What is the difference between abortion and harvesting fetal body parts?

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

stbruno

Guest
gopusa.com/theloft/wp-print.php?p=149
What is the difference between abortion and harvesting fetal body parts?
Posted By Rachel Alexander On November 27, 2005 at 11:08 pm

What may finally turn the tide against abortion is the increasing use of fetal body parts for experimentation and body parts. Or, the tide could go the other way – with the legalization of abortion used to justify the use of fetal body parts. But how far will it go? Will fetuses eventually be dissected alive? Will they be kept alive to develop into a kind of sub-human creature that serves only to provide replacement body parts for humans, through “fetal farming?”

It may seem too demented to ever happen, but think about what is already legal. Abortion causes pain, as evidenced by fetuses’ behavior as they are aborted. Yet no anesthesia is given to those fetuses (and Planned Parenthood opposes any laws that would require anesthesia). We already place different values on various levels types of human life – Terri Schiavo in a vegetative state, as well as elderly sick patients, are considered somewhat sub-human and it is permitted for their relatives to have their lives terminated. Embryos are created by fertility clinics every day and discarded later. And more embryos are cloned from those embryos.

%between%

An organization in Ukraine, the Institute for Problems of Cryobiology and Cryomedicine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, sells fetal body parts online. Here in the U.S., the sale of fetal body parts appears to be prohibited by the 1993 Revitalization Act and the National Organ Transplant Act, but companies have found a loophole, which is currently under investigation by Congress. Two U.S. companies known for trafficking in fetal body parts are the Anatomical Gift Foundation of Laurel, Maryland, and Opening Lines, which was operating in West Frankfort, Illinois. Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood is opposed to laws prohibiting the selling of fetal body parts.

What are fetus parts being used for? Fetal stem cells are used in face creams to supposedly fend off aging. Chinese companies use tissue from aborted fetuses and executed convicts for collagen, which is then exported to the U.S. and other countries. Swiss researchers are testing fetal tissue on wounds. (The article reporting this comments, “Certainly eight youngsters and their families in Switzerland are grateful the physicians did.” It failed to note that the 8 youngsters did not include the destroyed fetuses) 70 U.S. companies doing human embryo research expect their annual revenues to reach $3.6 billion by 2015. Although President Bush banned federal funding of fetal research in 2001 except on a few existing embryos, Majority leader Bill Frist expanded that number earlier this year, and several states are attempting to get legislation passed providing funding. California, Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey already provide funding.

Experimentation on fetal stem cells hasn’t produced the breakthroughs as expected; none have proven “therapeutic” for clinical trials, unlike adult and umbilical cord stem cells, which are currently used to treat 65 diseases. What does this mean? Robert P. George writing for the Weekly Standard believes that the lack of success experimenting on embryos means that the next phase will entail using older fetuses, and possibly fetus farming.

Where is this all going? Will it be standard someday for every human to have a clone of themselves created, kept in a cage to provide spare body parts as needed? Unless society collectively realizes that abortion is wrong, this is just a slippery slope away.

It should be noted that the left refers to conservative opposition to abortion as “the literal exploitation of human remains,” which would be humorous in its absurdity if it wasn’t so awful
 
…yeah. thats sick beyond all.

oh and try to keep quotes under 3 paragraphs, or the mods will stretch you on the rack.
 
I am uncomfortable when I even see such a thread title. There is no difference between abortion and tissue harvesting but that will not stop someone from trying to make a distinction. Society has become so averse to making judgements about what someone else “feels” or “believes” that someone will actually try to allow the distinction to be made. Just because a company in Ukraine can do such a thing does not make it right. What I fear is that the availability of fetal parts will in some way dehumanize the “product” and energize those who are trying to promote stem cell research. The slope gets yet more slippery.
 
I think we have to be careful about what standards we apply, and consider how they compare with standards on other issues. If the standards do not hold, then they must not be universal truths.

This is a bit unfair because the discussion is ongoing, but I think it is safe to say there are some who believe an ectopic pregnancy may never be cured by aborting the doomed baby and thus saving the baby from killing the mother, but that the pregnancy can be ended by surgery to remove the mother’s fallopian tube which also kills the baby but has the additional effect of mutilating the mother.

This is OK and even necessary to do the mutilation compared to the “direct” abortion, because in one case one intends to kill the baby but in the other case one merely intends to correct a medical problem. To me, this distinction is rhetorical and we are justifying doing greater harm to physical life because in our minds, one procedure is actually “called” an abortion and the other is not. If you agree with this line of reasoning, then I challenge you to explain why harvesting fetal tissue for benefits to humans and abortion are the same. In one case, you are trying to do good and even save lives, but innocent lives are lost like – oops, sorry. In the other case, you are taking an innocent life. I’d say the comparison is even more valid here than in the ectopic pregnancy situation, because in this case we are performing the same physical damage but just calling it something else – which obviously does not justify anything. In the case of the pregnancy, calling it something else compels us to opt for it as a solution, doing greater damage than the thing that has the “a word” associated with it. :whacky:

Alan
 
Wow.

I thought that last post would certainly draw lots of negative criticism. Either it was totally clear or so cumbersome to not be worth reading and/or responding, I’m guessing. It isn’t that the topic is not interesting.

(Maybe it was not worth commenting on?)

The rest of you are welcome to continue to use this thread without addressing my :twocents: and I will try to stay out of it unless I am directly addressed. I say this because rumor has it I can be the end of the life of a party, and I do not wish to be that way. Probably for selfish reasons, I’m sure. As much as I want to contribute to a discussion, I want even more not to drive people away. 😦

Alan
 
Gee, I can’t understand how you could be the end of the life of a party. I have not been on line since my last post yesterday or I would have attempted a reply. First of all, your addition of the ectopic pregnacy into the discussion could simply be a way to add a third dimension to the abortion vs tissue harvesting question and not have to commit yourself to taking a firm position. It is a bit like asking someone to define evil and asking if a particularly notorious mass murderer was evil and by way of a reply say that “I can’t answer that because I can’t make a judgement about what he was thinking at the time”. You appear to have made at least part of my point.

If we stay with the original question and define the “abortion” that kills thousands of innocent lives every day as birth control for unwanted babies and compare that to the “creation of an embryo soley for tissue harvesting or experimentation” and compare that again to “opportunistic tissue harvesting from aborted fetuses”, the standard, in my mind at least, becomes quite clear. But I see things in black and white on this issue so the standards are life and death and the justification for creating and taking human life. I am clearly not talking about what could be called a medical condition such as an ectopic pregnancy where the motivation is not the convenience of aborting an unwanted baby.

When I hear someone say " I think we have to be careful about what standards we apply, and consider how they compare with standards on other issues. ", I hear moral relativism. I hear tolerance for what has been defined as a evil by the Church. Standards are always difficult to establish if the basic premise is constantly redefined by the addition of what could be called, in my mind anyway, ambiguous criteria. I am intolerant of people who use abortion as a convenient method of doing away with a life that will"get in the way". I am intolerant of people who would conceive a life in a petri dish with the express purpose of killing the resultant life at some point in its’ development by harvesting tissue. In my mind at least, anything else would indicate a lack of commitment to life on my part. As I said earlier, to me it is a simple black and white issue. That is the standard that I apply in this discussion.

The discussion may be ongoing as you say. If that is the case as far as the scenario that I have layed out, it is because of a lack of commitment to take a stand, nothing else.
 
No one chooses an ectopic pregnancy. That medical emergency is just that…and unforeseen complication of what is expected to be a normal pregnancy. Life is not willfully ended…life cannot be sustained in a tubal pregnancy. Not the babies and the mother’s health is also at risk.
Spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage. That is a medical term. Elective abortion is not a medical condition it is a serious decision to end the life of a baby in the womb. We are mixing apples with oranges when we consider ectopic pregnancy in this discussion.
 
40.png
GordonBOPS:
Heck - There is no difference… sheesh
Click to expand...
Clearly there is. The question is, ‘does the difference matter’.

I dont like abortion, but if fetal material is gathered I am not sure I mind that much, the harvest is incidental to the act. If however an abortion is carried out to make harvesting possible, the harvesting is causative not incidental.
 
40.png
stbruno:
Elective abortion is not a medical condition it is a serious decision to end the life of a baby in the womb. We are mixing apples with oranges when we consider ectopic pregnancy in this discussion.
Click to expand...
Do I understand your distinction to be between, for lack of better terms, “elective” abortion and “necessary emergency” abortion?

If you are, then it seems you are saying that “abortion” is not evil in itself, and as you noticed, even spontaneous abortions are still called “abortion.” It is elective abortion that is a serious matter and all abortions do not fit that description.

The reason I ask is that I heard what you said two possible ways – and my experience is often when I ask someone which of two ways the answer is usually yet a third. 😛 One way was as above. The other way didn’t seem likely so I’ll await direction…

Alan
 
Alan…what’s with you and the ectopic pregnancy question? Do you understand exactly what an ectopic pregnancy is? And do you not understand that it is not something that one chooses…but rather it just happens for whatever the reason?
I am a bit confused in that it seems you feel the mother has a choice in what happens.
~ Kathy ~
 
40.png
Katie1723:
Alan…what’s with you and the ectopic pregnancy question? Do you understand exactly what an ectopic pregnancy is? And do you not understand that it is not something that one chooses…but rather it just happens for whatever the reason?
I am a bit confused in that it seems you feel the mother has a choice in what happens.
Code: 
                    ~ Kathy ~
Click to expand...
I’m going on the basis that the mother does have a choice, at least physically and medically. She can choose from at least the following options: 1) have “direct” abortion, 2) have tubal removal, and 3) do nothing and “trust” that God will take care of her. All of the above, of course, may be accompanied with prayer.

If those are not the options we are examining, them please inform me.

Here’s what “with me” and this question. I hear a teaching about abortion being bandied about as absolute. If it does not work for this case, then it is simply not an absolute and my hope is in asking each who reads this to examine himself/herself whether we realize what we are doing. If those choices above reflect it, I understand we are in general agreement that the woman is not morally obligated to follow option 3. Of the other two, one does greater temporal damage in the ostensible name of being more moral, and I soundly reject that.

You have asked me several times whether I know what I am talking about. Medically, no. I’m trying to work with what little I have from this thread, to make a point about the way we doggedly apply linguistic arguments to make ourselves feel better about a terrible situation by, I suppose, “doing greater harm” so that we may also feel a sense of personal loss and unite ourselves to the baby? What? What justifies elective sterilization for a mother in an otherwise fertile time of her life? (After all, we only know the one tube works; we can’t be sure the tubal will not be complete.) As far as I can tell, the answer is that we can “claim” we are being somehow more kind to the child because the word we use to name the procedure is inherently evil in one case, even though it does the least damage given the fact the baby is doomed. If you understand my argument, then you would see how sickening it sounds to me, and at that point you will have no question why I keep harping on this. Maybe also you will be able to tell me and others (given the fact you seem to understand the medical terms) how our scenario is wrong. So far all logic attempted in my general direction has failed to break through.

He who has ears, let him hear. If you honestly think harm against a human being is justified by arguments over shades of meaning of vocabulary words, then IMO the Good News has not yet really congealed in the heart to where it manifests itself outwardly.

Alan
 
Alan,

Since semanatics appears to be key to getting a direct answer from you, let me ask you to reply to the following definitions of abortion taken from Dorland’s Medical Dictionary, 27the Edition. Which of the following medical definitions do you feel are “evil” to use your words. To use my words, which do you consider to be a sin in the eyes of the Church. Once we have established what your standards are, perhaps we can continue the discussion unfettered by your search for the definition of abortion. If not, as you stated in an earlier post, "The rest of you are welcome to continue to use this thread without addressing my and I will try to stay out of it unless I am directly addressed. I say this because rumor has it I can be the end of the life of a party, …", the party is over as far as I am concerned.

These medical definitions appear to make distinctions between induced and what I will call naturally occuring abortions.

Abortion: the premature expulsion from the uterus of the products of conception–of the embryo, or of a nonviable fetus.

1.accidental-an abortion which is due to an accident.
2.ampullar-an variety of tubal abortion occurring from the ampulla of the oviduct.
3.artificial- induced abortion; an abortion which is brought on intentionally.
4. idiopathic-abortion for which no recognized organic cause can be found.
5.induced-abortion brought on intentionally;also called artificial or therapeutic.
6. spontaneous-abortion occurring naturally.
7.therapeutic-abortion induced to save the life or health (physical or mental) of a pregnant women; sometimes performed after rape or incest.
8.tubal-extrusion of the conceptus through the open end of the uterine tube into the abdominal cavity, occurring in tubal (ectopic) pregnancy.

pregnancy:
  1. tubal-ectopic pregnancy within an oviduct.
 
Alan,

In the time that it took me to compose my previous reply, you provided some idea of what you have been dancing around. Thank you for providing some direction. My previous post is not needed.
My apology for wasting the space.
 
I did a search on ectopic pregnancy and found a May 13, 2005 Ask an Apologist query answered by Fr.Serpa.
 
40.png
emsvetich:
Alan,

In the time that it took me to compose my previous reply, you provided some idea of what you have been dancing around. Thank you for providing some direction. My previous post is not needed.
My apology for wasting the space.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your honesty. No problem at all, and I think it was actually a very valuable use of space from my point of view. You have just demonstrated grace (again strictly my personal observation) in your handling of this.

I may no longer be needed here, and I am at perfect peace with that. If one person heard me and thinks they know what I’m about, you don’t know how much I’m willing to “let go of the ball” as it were.

At this time I will try to let go because I no longer fear I was being judged based on partial knowledge.

Thank you, again. Please do not ever believe your words are mere bandwidth fodder – you never know how they will touch somebody. It has taken me a long time to learn the same about myself.

The “prosecution” rests… and is thankful for that. 👍

For what my prayers are worth given my faith level, I wish peace for all reading this. You have endured much verbage from my hearing defense system. :o

Alan
 
If I may, I would like to add a couple of things to this thread especially enlight of the question of Ectopic Pregnancy.

My starting point is, and must be, that aat the moment of conception Human Life is present, and human Person exist. Person being an individual subject with an Intellect and Will irregardless of the stage of the individual’s physical development (example, even as a zygot the genetic predetermination of eye color, hair, height, sex etc. already exist although these have not developed yet).

From this looking at the similarities, in all cases we have the death of an individual. However, in the case of a miscarrige, it is part of the natural process, nature has taken its course.

In the case of Artifical/Therepeutic abortions, there is a premeditated and direct attack on the individual person with the intent to terminate life of that individual person. Here I am refering to the act itself, the WHAT, that is being done not the WHY. In the case of a Tubal or Ectopic pregnancy, the tube is removed, however, there is not a direct attack with the intent to kill the individual who will die as a result: the principle of Double Fold Effect.

I think that we too often muddy the argument by confusing the action itself, that is what is being done, with the goal of why it is being done. Both questions are important but should be differenciated otherwise it could be very easy to use euphamatic language that can cloud the discussion and be used in the attempt to justify an intrinsic evil - abortion.

I see this especially in discussions such as the ones on “Fetal Farming”. The focus is always on the Goal or Why (to seek or acheive the cure of a particular desease. But there is little discussion on the part of some on WHAT means are being used to acheive this goal; namely the premeditated killing of a human being, through a direct attack on that innocent person.

That is the difference between an abortion (artifical) and the removal of a tube during a Ectopic pregnancy. It is not a question of the trauma cause by each proceedure, the bodily trauma is a secondary effect.

So I believe, in discussing what has been discussed the questions that should be asked are: WHY is the action taking place (the desired goal) and WHAT is the means being used to acheive that particular goal. Remember that although the WHY and WHAT are united they still must remain seperate issues.
 
I asked the OB/GYN department head if an ectopic pregnancy always ends with a terminated pregnancy. His answer was yes. It is impossible for an ectopic pregnancy to be carried to term, or even near term, as the consequences of doing nothing once an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed can be fatal to the mother.

If you don’t know what you are talking about medically, then perhaps it is better to say nothing. Also, to clarify something, an ectopic pregnancy is not limited to being in the tubes. They can and do occur in the abdomen outside of the uterus. If it occurs in the tube and ruptures, there can be fatal hemorrhaging.

A family who suffers an ectopic pregnancy has enough sorrow.It is not something they “elect” to have happen to them.
~ Kathy ~
 
40.png
Katie1723:
If you don’t know what you are talking about medically, then perhaps it is better to say nothing.
Click to expand...
This is the lie that poor teachers have bestowed on us. When we don’t understand something and in fact it seems backward, that is precisely the time that a good student will speak up and protest – hey, this doesn’t make sense.

Such challenges are critical to education. Without them, teachers may teach falsehood fully thinking they are teaching the truth because what matters is not what the teachers know, but what the students learn – that is what education is about.

Katie, your whole argument has been devoid of any substance involving the spiritual issues at hand because you simply wish to say that “some people” don’t know the medical details.

I don’t have to be a surgeon to know that mortal sin is not justified because we are confused over what is real and what is made up. English words are made-up, by human beings – their definitions are not given to us by God. When the Church tells us something is right or wrong, I believe God expects us to use the brains he gives us not to twist it around and justify elective sterilization surgery.

You can argue semantics all you want: tubal removal when direct abortion would have sufficed, is elective mutilation surgery which could cause a woman her entire fertility.

In applying your own standard, unless you have credentials to know what you are talking about in the area of spiritual truths above and beyond languages – when you clearly try to dismiss my argument out of hand by questioning my credentials – then maybe it would be best for you not to speak. What is such evidence, well when I see you riding the pope-mobile or walking on water, then I’m sure that will be more than enough evidence. Now that sounds silly, but how is my request of you to remain still regarding matters of the heart if you cannot prove that you are an “accepted” expert in the area of spirituality, any different than the verbal condescention that was the same suggestion to me (or others like me, of course I know it isn’t always about me)?

Alan
 
I am at loss to understand how one would harvest fetal body parts without abortion. Indeed the problem from a medical standpoint would be how to abort without destroying the body part in question. Harvesting increases and intensifies the horror of abortion and raises it from a level of personal convenience of the mother to the attempt, demonstrated so ably by the Nazis, to justify a national or social good in the procedure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top