[originaltext]W: Good morning, and welcome to today’s broadcast of Seeing Both

W: Good morning, and welcome to today’s broadcast of Seeing Both Sides. Today we have something very interesting for you—a very controversial topic. Is it a moral use of technology to take advantage of fetal tissue for medical experimentation? Owing to the use of human fetal brain tissue in such studies, usually obtained from elective abortions, ethical concerns have been focused on the relationship between abortion and transplantation activities. There is no uniform code on the retrieval and use of human embryonal or fetal material for experimental and clinical research or application. Our guests today is Dr. Kim Benson, head of the Organization of Physicians for Responsible Research. We are going to discuss the moral and medical implications of this new area of research.  Good morning, Dr.  Benson, let’s begin by hearing the arguments in favor.
M: Well, scientifically speaking, (1) it’s clear that fetal tissue is quite a gold mine. It’s been proven to be extremely successful in grafting new tissue for use with burn victims. Research is being done into other potential uses as well.
W: It is well known that Reverend William Cooper has quite different a voice about this issue. He thinks that it is extremely important to do everything possible in terms of research to alleviate human suffering. But at the same time, (2) he also points out that people can’t ignore the fact that fetal tissue is a product of abortion, which many consider to be an act of murder. He says it is just not right to kill another person to benefit yourself, it is immoral to use the life of a fetus in this way. What do you say to Reverend Cooper’ s opinion?
M: Yes, I suppose some people could say abortion is an act of murder, (3) but it’s really important to clearly separate issues here. You can’ t ignore the fact that abortion is legal in this country at this time. Certainly, while we may recognize that as a grave human tragedy, it is a fact that it happens frequently, thousands of times every day. If this is the case, it makes good medical sense to derive any benefit from it that we can. Isn’t the tragedy perhaps minimized if this tissue can be used to further hmnan life? And, indeed, in terms of using this tissue to create new, healthy, living skin for burn victims, are we not in some small way allowing that life to continue?
W: That’s one way of looking at it. (4) However, people like Reverend Cooper have another way of looking at this issue. They think that the life of that fetus deserves every opportunity to grow and develop as an individual—that using these victims is simply adding insult to injury. Can the health interests of a living child be weighed against a child whose death is an accomplished fact, when the murderer promises to kill no more children, in fact, he promises to use the wealth derived from the murder to keep your child, and thousands like her, alive? And really, Dr. Benson, can you seriously mean to imply that the benefit this tissue provides for skin grafts for burn victims balances the fact that a human life and all its potential has been taken without its consent?
M: Maybe you have a point there, and I’m sure many people would agree with you, (5) but the flip side of the issue is that our greatest moral obligation is to the living. As long as abortion is legal, as long as those fetuses are not developing into full-fledged human life, it seems we must devote our energies to concentrating on and helping in every way possible those who are alive and suffering.
W: What exactly do you mean, Dr. Benson? Are you condoning abortion?
M: It doesn’t matter whether or not I condone it. On one hand, we could spend a great deal of time arguing about abortion. On the other hand, that would be a waste of time since our opinions here don’t change the fact that it is legal. We may as well accept the legality and go from there.
W: And questions have been raised about the morality in the use of tissue from an aborted fetus. The Washington Post published a letter from a policy expert at the Christian Medical Association. He says mistreatment of early human life can easily progress to other groups in society. Dr. Benson also offers his opinion from medical perspective. I’m sure listeners have got a lot of food for thought about this complex and controversial issue. Let’s take a short break now, and when we return we’ll take some calls from our listeners.