Why are you conflating embryonic stem cell research and fetal cell lines for vaccines? Could it be you aren’t familiar with any of the details of the discussion at hand, but once again, you feel entitled to tell us all how it is? You are not shedding any light on the topic because it’s pretty clear you aren’t all that familiar with the topic.
No, they didn’t. No scientist was involved in the mother’s decision to abort the fetus. If scientists didn’t take cells from the aborted fetus they would have been destroyed and the abortion would have happened anyway.
I think this is similar to organ donation. There are people who receive life saving transplants from victims of drunk driving or suicide. Should we throw away viable and life saving organs because of how the person died?
I fully agree that these are tough moral questions, but we should also be honest about the roles of each person in this process. Scientists are not asking women to have abortions so they can get cells.
There are three people involved in the abortion, and none are scientists.
There is the mother, the baby and the killer. In many states, that killer isn’t even a doctor. And they harvest these babies to sell to the scientists. I bet in most cases the mothers are not informed that their dead babies are being sold.
Remember the old Frankenstein movies or book? The Island of Dr. Moreau? Science must be bound by ethics or it can be monstrous.
Yes. Unless the fetus can agree to organ donation, their bodies should be buried as if they had some human value. The ends cannot justify the means. Try raising the age a little and ask what if children who disappear every year are being used to harvest their organs?
Perhaps a valid point, but at what point does a guardian have the right to give permission to donate a child’s organs? Does that mean you should have no organ donors under age 18 or perhaps 21?
They perform abortions at the request of the mother.
If scientists don’t receive tissue from those abortions, what happens to it? The tissue is destroyed. What happens if scientists do receive tissue from these abortions? Lives could be potentially saved.
I would fully agree that the mother does need to consent. However, I don’t see how it is immoral for something good to come out of something that is quite sad. No mother is incentivized to get an abortion because scientists are collecting tissue. None.
So if someone dies in an auto accident caused by a drunk driver we should not use their organs to save someone’s life? Do you consider that to be immoral?
When the person is killing a healthy child, never.
The point is, a child from the age of conception until adulthood cannot give consent.
But, unlike a child in the womb, there are laws against killing a child from birth to adulthood, and there are laws dealing with how their bodies and organs can be treated after death. There are few, if any, such protections for pre-born children.
There is no child for cells derived from its corpse to belong to.
What do you think about so-called cure all’s or aphrodisiacs made from rhino horn or bears’ bile or pangolin scales? China is a great example of what happens when you have no ethical standards in how you treat living things.
Different ethics. In every way. What’s that got to do with cell lines?
Different maybe, but also the same. Using parts of people or animals that did not consent to their use, and could not consent to it. I couldn’t even post pictures of what I saw when researching these matters online. Horror, cruelty, total barbaric behavior toward living things. And it’s life as usual in China. At least at some point, the animals are allowed to die completely.
So you are against organ transplants to help the living from a young person who has died in a car accident, or even killed as an innocent bystander in an armed robbery, and whose parents have given permission.
Are you a vegetarian?
Do you eat an animal or harvest it’s parts while it’s still alive? That is the issue.
No, that is not the issue.
That is the issue, or at least a case in point.
What if the parent was the one who killed the child or young adult? Or what if the doctor is able to save the patient, but it’s in their interest to use his parts instead?
What ifs. Good grief. I gave you a specific case and you try and weasel out of it. What if you take what I gave you without prevaricating? That is called being intellectually dishonest.
The first part is exactly the issue and we are claiming that if a parent murdered a child, but afterwards and independently of that event the child’s organs or tissue were donated to science, the benefit that an organ donor recipient gets from the donation is not morally tainted by the crime of the murder. And the tissue from a dead individual is not “the person.” The person is dead. The tissue does not have a soul or rights that persons are entitled to. You are saying it’s immoral to benefit from a sin you did not commit or a tragedy you could not have prevented. This idea that the baby was aborted IN ORDER TO provide tissue is false. You made that up. This idea that cell cultures that are thousands of generations removed from a living organism somehow have the personhood of the original organism is wrong.
True. That body is still worthy of being treated respectfully and buried. This has always been the case with civilized people, even Neanderthals.
Yes. I seem to be saying that. Take a bank robbery. The robber jumps out of a plane and you find the body and money. You didn’t steal it, but you don’t have the right to keep the money. Same if its a wallet with $100 and no ID. The ethical thing is to find the owner, if possible. And to respectfully deal with a dead body.