Why is it wrong to use aborted fetuses for stem cells?

[Reena]

I understand why it’s wrong to deliberately destroy embryos to harvest stem cells, but why is it wrong to use the body of an already aborted fetus for stem cells? If I were murdered, it wouldn’t be wrong to use my organs to help people who need transplants, so why should it be immoral to use fetuses that would have been aborted anyway for research that could end up saving lives?

 

[buffalo]

Catholic teaching is you cannot perform an evil to achieve a positive outcome.

 

[Della]

Along with Buffalo’s very correct answer , I would add that not all body parts can be transplanted according Church teaching. The reproductive organs are off limits, which means that the Church understands what makes a person intrinsically that person unlike any other because no one but that person would pass on exactly those genes/DNA to their offspring.

To put it simply, the ends do not justify the means.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Reena:

I understand why it’s wrong to deliberately destroy embryos to harvest stem cells, but why is it wrong to use the body of an already aborted fetus for stem cells? If I were murdered, it wouldn’t be wrong to use my organs to help people who need transplants, so why should it be immoral to use fetuses that would have been aborted anyway for research that could end up saving lives?

I see it as an issue of “supply and demand”. If it becomes ok to use the stem cells, then we will find lots of uses for them. If we find lots of uses for them, we will need a steady supply of them. If we need a steady supply of them, immoral things will be done to supply them. (More immoral things).

In your example of using your organs if you were murdered, they key is that society still views murder as an objective wrong… so for now we are in no danger of legalizing murder so that we can have a steady supply of organs for transplant.

People do not all agree on the status of an embryo or fetus as a human life. Sad.

malia

 

[YinYangMom]

Would it make a difference whether or not it was a natural abortion (if there is such a thing)???

I remember my miscarriage…it was early termed, toward the end of the first trimester…but I remember having to go in for a D & C to clear away all residue of the event… isn’t that procedure similar to the one used for abortions?

Just as I would sign over the organs of my children in the event of their death for research or to give another child a longer life, could I donate the remnants of a miscarriage for embryonic stem cell research???

Just thinking out loud…

 

[katieq]

Just a quick reminder…Thousands of effective stem cell remedies have come from adult stem-cells (umbilical cord, etc). None (to my knowledge, I will try to find the stats again) have come from embyronic stem cell research. In fact, many horrible things actually occur such as finding teeth in rat brains (in experimental procedures). The question we should be asking is…why is there so much time, effort, and money being put into this unproven (and so far vastly uneffective) embryonic research when we have a more than viable alternative (adult stem cells). Culture of death anyone?

Premitting the use of embryonic stem cells/embryos, or should I say murdered babys (which is sadly what they are) can not be condoned (although neither should the process through which they are “harvested”. Ditto to what those before have said.

Hope this helps and I’ll try to find the stats and backup for you (in a hurry, off to work).
God bless,
k

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Would it make a difference whether or not it was a natural abortion???

I remember my miscarriage…it was early termed, toward the end of the first trimester…but I remember having to go in for a D & C to clear away all residue of the event… isn’t that procedure similar to the one used for abortions?

Just as I would sign over the organs of my children in the event of their death for research or to give another child a longer life, could I donate the remnants of a miscarriage for embryonic stem cell research???

Just thinking out loud…

I believe it is OK as long as it is not exploited.

 

[buffalo]

katieq:

Just a quick reminder…Thousands of effective stem cell remedies have come from adult stem-cells (umbilical cord, etc). None (to my knowledge, I will try to find the stats again) have come from embyronic stem cell research. In fact, many horrible things actually occur such as finding teeth in rat brains (in experimental procedures). The question we should be asking is…why is there so much time, effort, and money being put into this unproven (and so far vastly uneffective) embryonic research when we have a more than viable alternative (adult stem cells). Culture of death anyone?

Premitting the use of embryonic stem cells/embryos, or should I say murdered babys (which is sadly what they are) can not be condoned (although neither should the process through which they are “harvested”. Ditto to what those before have said.

Hope this helps and I’ll try to find the stats and backup for you (in a hurry, off to work).
God bless,
k

The campaign in the press has been very effective in confusing many on this issue. There is a more insidious goal these proponents of embryonic research have in mind.

 

[Reena]

buffalo:

Catholic teaching is you cannot perform an evil to achieve a positive outcome.

But when people have abortions they are not doing it to make stem cells available for research. Those babies would have been aborted anyway, and afterwards their remains can either be burned or used for research. Why would it be a sin to use fetuses from abortion mills to do research? If you were a fetus and were aborted, would you rather your body was burned or used to help others?

 

[YinYangMom]

Reena:

But when people have abortions they are not doing it to make stem cells available for research. Those babies would have been aborted anyway, and afterwards their remains can either be burned or used for research. Why would it be a sin to use fetuses from abortion mills to do research? If you were a fetus and were aborted, would you rather your body was burned or used to help others?

Buffalo is still correct, the ends cannot justify the means here.
Bottom line is those babies never should have been voluntarily aborted. There is no good which can come from that wrong.

By suggesting making the fetuses available for research one effectively endorses the abortion to begin with - even though that certainly isn’t the intent. But imagine what the pro-abortion community would do with such a policy? It would make their job of steering people in the wrong direction much easier. Think about it…

A woman finds herself pregnant at an inopportune time…she has to consider keeping it, putting it up for adoption or aborting it. The literature on abortion would have a big highlighted section promoting the ‘good’ which comes from aborting - check the box here to save your grandma June from Alzheimers by donating the fetus of your child to stem cell research…

Talk about your 'Two wrongs don’t make a right" scenario, there it is.

 

[Della]

katieq:

Just a quick reminder…Thousands of effective stem cell remedies have come from adult stem-cells (umbilical cord, etc). None (to my knowledge, I will try to find the stats again) have come from embyronic stem cell research. In fact, many horrible things actually occur such as finding teeth in rat brains (in experimental procedures). The question we should be asking is…why is there so much time, effort, and money being put into this unproven (and so far vastly uneffective) embryonic research when we have a more than viable alternative (adult stem cells). Culture of death anyone?

Premitting the use of embryonic stem cells/embryos, or should I say murdered babys (which is sadly what they are) can not be condoned (although neither should the process through which they are “harvested”. Ditto to what those before have said.

Hope this helps and I’ll try to find the stats and backup for you (in a hurry, off to work).
God bless,
k

Not only adult stem cells have proven much more effective but also cord blood contains stem cells that can be used to find cures for disease, as well. So, we should be encouraging pregnant women to donate their babies cord blood to research.

 

[YinYangMom]

Della:

Not only adult stem cells have proven much more effective but also cord blood contains stem cells that can be used to find cures for disease, as well. So, we should be encouraging pregnant women to donate their babies cord blood to research.

Yes, perhap that should be promoted in the Adoption option fliers availble to women, so that 2 rights can come out of a not-so-desireable situation.

 

[Reena]

YinYangMom:

Buffalo is still correct, the ends cannot justify the means here.
Bottom line is those babies never should have been voluntarily aborted. There is no good which can come from that wrong.

By suggesting making the fetuses available for research one effectively endorses the abortion to begin with - even though that certainly isn’t the intent. But imagine what the pro-abortion community would do with such a policy? It would make their job of steering people in the wrong direction much easier. Think about it…

A woman finds herself pregnant at an inopportune time…she has to consider keeping it, putting it up for adoption or aborting it. The literature on abortion would have a big highlighted section promoting the ‘good’ which comes from aborting - check the box here to save your grandma June from Alzheimers by donating the fetus of your child to stem cell research…

Talk about your 'Two wrongs don’t make a right" scenario, there it is.

It still doesn’t make sense to me. Does making the organs of a murdered person available for transplant, or making his body available for research endorse the murder? Why would allowing the bodies of murdered fetuses to be used for research be any different? It just seems wasteful to simply burn their bodies. Wouldn’t God prefer that they be used for a good cause instead of being thrown away?

It’s true that the pro-abortion crowd could use stem cells to persuade people to have abortions. But similarly there could be people who would encourage others to murder for the sake of harvesting organs from their victims. Does it make it wrong to take the organs from murdered people and give them to sick people?

I agree that the ends don’t justify the means, and for this reason murdering an unborn person to harvest stem cells is wrong. But if you went and took bodies that were going to be incinerated anyway, where do the ends and means come in?

Does the Church definitely teach that using aborted babies for research is immoral, or are there differing opinions among theologians?

I should say that now that I’m typing out all these things it is making me feel uneasy about the idea of using aborted babies for research, but I still dont see why it’s morally wrong.

 

[CARose]

Reena,

First, let’s dispatch with your hypothetical.

1.) Abortions are done after the cells of the fetus have differentiated to the point that the cells no longer qualify as the Totipotent “Fetal Stem Cells” that are being touted for research. So they wouldn’t address the supply sought for these “immortal” cell lines.

2.) The only cells remaining in the fetus that have this full potential are the future reproductive organs of the fetus and these are surrounded by other healthy tissues, making their harvest difficult.

So, their potential as a source of stem cells is not great. The same can be said for the placenta and umbilical cords. These tissues are contaminated in the course of the abortion and would be very difficult to use for the purposes of stem cell research.

YinYang, in the case of a natural miscarriage, typically by the time the D&C occurs the tissue has been dead and is no longer viable for culture.

OK, now, onto the ethical aspects. Your question has been answered a number of times. Please note that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that abortion is an absolute evil act and nothing good can come from it. I have had to learn, over the course of many years and many objections on my own part, that when the Church speaks infallibly, it’s right and no amount of arguing and pushing on it can change that fact.

The way I finally came to terms with this was by 1) accepting a difficult (for me at least) teaching, 2) obeying the church even though I didn’t really understand how the church could be right, 3) seek to better understand why the church taught as it does (which you apparently are doing here). What’s weird is that very soon after, I came to fully appreciate that with which I had wrestled for years. But I fully believe it took steps 1 and 2 before step three worked for me. It happened for me on a couple of big issues I’d had with the teachings of the church, and in a fairly short period of time as well. So, I now accept that if the church (the Magesterium, the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope) teaches it, it’s true. That’s what Christ promised, so that’s what we’ve got.

And please know that the reason the drug companies want the fetal stem cells is because they can patent them and make lots of money if they ever manage to find a cure. With adult stem cell lines, it’s just a procedure that results, and that can’t be patented, hence less money to be had. And the fetal stem cells require a significant amount of differentiation that hasn’t yet occured naturally before settling into a beneficial cell type. Much of this difficult work has already occured when you use the adult stem cells.

And, yes, there have been NO instances of a cure or treatment from fetal stem cells (although there may some day be, that won’t change how wrong it is) and there have been nearly a hundred cures / treatments using adult stem cells.

Hope this helps.

God Bless,

CARose

 

[Reena]

Reena,

First, let’s dispatch with your hypothetical.

1.) Abortions are done after the cells of the fetus have differentiated to the point that the cells no longer qualify as the Totipotent “Fetal Stem Cells” that are being touted for research. So they wouldn’t address the supply sought for these “immortal” cell lines.

2.) The only cells remaining in the fetus that have this full potential are the future reproductive organs of the fetus and these are surrounded by other healthy tissues, making their harvest difficult.

So, their potential as a source of stem cells is not great. The same can be said for the placenta and umbilical cords. These tissues are contaminated in the course of the abortion and would be very difficult to use for the purposes of stem cell research.

YinYang, in the case of a natural miscarriage, typically by the time the D&C occurs the tissue has been dead and is no longer viable for culture.

OK, now, onto the ethical aspects. Your question has been answered a number of times. Please note that the Catholic Church has infallibly taught that abortion is an absolute evil act and nothing good can come from it. I have had to learn, over the course of many years and many objections on my own part, that when the Church speaks infallibly, it’s right and no amount of arguing and pushing on it can change that fact.

The way I finally came to terms with this was by 1) accepting a difficult (for me at least) teaching, 2) obeying the church even though I didn’t really understand how the church could be right, 3) seek to better understand why the church taught as it does (which you apparently are doing here). What’s weird is that very soon after, I came to fully appreciate that with which I had wrestled for years. But I fully believe it took steps 1 and 2 before step three worked for me. It happened for me on a couple of big issues I’d had with the teachings of the church, and in a fairly short period of time as well. So, I now accept that if the church (the Magesterium, the Pope and the Bishops in union with the Pope) teaches it, it’s true. That’s what Christ promised, so that’s what we’ve got.

And please know that the reason the drug companies want the fetal stem cells is because they can patent them and make lots of money if they ever manage to find a cure. With adult stem cell lines, it’s just a procedure that results, and that can’t be patented, hence less money to be had. And the fetal stem cells require a significant amount of differentiation that hasn’t yet occured naturally before settling into a beneficial cell type. Much of this difficult work has already occured when you use the adult stem cells.

And, yes, there have been NO instances of a cure or treatment from fetal stem cells (although there may some day be, that won’t change how wrong it is) and there have been nearly a hundred cures / treatments using adult stem cells.

Hope this helps.

God Bless,

CARose

Thanks for your answer, it helps somewhat.

I’m curious why fetal stem cells can be patented and adult stem cells can’t. Also, since you said that aborted babies are not good sources of stem cells, what are the pro-fetal-stem-cell people fighting to get? Do they want to be able to make embryos in the lab for the sole purpose of getting stem cells?

I agree with the Church that abortion is an evil act. I don’t understand what the “nothing good can come from it” part means. Murder is an evil act as well, but does it mean we can’t benefit from it by using the bodies of murdered adults for research or organs? If the bodies of murdered adults were routinely used for organs in our hospitals, would the Church say that it’s immoral?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

Because it would then be used as justification for abortion, which is wrong. I would not be healed by cells obtained in that manner, and to think that people were is horrific.

 

[CARose]

Reena:

Thanks for your answer, it helps somewhat.

I’m curious why fetal stem cells can be patented and adult stem cells can’t.

You cannot patent the cells from an already born person (a loophole in the law allows you to patent fetal tissue, to exactly what point of development, I’m not 100% certain).

Reena:

Also, since you said that aborted babies are not good sources of stem cells, what are the pro-fetal-stem-cell people fighting to get? Do they want to be able to make embryos in the lab for the sole purpose of getting stem cells?

Yes.

Reena:

I agree with the Church that abortion is an evil act. I don’t understand what the “nothing good can come from it” part means.

Two wrongs can never make a right. Read the post of YinYangMom where she points out that "well, at least my unborn, aborted child could be used to save the world from " rationale that will be sold to young women. Give them a noble cause for their abortion and it makes it that much easier to consider. This child does NOT deserve to die, any more than we would consider it OK to kill a 2 year old, just because he’s unable to support him/herself yet, and someone needs the kidneys, heart and lungs.

Reena:

Murder is an evil act as well, but does it mean we can’t benefit from it by using the bodies of murdered adults for research or organs? If the bodies of murdered adults were routinely used for organs in our hospitals, would the Church say that it’s immoral?

With regards to murder, we wouldn’t be condoning murder to use the organs from a murder victim. But let’s think about this a bit further. In most cases, a murder is done in secret and the body dumped. Perhaps a hospital, in need of organs and in the jurisdiction of a pretty nasty mass murderer, were to start publicizing that they’d really appreciate that the murderer start dumping the bodies on their back dock and they’d turn a blind eye, just as long as the organs were still harvestable. How right would this be? That’s essentially what you’re suggesting.

Do you think it’s conceivable that there might be a copy-cat murderer or two that might start taking action, deluding themselves into thinking that they’re helping the organ transplant list? Who knows. Perhaps as a culture we have a strong enough aversion to killing people that this wouldn’t happen, but we’re already coming close to crossing the line when it comes to people who are only “sort of” alive, such as the Terry Schiavo’s of the world.

So, no, I don’t believe the Church would have a problem in the few rare instances when a person is murdered and their organs are harvested (e.g. drive-by shootings) but the situation is enough different for abortion clinics that the two don’t begin to equate.

Does that clarify things any?

CARose

 

[YinYangMom]

Thanks CARose for doing a good job explaining all that.

 

[YinYangMom]

CARose:

So, no, I don’t believe the Church would have a problem in the few rare instances when a person is murdered and their organs are harvested (e.g. drive-by shootings).

CARose

I would qualify that statement to include - IF the murdered person signed an organ donor card or the next of kin authorizes it. Otherwise, no I don’t think it would be permissible for scientists, doctors, or others to make such a decision.

 

[Reena]

CARose:

Two wrongs can never make a right. Read the post of YinYangMom where she points out that "well, at least my unborn, aborted child could be used to save the world from " rationale that will be sold to young women. Give them a noble cause for their abortion and it makes it that much easier to consider. This child does NOT deserve to die, any more than we would consider it OK to kill a 2 year old, just because he’s unable to support him/herself yet, and someone needs the kidneys, heart and lungs.

With regards to murder, we wouldn’t be condoning murder to use the organs from a murder victim. But let’s think about this a bit further. In most cases, a murder is done in secret and the body dumped. Perhaps a hospital, in need of organs and in the jurisdiction of a pretty nasty mass murderer, were to start publicizing that they’d really appreciate that the murderer start dumping the bodies on their back dock and they’d turn a blind eye, just as long as the organs were still harvestable. How right would this be? That’s essentially what you’re suggesting.

Do you think it’s conceivable that there might be a copy-cat murderer or two that might start taking action, deluding themselves into thinking that they’re helping the organ transplant list? Who knows. Perhaps as a culture we have a strong enough aversion to killing people that this wouldn’t happen, but we’re already coming close to crossing the line when it comes to people who are only “sort of” alive, such as the Terry Schiavo’s of the world.

Perhaps the organ transplant analogy is inappropriate, but what about the use of murdered adult bodies for scientific research? What if hospitals and universities and biotech companies collected dead bodies (crime and natural deaths alike) and used them to develop techniques that would help living people? This does not seem to be immoral at all.

What if instead the bodies of the unborn who have already been murdered by abortions are collected for research? What’s the difference? The researchers would not be creating life simply to destroy it, they would not be murdering the unborn for the purpose of research, they would simply be taking the bodies of people murdered by others and using them for a good cause.

I don’t see the difference between using murdered adults for research or murdered fetuses for research.

Does the Church definitely oppose the use of already murdered fetuses, or the deliberate destruction of embryos and the creation of embryos for the purpose of destroying them for stem cells?