Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Ethical Dilemma
The folks at Planned Parenthood and its defenders are trying to mitigate their public relations nightmare by reminding us that fetal tissue played a vital role in the development of vaccines, including polio. Their main points are:
- We are doing vital work in saving lives.
- If you received the vaccination and you don’t have polio you are already an accomplice, so get over it.
Where then, do you draw the line?
Most of us received the vaccine as a matter of course, before we were old enough to understand the concept of the ethical dilemma. But we surely could have understood when we had our own children vaccinated; that is, if we had even known about the history of the research.
It is an imperfect analogy (as most analogies are) but say you need a new heart. A match is found in a woman who’s been murdered. She did not consent to have her organs harvested but her family did. In accepting her heart for your own life-saving procedure, are you complicit in her death?
Published in General, Politics, Religion & Philosophy, Science & Technology
EJ,
I have seen long before this that the claims of fetal stem cell research were wildly exaggerated. It was an obvious case of left wing ideological bias manipulating real science for political gain.
Here is a good rebuttal article at NRO.
Why We Don’t Need Fetal Cells to Conduct Life-Saving Research
I think fetal stem cell research is scientifically a moot point.
Regards,
Jim
The research on the effects of hypothermia comes from Nazi experiments trying to see the effect on airman downed at sea.
According to these sources, the study generated data unavailable elsewhere about the response of unanesthetized persons to immersion hypothermia, providing particularly important information on lethal temperatures, specific reactions to cooling, and methods of rewarming.
Seems to me to waste that research, for which humans died would be a shame. One can condemn the research but still use the information for good.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199005173222006
Google Reggie Littlejohn. They actually grab pregnant girls off the street and force them to have an abortion. The reason? State terror as a means of controlling the citizenry.
I do remember reading, though, that most of it was pretty useless—Dr. Mengele et al were crappy scientists, as well as generally awful human beings. But there’s a book (The Paperclip Project? Something like that) that I haven’t read yet, so I could be wrong (via wishful thinking).
Kate,
All of the “research” Mengele was supposedly engaged in had already been confirmed one way or the other. This was a mediocre minds idea of research. My father had a grant from the NSF and the NIH running when I was seven. Nothing angered him more than a phony research proposal. To him there were always 1o qualified people lined up who had significant ideas to explore. Because of the phony baloney somebody good wasn’t going to get the chance.
Of course, to throw mass murder in as an extra added benefit to your false premise would make him long for the Normandy invasion and definitely support taking no prisoners. If we ever get around to dealing with ISIS, after the genocide they’ve perpetrated, taking no prisoners will be merciful.
Regards,
Jim
Your dad was a cool guy, Jim!
So my sense—that the Nazi “doctors”‘ “research” stunk—is right?
Catechism Catholic Church:
2295 Research or experimentation on the human being cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on human beings is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.
Kate,
Right, absolutely right.
As far as my dad goes, I’ll give you my favorite stories.
When he had been a successful professor of biochemistry for 20 years they opened up a new “science building” very grand compared to the old beat up building he had been in. Unfortunately, it seemed to him that the quality of some of the graduate students he was getting wasn’t quite as good. He said, “buildings don’t do science, people do science”.
In the new science building his office didn’t have any windows. He had one of those old wooden arm chairs. Not one to be held back he became the Graduate Dean of the University. He told me his real reason for going after the Deanship was that the Dean’s office had a window and the great big executive arm chair was really comfy. His backside was greatly relieved.
As he became more experienced as Dean he once told me that he had very little to do. He was responsible for the reputation and accreditation of the entire university but other than that he had very little to do.
As you may or may not know there is little worse than university politics. They tried to suck him into many absurd fights but he remained pretty much above it. Once, however, he revealed to me quietly. “You know Jim as the Graduate Dean I must take care of the really big children. The Faculty.”
Regards,
Jim
The parents of the fetus are presumed to legitimately speak for the fetus—the mother is the one who gives consent for donating the body of the fetus to science (or his/her organs for transplant).
Exactly as she would in the case of a miscarriage, stillbirth or later death of a child.
But perhaps the Catechism forbids this as well?
Nobody—not the victims, not their relatives—gave consent, informed or otherwise, to allow the Nazis to experiment on human beings.
Again, I don’t think it’s the research that’s the problem. It’s the cause of death.
If he didn’t find something to do, God bless him!
Big smile, Jim. Thanks.
I agree. The importance of the videos showing the harvesting of human organs is that they show that these aborted fetuses are babies and human beings.
I thought PP also provided counseling. In that capacity, there would be a conflict of interest if it so happened most of those counseled chose abortion, and it so happened PP could make more money off the parts and the abortion than just letting them go have a baby. Baby parts for sale are bonuses.
While it sounds good that it should be up to the woman, I am skeptical that many women choose to abort a baby without taking into consideration all of those around her: her parents, boyfriend, husband, etc., perhaps feeling pressure to get rid of it because it complicates others’ lives also. I do think the psychological problems in later years are carried by the woman and not the others.
Editing issues, carry on.
The only reason to kill them is because they are human beings. If after nine months a lion cub came forth from the womb Planned Parenthood would be shut down by tomorrow morning.