I commend you for an intelligent and rational look at a controversial issue, “Brave New Harvest,” by Andrew Simons [Nov. 19]. Though fiercely dedicated to the prolife movement and opposed to virtually all abortion, I agree with those who say abortion and the use of fetal tissue must be considered as totally separate moral and ethical issues. To bring a life into being only to destroy the physical body is intolerable.
On the other hand, I can support the use of fetal remains for the purpose of alleviating human suffering. To consider that, after an abortion, the fetal tissue remaining is the victim is no more rational than defining the mortal remains of a murdered person as the victim. Not to allow the beneficial use of any human remains is a tragic waste of something God has created; to disallow their use to save life only adds tragedy to tragedy.
Rev. James J. Pauquette
Andrew Simons’s article is one more example of how a writer can tickle the ear with inimical thoughts. Not one Bible verse is used to support his comities, or to contract the overflowing truth found in God’s Word about the importance of saving innocent lives.
Fish is correct that parental consent to use the tissue of an abortus is foolish. It is “informed consent” run amok. But her conclusion does not necessarily follow. Just as neither pathologist nor researcher needs the consent of the patient to use excised tissue, they should require no consent for fetal tissue.
Dr. Arrant is wrong in stating that “no decision on the matter of using fetal tissues for research is preferred to a less than perfect one.” The decision has been made, and, like the king’s writing (Esther 8:8), cannot be altered. It is not to be swayed by pity, ...1
Already a CT subscriber? Log in for full digital access.