Maybe somebody -- like Father Poumade, who knows about this stuff -- can explain how it's ethical for Georgetown University to use aborted babies for medical experiments? I realize the babies were not aborted for medical explotation, but still...isn't there something a little creepy about it? Would you want to use the contents of Saddam's mass graves for experimentation?
I went to Georgetown when it was a Catholic School. I could cry.
What is the point of doing the medical research for something that could never be ethical. Even if their argument was valid about the source, what good would it do for them to make a break-through? If successful they would create a demand for more aborted babies.
Jeff, it doesn't work that way. The experimentation is supposed to help scientists learn about how things work. It doesn't mean there would be any (direct) increase in the "need" for aborted fetuses. Of course it probably would have the effect of encouraging this sort of research.
In any case such research is morally reprehensible.
I hate to seemingly invoke the "Hitler Clause," but wasn't there a fight a few years back about using the test results of what Nazis did to concentration camp victims? From what I recall, the tests would also have medically useful results (e.g., how long a human being can withstand certain extremes). How did that one ever turn out? I can't recall right now.
I can understand your objections to their research as it is rather creepy, but it is a lot like medical cadavers. They are used in medical research, which like this is kind of creepy. Some of them lost their lives from murder but that doesn't neccessarily mean that people who do research on cadavers condone murder. I completely understand your reservations about this research, but you must realize that this research is as removed from abortion as cadavers are from murder.
I hear myself being summoned.
Well, in a nutshell, the reasoning goes something along the lines of cooperation and possibly ignorance, depending on how much one reads into the press statements. The claim is that the actual abortion happened 40 years ago, no new abortions were required, the cells already exist, and (this is the part that seems to be implied) the scientists began their research without really being aware that the cells were from aborted babies; they may have thought they were from spontaneous miscarriages, which are licit for use if they are donated to science by the parent(s).
If the last part about ignorance were true, that's a valid argument. The one about cooperation - namely, that we are so far removed from the sin in time and causality that it's not a moral problem that we bear responsibility for - is one that continues to rage quietly in Catholic bioethics circles, with orthodox theologians on both sides.
However, it's also a pointless one in present circumstances. Whether or not ignorance or cooperation are present, scandal is certainly present. The Catholic faithful are disheartened, and the secular world perceives it as "Catholic stem cell research" just like the plethora of annulments have earned the moniker "Catholic divorce." Same result, different name. Because of the moral scandal, the experiments should be stopped.
Furthermore, because of the faulty moral arguments being used to defend the use of the cells, the Archdiocese really should issue a corrective statement. The Jesuit ethicist in the Post framed it as a question of proportional costs and benefits. Obviously the poor man has never read Veritatis Splendor, where the popular but erroneous theory of proportionalism was banned in no uncertain terms. The ends cannot justify the means, no matter how beneficial the ends or apparently small an evil involved. We cannot do evil so that good may come of it.
My personal opinion, BTW, is that the use of these cells does involve a sinful level of cooperation, and therefore should be stopped. But regardless of that, the mere moral scandal alone is enough to stop their further use.
When I finished grad school with a Master's in Biology in 1997 my first job offer was from the Medical College of Virginia from an OB/Gyn who was researching the mechanism by which the mother's immune system is prevented from rejecting the child. I was devastated when in the job interview the OB informed me that about 20% of the experiments involved using placental cells from aborted babies (he did not do the abortions himself). He did ask me if I had a moral dilemma with that and was even willing to accomadate me by allowing me to opt out of those particular experiments (another lab tech could do those experiments) and doing only the mouse eperiments. After much thought and consultation with two priests I chose to pass on that job. Even if I could opt out of those experiments involving the cells from the aborted babies, my name would still appear on the papers, and I felt that would be a cause of scandal. I also thought it wouldn't be good to work in a lab for people who I didn't respect.
As a current medical student I feel I can address the topic of use of cadavers. All of our cadavers were willed to the medical school by the cadavers themselves (when they weren't cadavers, obviously). So there was consent. We also treated them with respect. At the end of our Anatomy course we held a memorial service for them. I question the morality of a parent who aborts their child to give consent regarding their remains. Would a husband who murdered his wife morally (not legally) have the right to her remains, much less their estate? Or does he forfeit all rights?
There is also the question of money changing hands, which doesn't make it a donation (I like to correct people when they talk about sperm and egg "donation." Doantion implies gift. If you get money for a service or product, it's not a donation.). I recall seeing a news s tory on ABC News about 5 years ago about the trafficing of fetal remains in Mexico where "Physicians" encouraged women to have abortions so they could sell the remains to research labs.
To answer your legal question, the murderer forfiets all rights which would normally flow from the deceased to the murderer (although in insurance policies, it is written as an exclusion, therefore there is an assumption it would be allowed by contract if not excluded - but, under equitable powers of the court, it is possible it would be blocked by the rule which prohibits profiting from one's own wrongdoing).
Ther has been some discussion that the biology is innaccurate. My understanding is that the cells used in testing, although not the cells from the aborted fetus itself, are direct descendants of the cells from the aborted fetus. Is that correct?