According to medical experts, there is no need to use organs or tissue from aborted babies to do research to cure diseases.
Recent editorials in numerous media sources have quoted scientists as saying that laws being passed in states to ban the use of aborted baby tissue is hurting their effort to develop cures and vaccines for diseases. But this claim is highly contested by many in the field of medicine.
Dr. David Prentice of Charlotte Lozier Institute maintains that many contentions are being made to justify using aborted baby body parts, especially with the latest Zika outbreak.
“In fact, lately the hot topic has been the Zika virus and its potential to cause some birth defects in little babies,” Prentice told OneNewsNow. “And now we're hearing that we've got to have fetal tissue if you're going to study the Zika virus and what it does to little babies — and especially [that the tissue is needed to] come up with a vaccine.”
This is not true, according to Prentice, who says it is hard to believe that some scientists are making the statements about aborted fetal tissue — especially because there is no evidence fetal tissue is needed.
In fact, Prentice maintains that a 2012 Nobel prize was granted for a vaccine for another disease impacting preborn children — using induced pluripotent stem cells which can be made from skin from an adult.
“It's very similar to the Zika virus that everybody's concerned about right now,” the doctor explains. “[There is] a hundred-percent effective vaccine against this similar virus. No fetal tissue at all was used.”
The scientists involved used monkey and mosquito cells, and it is the mosquito that is believed to be the culprit in Zika. Prentice believes that the reason some scientists claim to need aborted babies is simply because they support abortion.