need to pray for her eyes to be opened.
Anyway, any thoughts appreciated!
 
Because it’s exploitation.

The researchers obviously recognize that these are actually human cells…but from humans not “good enough” to have the protection from the law.
 
Imagine you need a heart transplant. You can be screened by various transplant hospitals, put on the UNOS wait list and hope.

The other option is to fly to a country where they offer donor hearts for sale. They have a database of everyone in prison, blood type, age, weight, size, antibodies, and can guarantee you a perfect match for a cash price that is LOWER than what the charges will be in the US after insurance. Now, you do know they are simply going to pull a person out of a cell and kill them by harvesting the heart.

Is that idea palatable to your friend? If not, why is using the body of another person who was killed in an unjust manner?
 
TheLittleLady said:
The other option is to fly to a country where they offer donor hearts for sale. They have a database of everyone in prison, blood type, age, weight, size, antibodies, and can guarantee you a perfect match for a cash price that is LOWER than what the charges will be in the US after insurance. Now, you do know they are simply going to pull a person out of a cell and kill them by harvesting the heart.

Is that idea palatable to your friend? If not, why is using the body of another person who was killed in an unjust manner?
Click to expand...
It’s not bad but I think it would be better with some slight modifications.

I assume most of us would be okay with receiving a transplant from a murder victim if the murder was not committed to harvest organs and that may be a more accurate analogy.

However if no consent was given, or consent was given by the murderer I suspect most people, including the OPs friend would have an issue with that.
 
There is no justification for direct abortion. As I said, humans killed unjustly. Taking a prisoner who is not on death row, taking his heart is unjust. Killing a human being because they are sick, ugly or inconvenient is unjust.
 
Only to one who considers abortion to be just.

It does not matter why a human being was killed by abortion as direct abortion is always as unjust as is killing someone for their organs.
 
MasterHaster said:
How can I be more clear so you can understand? The point is the abortion was NOT COMMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE of obtaining fetal cells. It is not the same as murdering someone FOR THE PURPOSE OF USING THEIR BODY.
Click to expand...
Does my modification help?
 
Last reply, it does not matter if the person was killed by abortion because of any reason at all, that killing is as unjust as killing Mr. Joe for his organs.
 
Yes this is the issue - the child wasnt killed explicitly for it’s cells, so in her mind it’s okay. I suppose consent is the point to focus on - it wasn’t given.
However, on that point, she used an analogy that I found it hard to counter - she said imagine someone has died, let’s say in a poverty stricken place, or a war zone, and there are people who could make use of the dead person’s belongings, say a homeless person with no coat. Would it be wrong to take his coat and give it to the homeless person?
 
Last edited:
Human bodies are not belongings.

Also, it is against consideres assault in the US to harvest organs without consent.
 
sealabeag said:
However, on that point, she used an analogy that I found it hard to counter - she said imagine someone has died, let’s say in a poverty stricken place, or a war zone, and there are people who could make use of the dead person’s belongings, say a homeless person with no coat. Would it be wrong to take his coat and give it to the homeless person?
Click to expand...
Yes it would be. The property should go to who the person wanted it to, or next of kin if their wishes are not known. If noone can be found then it may be OK, but, even if their organs were viable it wouldn’t be OK to harvest them.

If your friend would be OK with that then I would argue that it is an incentive to keep abortion legal.
 
sealabeag said:
What if the next of kin donated the remains to science?
Click to expand...
That would he all right, if the next of kin didn’t murder them. If the person was murdered by their next of kin, I would have an issue with the next of kin getting a say in what happens the body, or possessions for that matter.
 
Not an easy question to answer as stated.

But, let me begin by clearly stating I am not in favor of abortion!

If the abortion was to harvest cells, then it is clearly wrong.

If the fetal abortion was a natural spontaneous occurrence, perhaps donated cells are akin to organ donation.

And, perhaps, even if the cells are taken from the fetus of a child killed by elective abortion, but was not the intent of the abortion, it might just be another of many examples of God bringing something good out of evil.
 
Yes, this. The next of kin loses any rights connected with the person if they killed them. I’ve explained the consent thing to her as best I can. She probably won’t agree but so long as I’ve tried my best I’ll be content.
 
PS Please keep my friend in your prayers for her conversion! Prayer is more powerful than my debating skills hahah. I’d appreciate it. 😊
 
sealabeag said:
I was chatting to a friend today about the fact that some foods and vaccines were developed using aborted fetal cells.
Click to expand...
Because we don’t slaughter our children for spare parts. Not sure why that would be controversial. Additionally there are a number of ethical ways to obtain fetal cells (such as cord blood donation) that doesn’t involve the ethical ramifications of harvesting tissue from aborted children.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top