Is it morally acceptable to experiment on a directly aborted human embryo?

This is a lot more complicated of a question than you would think. Your gut-instinct response (based on what you said in class the other week) is correct…but not for the right reasons. Let’s break that down a little bit.

How to determine the morality of a human act

The Catholic Catechism does an awesome job of breaking this down in paragraph 1750. I highly recommend reading it directly from there…however, I’ll include a brief summary here just like I did in class.

All specific acts can be judged based on the Object (or the definition of the action performed “in a vacuum”), the Intent of the actor, and the Circumstances in which the actor finds him/herself. If any of these three are immoral, then the entirety of the act is immoral and is, therefore, a sin.

That said, the culpability (or the “guiltiness”) that a person carries with that act can change based on any of the three - in other words, a person can become “less guilty” of a sin if that person is acting out of good intentions or out of extenuating circumstances. That said…it doesn’t change the fact that the act is sinful.

Here’s an example to illustrate: say that Robin Hood steals from a passer-by because he was moved out of pity to give to a poor widow. We can evaluate his actions by taking a look at Object, Intent, and Circumstance.

Object: Robin Hood stole. That, by definition, is an immoral act.

Intent: He wanted to give it to someone else. So, we can say he had Good Intentions.

Circumstance: He was emotionally moved with pity for the poor woman, wanting to help her overcome poverty. This also is a good thing.

So…based on Object, Intent, and Circumstance, Robin Hood committed an Immoral Action (all three have to be good in order for the action to be a moral action). That said…if there were a question as to whether he was guilty of a mortal or a venial sin…it would likely be that he was guilty of a venial versus a mortal sin (the mitigating factors from Intent and Circumstance).

Now that we’ve explored how to determine whether or not an act is morally licit, we can move to the original discussion: is it morally acceptable to experiment on an aborted embryo.

Clearly stating the question

In order to help guide the discussion, I’d like to re-state the question so that we can isolate the specific act that we are trying to analyze.

Is it morally acceptable to do the following: conduct scientific research on a deceased embryo that was voluntarily aborted by individuals who have nothing to do with the scientific research.

To provide further clarity, let’s say that the scientists doing the research are actually morally opposed to abortion, wishing that the abortion had never happened. Let’s say that they actually speak out against abortion, but want to make sure that the aborted baby’s body is honored by allowing their body to contribute to the health of future babies through scientific research.

Object of the act

To be clear, the scientists in question have NOT caused the abortion of the baby. They are simply doing scientific research on the baby’s body.

Doing scientific research on the body of a deceased person is not a new concept. In fact, plenty of people willingly donate their bodies to scientific study after their death - and a great number of amazing medical discoveries have happened as a result of their selflessness. In fact, the Church teaches that this is a good thing when done correctly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that, “Autopsies can be morally permitted for legal inquests or scientific research. The free gift of organs after death is legitimate and can be meritorious” CCC 2301. The only caveat is that it can only be done with the appropriate permission from the individual.

But what about deceased babies? They would have been unable to provide consent prior to their death. In the case of non voluntary abortions, the parents (specifically the mother per Donum Vitae paragraph 4) are responsible for providing that consent.

So, in cases of miscarriages (also known as involuntary abortions), if the parents consent, it is morally acceptable for the baby’s body to be used by the scientific community to advance medical research. This is under the condition that the baby was in no way-shape-or-form killed for that research.

Now, in the case of voluntary abortions, a strong case can be made that the parents forfeited their rights to be able to provide consent - after all, they were misled into directly taking the life of the baby. Arguably, no-one would have the right to provide consent for scientific research in that case.

So…when looking at the Object, the act is considered morally illicit because no-one has the right to provide consent on behalf of the baby after a direct abortion.

Intent of the actor

As discussed in the original question, the intent of the medical researchers is definitely good. So, we will say that the Intent is Good.

Circumstances

This category provides the most compelling argument for the immorality of experimenting on directly aborted human embryos.

The Pontifical Academy for Life explained why when they discussed the use of cell lines derived from tissue of a directly-aborted fetus. They emphatically (strongly) state that it is immoral in principle to use cells derived from aborted human fetuses because it will likely encourage further abortions in the name of scientific research and development of vaccines. In other words, because direct abortion is culturally acceptable in many circles of our society, the use of cells from directly aborted babies for advancing good will likely encourage even more acceptance of the practice.

So, in the circumstances we find ourselves in today, it is absolutely immoral to experiment and/or research on directly aborted embryos. This is because this practice will encourage further killing of the innocent and would give our society more reasons to accept abortion as completely normal and morally acceptable.

In Conclusion

We discussed the Object, the Intent, and the Circumstances around scientific research and experimentation on directly aborted human embryos. The Objective act is considered immoral because no-one can give consent, the Intentions are Good, and the Circumstances make the act very immoral. Thus, to answer the question, it is Immoral to experiment on directly aborted human embryos - no matter how good the intentions of the doctor.

One final note: We did not discuss any scientific benefits (or lack thereof) to doing stem cell research on directly aborted human embryos. This is because, frankly, it does not matter. The Catholic Church teaches that the Ends NEVER justify the Means. Even if great good could come from this immoral action, it doesn’t change how immoral it is.

That said…stem cell research using stem cells coming from adult stem cells, as well as iPS cells (induced pluripotent stem cells) are both methods of research that have a higher likelihood of advancing medical research in this field. Please keep in mind, though, that because iPS is still new, there are still questions as to its moral acceptability. From what I can tell so far, it seems morally good under most conditions…but that is a discussion I’ll leave to the Scientific Theologians ;).