Abortion and the use of fetal tissue in research

Abortion is an important subject. Many people, Christians and others, are convinced that it is wrong, perhaps even a form of murder, and believe that it should be outlawed, except, perhaps, in case of the continued pregnancy putting the mother at grave health risk.

Here is a long essay by me, on abortion, which includes, among other topics, discussion of the question of whether the Bible prohibits abortion.

As Michael Gerson points out, concerning Christian opposition to abortion, "The Bible is pretty much silent on the topic [of abortion]. Instead, [evangelical Christians'] religious beliefs inform a certain anthropology -- a belief that humans have rights and dignity because they are created in the image and likeness of God."

Relevant has compiled the positions on abortion, of the many Democratic Presidential candidates.

Science cannot set a stage of development at which life begins. That would be something like asking a baseball umpire to establish policy for the Federal Reserve. The two are different fields, and the umpire would have no particular expertise in that area. When life begins is a legal, moral, ethical, religious, and philosophical matter. Scientists can provide evidence that may bear on when an individual human life begins. But they can't, and shouldn't, claim that they can establish the stage at when life begins, because "life" has to be carefully defined. The more important question, also controversial, is "how should we treat a developing human at this particular stage?" This is a legal, political, moral, ethical, religious and philosophical matter.

A recent ruling by the Trump administration will drastically curtail research on fetal tissue, according to Gizmodo and other sources. However, the House of Representatives has introduced language that would prevent the establishment of ethics committees to review research on fetal tissue. This provision, if agreed to by the Senate, would continue to allow research using fetal tissue. However, since the legislation is part of a spending bill, its future is uncertain, until that spending bill is finally passed. Whatever you think of fetal tissue research, prohibiting ethical examination seems to be a potentially dangerous step.

See this historical summary, describing various governmental actions, and other developments in fetal research, from the National Center for Biotechnology Information. The same web page also lists and identifies the terms used for various stages in embryonic development. Among other things, the page indicates that the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, in 1954, was for the development of anti-polio vaccines, developed using fetal tissue. I have not been able to determine how that fetal tissue for that research was obtained. But such a breakthrough is contrary to a statement by Oregon Right to Life, which says that "Fetal tissue research has also not successfully helped treat a single patient." As has happened all too often, those passionate about making abortion readily available, or those passionate about restricting it, depart significantly from the truth.

With the background out of the way, we now come to the matters directly related to the title of this post

Note that fetal cells can multiply, so that large numbers of cells of a given type can be produced and used. (HeLa cells, which were not derived from a fetus, but from a tumor, are widely used all over the world. They were obtained -- without getting her permission -- from a woman who died in 1951.)

Why use fetal tissue at all? 1. Vaccines are produced by viruses growing in fetal tissue cultures. This includes those against measles, rubella, rabies, chicken pox, shingles and hepatitis A.
2. Fetal tissue can be used to study basic developmental questions on how the body develops. 
3. Fetal cells are used to study the effects of various substances, including medicines, on fetuses.
4. Fetal tissues can be used to study diseases that affect fetuses, such as the Zika virus.
5. Some fetal cells lack surface markers, which are those used by the immune system to reject tissue. Therefore, it is possible to transplant fetal cells into the brain, or other places, and they won't be rejected by the host. There have been attempts to treat Parkinson's disease in this way.

USA Today has a web page "What you need to know about how fetal tissue is used for research."


President George W. Bush attempted a compromise, namely that fetal cell lines already in use could continue to be used. This resulted in 21 cell lines which might be used in research, and cut off use of tissue resulting from abortions after that attempt. Like many compromises, this one didn't satisfy a lot of people, who either thought no fetal tissue should ever be used for research, or that 21 cell lines were too restrictive.

Recently, scientists have produced a sort of substitute embryo, from embryonic stem cells.

What are the objections to using fetal tissue for medical research? 

The objection that has gotten the most attention is objecting because fetal tissue must have been obtained from a fetus, by an abortion, or possibly a miscarriage, and a fetus is a potential human being. If God wants fetuses protected, then, it is argued, fetal tissue research should be banned. However, as is pointed out in the "Is abortion murder," and "Was killing babies considered murder in the Bible?" sections of this post, and Gerson (see above) points out, the Bible says next to nothing about abortion, and it is not absolutely clear that the Bible prohibits it. That doesn't mean that Christians can't oppose abortion, and, indeed, many Christians believe strongly that they should oppose abortion. Opposition to abortion might include opposition to the use of fetal tissue in research.

It seems doubtful that anyone would have an abortion for the purpose of providing fetal cell tissue lines for study. I have never read of this. So, if a woman can obtain an abortion, some cells might be available, and they would be a side product of the abortion.

Some draw an analogy between use of fetal tissue and use of body parts. It is doubtful if anyone has shot someone else for the purpose of making, say, their kidney, available for transplanting. But kidneys, and other body parts, do become available, and are used, because of murders and car accidents. Few people would argue that using such body parts is wrong, even though murder and drunken driving are wrong. On the contrary, as a society, we seem to accept that good consequences may come from these terrible actions, and we don't blame organ transplanting for murders and car accidents. Does the same argument hold for using fetal tissue? One difference between these is that kidneys, livers, etc., can be obtained from a recently deceased person who knowingly gave permission for such use, whereas that is not possible for fetal tissue. For that, and other reasons, the analogy may not be valid.

No doubt there are other aspects of this subject that I have not considered. Please comment, if you can. Thanks for reading.