THE CONFERENCE:

Candidate Survey (11/2006)

Legislative Issues

NCC/Publications:

  -NCC Statements &

   Current Issues

Medical Treat-      ment Decision-

making (1/06)

  -Bishops' Statements

    *Behavioral Health

     Statement (2/05)

  -Capitol 

   Correspondent:

    Columns-2007

    Past Columns

  *********

PRO LIFE:

Calendar of Events

Current Issues

NE Catholics for Life

  -NCL Newsletter

  -A People of Life Brochure

Life Insight: 

  Columns-2008

  Past Columns

Preg. Help Centers

Project Rachel

2007 PL Convention

Walk for Life 2008

Printed Resources

*********

Education Issues:

The NFCSP

Education/Legislation

Action Alerts!!

Newsletter: 

 Parent Advocate

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience.  By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

Support for Aborted  Fetal Tissue Research is Incompatible with Pro Life Principle

Presented at Press Conference in the State Capitol Rotunda, March 21, 2001

Throughout the public debate over the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s research involving the use of fetal brain tissue derived from induced abortions, some public officials have tried to maintain that supporting this research is compatible with a pro-life position. The purpose of this statement is to declare that:

Back to Top

Favoring Fetal-Cell Use Is Plainly Not Pro-Life

by Stephen E. Doran, M.D., neurosurgeon, Omaha, Nebraska
Source: Omaha World Herald; April 3, 2001

As a practicing neurosurgeon and member of the clinical faculty at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, I have treated individuals with neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease. I have also published laboratory research investigating strategies in gene therapy for neurodegenerative disorders. These diseases slowly and mercilessly destroy the lives of affected individuals as well as their families. I would rejoice at any insight into these disorders, as long as this information is obtained in a morally acceptable fashion.

If an individual believes that abortion is a morally acceptable action, then there is no argument that can persuade him or her that research using fetal tissue from induced abortion is morally wrong. However, a large number of Nebraskans believe that abortion is a morally reprehensible action and as such believe that publicly funded institutions should not use taxpayer revenue to support immoral research. No argument would persuade them to think otherwise.

Yet, there are individuals, some of whom are state legislators, who consider themselves "pro-life" - i.e., against abortion - yet feel that they can in good conscience support research that uses fetal remains from induced abortion.

The goal of this commentary is to build a solid, rational argument that dispels the notion that one can be "pro-life" and simultaneously support what is immoral research.

Opponents of Legislative Bill 462 believe that the research using fetal tissue from induced abortion is morally distinct from abortion itself.  They argue (without solid evidence) that using fetal remains from induced abortion would not result in a greater number of abortions and, therefore, that the two actions are not morally linked.

This could not be further from the truth as demonstrated by the ethical principle of "moral complicity." If a scientist uses fetal cells from induced abortion, it places him or her in moral complicity with the abortionist. That is, the scientist becomes an accomplice to the action of abortion. This type of research requires an ongoing collaboration with the practice of abortion. The scientist and the abortionist must interact in a premeditated, substantial fashion in order for the research to be a success. The tissues must be either delivered immediately or prepared in a fashion compatible with the design of the experiment. In either situation, as outlined in LB 462, an unavoidable entanglement with abortion providers occurs.

Opponents of LB 462 argue that the fetal remains would otherwise be discarded and as such it is a "nobler" end for them to be used for research purposes. This argument can be refuted on the basis of "informed consent." In almost all cultures, human remains are treated with deference, and to use them without consent for research purposes would violate this tradition of respect.

Who, then, has the right to consent to use this tissue? The intuitive response is that the mother has the right to consent because the unborn child is merely a part of her body, much like her blood, skin or internal organs. The flaw in this claim is that although the tissue is from within her body, it is the body of another, with a distinct genotype, blood, gender, etc.

The alternative response would then be that either parent, acting as the child's guardian, could give consent. However, once the parents have decided to destroy the unborn child, they implicitly abandon their role as guardian. One cannot presume to act in a child's best interest and simultaneously plot his or her destruction.

It has also been suggested that using fetal tissue from induced abortions is morally identical to organ donation from victims of auto accidents.  This analogy fails to take into account the clear difference between intentional and accidental death.

Others have suggested that using tissue from aborted fetuses is analogous to organ transplantation from a homicide victim. Here the death is also intentional. However, in the case of the homicide victim, the person giving consent for donation is not the person responsible for the death.

Finally, opponents of LB 462 argue that such legislation would impede the university's ability to attract talented scientists and that research in neurodegenerative disorders would come to a halt. There is no evidence to support this. In fact, the true "cutting-edge" research being done now uses adult stem cells as a source for tissue. Adult stem cells are primitive cells found in mature tissues, such as bone marrow or even the brain itself. These cells can be harvested from a living individual and then stimulated in tissue culture to transform into more specialized cells, which then could be used for research or even therapeutic purposes.

While this technique is still in the early phases of development, it is exceptionally promising and, equally important, is morally acceptable.

It is clear, then, that one cannot claim to be both "pro-life" and simultaneously support research using fetal remains derived from induced abortion. The ethical principles of moral complicity and informed consent refute this, and the scientific promise of adult stem cells make such research unnecessary.

Back to Top

Back to Top

UNMC is complicit with the act of abortion because it depends upon a prearranged and ongoing collaboration with the practice of abortion to ensure immediate procurement of brain tissue that is fresh, alive and uncontaminated. If UNMC’s research depended upon a similar prearranged and ongoing collaboration with the intentional destruction of born human beings (e.g. collaborating with a professional hit man to obtain the brains or other organs from his murder victims) it would be clear that UNMC was complicit with those murders. One should no more collaborate with individuals who destroy prenatal human beings than one would make such arrangements with those responsible for an innocent child’s death after birth. The difference in these scenarios, of course, depends upon whether or not one believes in the moral equality of prenatal and postnatal human beings.

Some may say this is an incorrect analogy because abortion is legal but murder is not. But this a moral analysis not a legal one. And as evidenced by our country’s historical abuses of certain human beings through slavery, segregation and discrimination, among other things, just because something is legal does not mean it is moral or ethical.

Some say that using aborted baby tissue is analogous to organ donation. Those who use aborted baby tissue, they say, are no more complicit with abortion than those who harvest organs are complicit with a crime or act that resulted in the organ’s availability.

This analogy fails for at least a couple of reasons. First, organ donation typically arises from tragedies (fatal accidents or murder) that we try to prevent or that are illegal. Abortion, on the other hand, is not only a legal and elective choice, but many in our society celebrate its legality as central to women’s rights and equality. In the January 30, 2001 edition of the Omaha World-Herald, a representative of Planned Parenthood of Omaha-Council Bluffs referred to legal abortion as an expression of a "firmly held, cherished value…"

Second, with organ donation, there is no prearranged and ongoing agreement with the perpetrators of the deadly act. A person who receives a kidney, for example, from a person murdered without the recipient’s foreknowledge or passive witnessing of the murder would not be complicit with the murder. However, if that same recipient knew that planned murders were going to take place and stood to benefit by getting an organ from one of the victims, he/she would clearly be complicit with the murders.

The only way one can conclude that UNMC’s use of aborted baby tissue is not complicit with abortion is to reject the moral equality of prenatal human life and postnatal human life.

The assumption of those who support research using aborted fetal tissue is that proper consent to use this tissue can be obtained from the mother who has the abortion, as long as the abortion decision is made prior to any discussion about the donation of the aborted fetal tissue. While it is true that parents can and do legitimately consent to the use of an offspring’s organ(s) or body following a fatal accident or crime, there is a monumental moral distinction between these two scenarios.

With abortion, a mother seeks and consents to the death of her offspring and therefore abdicates her role as guardian and protector of that child. In no other context would a parent who sought the death of an offspring be allowed to consent to the use of that child’s organs or body. Even parents who abuse or neglect their children are viewed by society and the law as abdicating their guardian/protector role; children are often removed from such parents.

With organ donation, parents can legitimately consent to the use of an offspring's organs or body unless they are complicit in the death of the child.

One should no more seek consent from parents of aborted children for use of those children’s tissues, than one would seek the consent from those responsible for a child’s death after birth.

One ethical principle that is universally agreed upon is that obtaining the informed consent of a human subject, or of his/her legitimate surrogate must precede any human research. With legal abortion, however, there is no one who can legitimately consent. The child obviously cannot consent and, as indicated above, neither can the mother. The government (which could in limited circumstances be a legitimate surrogate for consent) cannot legitimately consent because it legally sanctions abortion.

The only way one can conclude that a mother (or another surrogate) of an aborted child can legitimately consent to the use of her child’s body for research is to reject the moral equality of prenatal human life and postnatal human life.

Those who support research using aborted baby tissue claim that there is no evidence that the opportunity to donate aborted baby tissue for research encourages abortion. It is possible that there are no scientific studies to prove the connection, but it is simply untrue to say there is no evidence whatsoever indicating women may be influenced toward abortion by such research. The following public opinion polls are evidence that the research may have an influence on a woman’s decision to have an abortion.