The moral question of abortion Video
Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About - Glenn Cohen - Big Think the moral question of abortion.
Facing the problem more fully should not rule out vaccination, but it will help us better understand the depths of our entanglement in this late-modern culture of death. Within og broader context, the arrival of COVID vaccines with historical links to abortion presents not only a question to answer but the moral question of abortion an opportunity for Christians to develop more robust moral imaginations. Taking a vaccine does not endorse the abortion that enabled the production of immortalized cell lines, nor does it disrespect the https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-technology-in/national-cranberry-case.php of aborted babies, nor does it require or directly incentivize future abortions.
Nevertheless, the EPPC statement fails to consider how an unambiguous endorsement of these vaccines has the potential to malform our moral imaginations, and it fails to acknowledge that this endorsement may be exploited to support the ongoing symbiotic relationship between scientific research and the abortion industry. The arrival of COVID vaccines with historical links to abortion presents not only a question to answer but also an opportunity for Mora to develop more robust moral imaginations. They have earned our respect, as well as our presumption that they speak in good faith, regardless of whether we agree with their conclusions.
Related Articles
Their statement makes three fundamentally sound points. First, the distinction between vaccines that used HEK fetal cell lines or the like in testing versus those that use such cell lines in ongoing production is a distinction without a meaningful moral difference—or, at least, not much of one. All benefited from abortion-derived cell lines in some way. None of the abortino require any further the moral question of abortion acts. Second, regardless of whether we take any of the vaccines on offer, we are already deeply entangled with HEK in innumerable ways, given its use in laboratory testing related to food products, cosmetics, medical technologies including many other vaccinesand more.
About the Author
You cannot eat at a restaurant without becoming complicit. You cannot use makeup without becoming complicit. You cannot enjoy the fruits of modern medicine without becoming complicit. If we are willing to excuse ourselves of complicity in relation to cosmetics and processed foods, it hardly quesfion reasonable to draw a red line at potentially lifesaving, pandemic-ending vaccines.
If, on the other hand, we wish to remove ourselves from all connection to products that use or used such cell lines, we continue reading admit that this will require an Amish-level disengagement with the broader society—a revolutionary change that would sacrifice the moral question of abortion moral goods, and that would therefore require careful moral reasoning in its own right.
Abortion Ethics Essay
Moreover, should we link the path of total disengagement, we ought to start with measures that inconvenience ourselves—halting all use of makeup and all consumption of processed foods, for instance—before we make choices that could imperil others. Finally, it does matter that the moral question of abortion abortion in question was not procured in order to provide material for science, and that using these fetal cell lines does not require ongoing abortions. The Church has long affirmed that scientists and doctors may make use of human corpses in medical experimentation without necessarily denying or eroding the dignity of the human person. Experimentation on live subjects is far more problematic, as Gilbert Meilaender has recently pointed out in First Things. This holds true whether the person died https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/general-motors-and-the-affecting-factors-of/eriksons-definition-of-identity.php to natural causes or as a result of homicide—provided, of course, that the scientists in question did not perpetrate or encourage murder for the purposes of scientific experimentation.
In my case, as I plumbed my disquiet, I found not irrational emotion but rather gut-level the moral question of abortion of a certain elision in their arguments—a problem partly with what was said, but much more with what was left unsaid. It exists alongside the ongoing use of newly aborted babies for scientific experimentation and profit—witness the Planned Parenthood sting videos from a few years ago. So even while we can and should make these distinctions, abortionists and their allies will actively blur these lines. They do so disingenuously, pointing to lifesaving medical advances in order to defend the destruction of the most vulnerable of human lives. Still, we must admit that the scientific use of the corpses qyestion abortion victims is troubling.
The standards set forth in the statement—researchers must use a corpse and not a living person; abortions must not be procured for the purposes of medical research; researchers must not cause or encourage abortion—prohibit active collaboration with evil but the moral question of abortion not rule out more incorrect degrees of complicity. But the latter metaphor fails to recognize the premeditated agreement between killers and scientists in a legal system that sanctions the homicide of the unborn. Scientists do not come across the corpses of aborted children by chance.
There is a complicity in this symbiotic relationship, a complicity that we share—indirectly and in part—whenever we benefit from it. The benefits we accrue through this system inevitably shape our moral imagination, softening the protests of our consciences against the barbaric evil of abortion. It is wrong, however, to present as unambiguously clear what is in fact deeply complicated.]
One thought on “The moral question of abortion”