Save your baby or let it die?

[Cuddles333]

If you had a newborn that was going to soon die without an organ transplant, would you deny the procedure if you knew the organ came from an abortion clinic?

 

[HondaMan]

Are you trying to create a dilemma?

I'm not sure, but do parents allow organ donations if their newborns die at birth?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The fact that the organ came from the killing of a child makes the matter a dilemma. It doesn't support abortion, yet also in rejecting the organ another child is dead.

 

[ken777]

If you had a newborn that was going to soon die without an organ transplant, would you deny the procedure if you knew the organ came from an abortion clinic?

In the 1970's, my wife and I lost a baby who was only 10 days old. I think it is possible that today our son could have been saved so I find your question very troubling. At the time I might have said yes, but looking back as an old man I would say no.

Some might argue that the harm has already been done to the aborted baby, but I feel that to save my own child through the deliberate death of another, cannot be the will of God.

 

[PapaZoom]

I'm with Ken777

 

[ken777]

I'm with Ken777

Thanks. I stand by what I said but I can still imagine difficult decisions. What if the organs to save another life came from a murdered adult, an executed prisoner, a suicide victim ... ?

 

[Hank77]

If you had a newborn that was going to soon die without an organ transplant, would you deny the procedure if you knew the organ came from an abortion clinic?

This is difficult for sure but here are some questions one might think about.
The parents of the living child did not having anything to do with the death of the other child.
The parents of the living child are not buying and making money from the death of the other child.
What if the dead child and been murdered in some other way besides abortion, would that be reason to deny the living child life?

I'm not sure, but do parents allow organ donations if their newborns die at birth?

I would. If my dying child could give the gift of life to another child then their death wouldn't be so hard to bear.

I don't think the scenario is feasible because the aborted infants organs would not be useful to a fully developed infant. But I could be wrong about that.

 

[PapaZoom]

Thanks. I stand by what I said but I can still imagine difficult decisions. What if the organs to save another life came from a murdered adult, an executed prisoner, a suicide victim ... ?

Exactly. A decision I'm glad I never had to make. A thought provoking question non-the-less.

 

[John 1:1 GodCZU]

I would save my baby and allow the transplant. This way, as others who's loved one's organs have been implanted into a recipient, that beloved aborted baby can live on and have a life in some way too.

 

[Dom Puccio]

I would have no problem accepting the organ to save my child's life. I'm not condoning abortion, I'm condoning life and doing whatever is necessary on my part to allow my child to live.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I dont think organ harvesting goes on the behalf of those who care nothing for their families but rather for those who do. Demand is high because people have loved ones they want to live. But as is often the case someone else has to die for your loved ones to live. The legitimate donor waiting list is often too long, people sometimes die waiting on it and body parts come by other means.

If a body part was obtained through the murder of another child, I would feel guilty taking a body part of that child to extend the life of my own child, I would feel like I would be condoning it at some level.

Its easier to have a level head about it standing outside of the situation (objectively) then it is having to make that decision and feel bad (verses relieved) that your child will live because of "a particular part". A human life was still taken in most cases for yours to live.

 

[JohannaSK]

A terrible moral dilemma.

I just read a news story about Planned Parenthood specialists keeping aborted fetuses / babies alive to hand them over to a specialist who then harvests the tissues that are to be given to patients who need the transplants to stay alive.

According to the line of argumenting that ends up in saying "Yes, I would accept it, because in a way it's a pro-life decision for the transplant receiving baby", wouldn't the tissue harvesting specialists also be pro-life, then? They would just be doing everything they can to save another human being's life; it isn't their fault that their decision making starts only after the aborted fetus / baby is outside of the womb and can't be helped anymore..? I believe many of them actually think their job is pro-life in the end of the day.

What a mess! The modern technology sometimes hands over choices and possibilities to individuals who have to make incredibly difficult personal decisions.

These possibilities shouldn't exist in the first place. So I have to answer "no" to OP's moral dilemma.

 

[JCFantasy23]

This is difficult for sure but here are some questions one might think about.
The parents of the living child did not having anything to do with the death of the other child.
The parents of the living child are not buying and making money from the death of the other child.
What if the dead child and been murdered in some other way besides abortion, would that be reason to deny the living child life?

I would. If my dying child could give the gift of life to another child then their death wouldn't be so hard to bear.

I don't think the scenario is feasible because the aborted infants organs would not be useful to a fully developed infant. But I could be wrong about that.

I agree. It is not promoting abortion of the killing of the child. In the regular world here, no one would know this though, or shouldn't, due to medical privacy acts, but even if so, to save a life is precious. There should be no abortions, but if the deed has been done by someone and now we can use that horror for a positive purpose of saving another baby, not sure why we'd let them both die.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I agree. It is not promoting abortion of the killing of the child. In the regular world here, no one would know this though, or shouldn't, due to medical privacy acts, but even if so, to save a life is precious. There should be no abortions, but if the deed has been done by someone and now we can use that horror for a positive purpose of saving another baby, not sure why we'd let them both die.

If we are going to talk about reality then we must admit that once we decide that we are willing to accept that organ and that an organ can be made available for others not just in this one special instance because it is our child that is benefitting, then we have created a market (even if it is a non profit one) and an incentive for those that profit from it( either directly by selling the organ or indirectly from using a donated one to charge for the service of implanting it.) to encourage more of it.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I don't agree with that - organs are also from babies through non-abortion, I don't think they would invent an abortion market just for spare organs. Either way I don't think those who receive organs receive this information

 

[Hank77]

If we are going to talk about reality then we must admit that once we decide that we are willing to accept that organ and that an organ can be made available for others not just in this one special instance because it is our child that is benefitting, then we have created a market (even if it is a non profit one) and an incentive for those that profit from it( either directly by selling the organ or indirectly from using a donated one to charge for the service of implanting it.) to encourage more of it.

You'd have to research all of that. It is illegal to sell/buy organs, for transplanting, in the US.
I don't think the organs from an aborted child, in almost all cases, could be used for this purpose.

 

[brinny]

A terrible moral dilemma.

I just read a news story about Planned Parenthood specialists keeping aborted fetuses / babies alive to hand them over to a specialist who then harvests the tissues that are to be given to patients who need the transplants to stay alive.

According to the line of argumenting that ends up in saying "Yes, I would accept it, because in a way it's a pro-life decision for the transplant receiving baby", wouldn't the tissue harvesting specialists also be pro-life, then? They would just be doing everything they can to save another human being's life; it isn't their fault that their decision making starts only after the aborted fetus / baby is outside of the womb and can't be helped anymore..? I believe many of them actually think their job is pro-life in the end of the day.

What a mess! The modern technology sometimes hands over choices and possibilities to individuals who have to make incredibly difficult personal decisions.

These possibilities shouldn't exist in the first place. So I have to answer "no" to OP's moral dilemma.

God help us!

 

[Hank77]

I just read a news story about Planned Parenthood specialists keeping aborted fetuses / babies alive to hand them over to a specialist who then harvests the tissues that are to be given to patients who need the transplants to stay alive.

Do you have a link to the story or can you remember where you read it? Thanks

 

[brinny]

In the 1970's, my wife and I lost a baby who was only 10 days old. I think it is possible that today our son could have been saved so I find your question very troubling. At the time I might have said yes, but looking back as an old man I would say no.

Some might argue that the harm has already been done to the aborted baby, but I feel that to save my own child through the deliberate death of another, cannot be the will of God.

I agree.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't agree with that - organs are also from babies through non-abortion, I don't think they would invent an abortion market just for spare organs. Either way I don't think those who receive organs receive this information

Markets aren't invented they emerge from human interactions. There is currently a market for aborted fetal tissue and organs that is undeniable from the undercover videos. There are buyers and there are sellers. Sale of fetal tissue and organs can be billed as transportation costs to avoid technically breaking the law but technically being legal does not change the fact that one party is paying to acquire fetal tissue and organs and another is procuring it for them and accepting money in the process.