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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Reena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks YinYangMom, you’re no slouch yourself. You’ve got some great posts out there!

CARose
 
40.png
Reena:
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?
Click to expand...
The Church takes the position of LIFE. ALWAYS LIFE.
Murder is intrinsically evil. It just is. Nothing good can come from EVIL. NOTHING. Anything you can conjure up in your mind to appear good would be the manipulations of Satan working inside you because he knows full well that once you go down that path, the rest is easy and what CARose suggested WILL happen - murder will become even more profitable than it already has.

How can you not see that?
 
Reena,

I know that it is easy to get confused once we allow ourselves to listen to the ultimate liar. Please, take this one to prayer before you paint yourself any further into a corner on this subject.

I was 100% wrong on certain basic teachings of the church and held my views firmly until I was willing to accept that what the church held might be more correct than my own personal opinion. I think you’ll find the understanding only when you want to really get it. And that means being open to the fact that the Church might be right on this one.

God Bless,

CARose
 
Ah, I almost missed this post of yours when I posted a reply to YYM.
40.png
Reena:
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.
Click to expand...
And the church wouldn’t have a problem here.
40.png
Reena:
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.
Click to expand...
The difference between the two is that in using the bodies of murder victims, we gain consent for the use of the body from the grieving families (unless the person is killed by a family member, ie Terry Schiavo). This person, who determines the disposition of the body was not responsible for their death, hence the research is not coming from the evil, it is seperate from it.

In the case of the aborted fetuses, the research requires contracting with the murderers, either the mothers or the killers who run these abortion mills. In this case, the research “tissues” are a direct outcome of the evil.
40.png
Reena:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes The church is consistent in it’s defense of life, at all stages of life.

Are we getting anywhere?

CARose
 
40.png
CARose:
Ah, I almost missed this post of yours when I posted a reply to YYM.

And the church wouldn’t have a problem here.

The difference between the two is that in using the bodies of murder victims, we gain consent for the use of the body from the grieving families (unless the person is killed by a family member, ie Terry Schiavo). This person, who determines the disposition of the body was not responsible for their death, hence the research is not coming from the evil, it is seperate from it.

In the case of the aborted fetuses, the research requires contracting with the murderers, either the mothers or the killers who run these abortion mills. In this case, the research “tissues” are a direct outcome of the evil.
Yes The church is consistent in it’s defense of life, at all stages of life.

Are we getting anywhere?

CARose
Click to expand...
What if consent was not an issue, what if the bodies of murdered adults and unborn children were used for research without the consent of the family? Would there still be a difference?

I agree that life should be defended, and I am not about to advocate the use of aborted fetuses for research because I am not comfortable with the idea.

At the same time, once a person dies there is no life left to defend so I don’t understand why it is such an important issue that the bodies of aborted babies not be used for research. It’s not as if they’re harmed by it, and the alternative would be incineration.

It seems to me that the defining point here is that they’re not being murdered for the purpose of research, and that their murderers would not benefit from the research. They would have been murdered anyway, just as people in drive by shootings would have been murdered.

I can see the argument that abortion providers could use this to persuade young women to have abortions, and I would be for opposing it for that reason alone from the legal standpoint, but I don’t understand why the use of the body of a dead person murdered for a reason completely unrelated to research is immoral.

Someone else said that no good can come from evil, but doesn’t this mean that we shouldn’t use the bodies of murdered adults either? If we do then good would be coming from evil.
 
The parallel is a parallel if we only used murder victims for research, rather than other bodies as well. There is not an alternate large “legitimate” supply of unborn baby bodies around. So this research would have to rest on the backs of killing innocent children.

Murder victims is different because dead bodies are a by-product of life and there are far more dead bodies of natural and other, non-murder accidental causes than by murder. Meaning, the research would have to be pretty darn narrow to specifically require a murder victim.

And even the secular world knows enough to not attempt to take the bodies of people without family consent, so why would the Church need to take a special position on that case? Although I suppose it has and requires consent, but I’m not an expert on every nuance of what the Church has allowed.
CARose
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
A demand would be created that would cause more abortions. That would be wrong.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Not to forget about the adult nasal passages.
 
:tiphat: CARose – you OWN this thread! Great work. I have learned a lot!
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
The Church takes the position of LIFE. ALWAYS LIFE.
Murder is intrinsically evil. It just is. Nothing good can come from EVIL. NOTHING.
Click to expand...
While I agree with the general tone and comments of this thread that once you allow the use of parts of aborted babies, you will get more of them as you have now created a market (always follow the money), I disagree with the comment that “nothing good can come from evil. Nothing.”

While humans can never make good from evil, God can and does. Even in a rape, a beautiful holy glorious baby can be concieved. Even on 9/11, we saw the hand of God in the heroic martyrdom of rescue workers.
 
40.png
Orionthehunter:
While I agree with the general tone and comments of this thread that once you allow the use of parts of aborted babies, you will get more of them as you have now created a market (always follow the money), I disagree with the comment that “nothing good can come from evil. Nothing.”

While humans can never make good from evil, God can and does. Even in a rape, a beautiful holy glorious baby can be concieved. Even on 9/11, we saw the hand of God in the heroic martyrdom of rescue workers.
Click to expand...
I noticed that problem as well, after I hit the return button…

I started thinking about a violent crime situation and recognize that good does come from those situations - sometimes even for the criminal (Maria Goretti’s murderer converting, for example)…

And I, too, am trying to figure out what the difference is between the two situations…

Is the distinction from the intrinsic nature of the sin???

murder is murder…and that’s intrinsically evil, right?

what about rape, assault…are they not intrinsically evil??

Or maybe it isn’t the Church’s teaching that nothing good can come of evil and just a common phrase we’ve come to associate with Catholic teaching…

Thanks for raising the issue, though…
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
I noticed that problem as well, after I hit the return button…

I started thinking about a violent crime situation and recognize that good does come from those situations - sometimes even for the criminal (Maria Goretti’s murderer converting, for example)…

And I, too, am trying to figure out what the difference is between the two situations…

Is the distinction from the intrinsic nature of the sin???

murder is murder…and that’s intrinsically evil, right?

what about rape, assault…are they not intrinsically evil??

Or maybe it isn’t the Church’s teaching that nothing good can come of evil and just a common phrase we’ve come to associate with Catholic teaching…

Thanks for raising the issue, though…/QUOTE

It is true good can come from evil - you cannot initiate an evil to achieve a good outcome as a purpose.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Reena:
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?
Click to expand...
You cannot use a murdered life to benefit a non-murdered life. This logically encourages murders. A market will develop and more murders will occur. Plenty of “good” research was done on concentration camp victims that provided benefit for the living. None of it was justifiable. It was all horrible. All life is precious and all life is made in the image and likeness of God Himself. This is a primary consideration, above all others - that life must be protected as sacred in any and all ways. This is why the act of procreation is also sacred and operates within limits defined by God.
 
40.png
buffalo:
It is true good can come from evil - you cannot** initiate** an evil to achieve a good outcome as a purpose.
Click to expand...
AH YES!! That was the distinction. :o

Thank you.
 
40.png
buffalo:
It is true good can come from evil - you cannot initiate an evil to achieve a good outcome as a purpose.
Click to expand...
And you also should not encourage initiators of evil by using their evil deeds for a good purpose.
 
40.png
Brad:
And you also should not encourage initiators of evil by using their evil deeds for a good purpose.
Click to expand...
Intent is the operative word.
 
I believe a case could be made for using aborted fetus for stem cell research, namely, these fetuses are dead.Therefore, let’s try to get some good from this situation. I have a problem with that type of thinking.

First, abortion is wrong, it is, in my educated opinion, murder. Also, a real concern for me, and I’ve heard it articulated by many others and this is most certainly not my original thought, is this is the latest attempt to justify abortion under the guise that what is being done is a noble act because of the potential medical discoveries.

But, as has been pointed out extremely well, a good cannot come from an evil. Also, intent, as Christ, is an important factor. I find it impossible to believe that a women, contemplating occuring an abortion will decide to abort because of the potential yet unrealized medical benefits that could benefit mankind. Yet, recently this is what those proponets of Choice to legally murder the most innocent in our society, would have us believe.

Quickly, as mentioned above the supposed benefits of embronic/fetal stem cell research is just that a suppose or potential benefit which in reality is non existant despite what those who are pushing this type of research may have you believe.
 
I would suggest that it would be immoral because it would be disrespectful to the body of the child, and, as many have suggested, a good cannot come of an evil. It could be said that obtaining stem cells from aborted fetuses is like “using” their body…it just seems as though it would be an unconcious/perhaps intentional declaration that those tiny children can be used as a scientific resource without really giving acknowledgement to their personhood even after they have been murdered…I mean, they would be little children without a name…or an appropriate grave…

It just seems wrong.

Katherine
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top