 |
 |
I think the important distinction Bob Martone makes between 1) abortion and 2) fetal tissue use for medical purposes, based on which he can without logical contradiction and in good conscience favor the latter but not the former, is quite clear and convincing. In fact, one could, by virtue of the same distinction, favor the former and oppose the later. However, one argument for fetal tissue use, item #2, does not hold up as stated. > 2. To the suggestion that fetal tissue use would create a demand > for abortion or would encourage abortion, we simply ask does heart > transplantation encourage murder? There is no evidence to support > such a conclusion .... The problem is that an analogy is attempted where two situations are not comparable. Murder, whether or not for the purpose of obtaining an organ for a transplant, is illegal everywhere. The legality of killing an embryo or fetus is not the same everywhere. Also, the social taboo in the former situation is much stronger. A better argument could be made by citing, for places where a ban on fetal tissue use has been lifted, any evidence that in fact there was an increase in abortion that could be attributed to lifting the ban. Phil Tompkins Hoboken NJ age 60/dx 1990