In a disturbing display of inhumanity, the New York Times has an article on the use of cells derived from an aborted baby to treat burn victims.[1] The entire tone of the article utterly rejects the humanity of these dead babies. The Washington Post and the BBC also had stories on this, that provide somewhat more detail, but differ in their disturbing inhumanity only in that I read them second and third instead of first.[2][3] This type of research has apparently been discussed for decades,[4] totally destroying any claim to credibility scientists have when they claim that they can self-regulate themselves with regard to ethics and ethical violations. Were these cells to be obtained in someway without killing a baby, then this would be an exciting discovery, a way to treat those who otherwise must learn to live with significant impairments. But we cannot, must not, take a life simply for the comfort of another. And while the argument will surely be made that these children were already dead, already aborted, and that this is no worse than organ donation, it simply does not hold water. Because were we to achieve an end to abortion, and if this sort of treatment becomes common before that date, you can be sure that you will see a cry and push to have test-tube babies killed to fill the gap in human flesh. This is a slippery slope we have started down, and I dread to see where it will go in our lifetimes, how far we will descend before people are revolted at their own evil.
[1] Rosenthal, Elisabeth. "Fetal Skin Cells Found to
Be a Promising Treatment for Burns" New York Times (online) 2005-08-18.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/science/18burn.html?ex=1282017600&en=6f8e67665252be07&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
[2] BBC News. "Burns hope over foetal skin cells" BBC News (UK
edition online) 2005-08-17.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4159592.stm
[3] Brown,
David. "Fetal Tissue Heals Burns" The Washington Post (online).
2005-08-18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701777.html
[4] See #1 above.