The choice of a new generation.

I haven't drank a Pepsi since they changed their logo to the Hopey Changey logo......
External Link 

I've always been a Coke man but would drink Pepsi if Coke wasn't available. No more. This is so disgusting. I hope SNMX goes under as well.

Pro-life doctor/professional biologist/frequent Corner reader here. This Corner post is misleading, and I'm disappointed that KJL would post this without apparently understanding the issue better.

The HEK cell line is a 30 year-old cell line that was originally created from a single aborted baby in the early 1970s. Cell lines with origins in abortion are used often in biological research (WI-38 and MRC-5), and are used in the development of the vaccines for MMR (WI-38 & MRC-5), chicken pox (WI-38 & MRC-5), polio (MRC-5), rabies (MRC-5), and Hepatitis A (MRC-5). None of the three fetuses from which these three cell lines came were aborted for the purpose of obtaining their cells.

Fetal cells are used in biological research because they rapidly divide as opposed to adult cells. The use of fetal cells here no more implies support for abortion than the use of a murdered man's cells in biological research implies support for murder. I myself have used these established fetal cell lines in my research and I consider myself vociferously pro-life.

Read the science here: External Link 

Mr Bishop’s points are relevant, and should be included in the post, although, frankly, they aren’t terribly reassuring to many of us. (This is a common difficulty in many discussions. Person A says x, y, and z but omits the nuance that q because it sounds like irrelevant information. Person B thinks q is incredibly important and that x, y, and z cannot be understood apart from their context by q.)

At any rate, I don’t even understand *how* human embryonic cells are useful for improving flavors. I don’t know anything about the science of developing flavors, but I find it surprising to hear that it can usefully done.

Bishop's point is a good one. To my understanding, this is old science-- science that we've all benefited from, in ways significant and others that are not.

The analogy of a murder victim is imperfect, but the best we have. It's the difference between learning something from someone who has been killed versus killing someone to learn something.

Now, obviously, the ethics are challenging either way-- for an extreme example, one only has to think of the scientific fruits of Nazi or Japanese human experimentation, and the general scientific consensus that any data from those experiments, no matter how independently useful, was forever tainted by its association with German and Japanese war crimes.

Alas, while MOST scientists felt this way, not all did, and even in these cases, the earlier, abhorrent research was still used in useful ways.

It's a tough call, I acknowledge. But condemning Pepsi for using scientific data that had been available in public for decades is the definition of closing the barn door after the horses flee.

While historically interesting, this case should NOT be used to attack Pepsi, or any other companies, for their work. What is SHOULD be used for is stopping FUTURE work in this field, i.e. stopping the creation of human life only to destroy it.

After all, if we judge the value of present day works solely on the crimes of past generations, there *wouldn't be* a Catholic Church today, would there?

WWJD? what would Jesus drink? Coca-Cola of course!

It doesn't matter that the children were not aborted for the purpose of harvesting their cells, or that the act took place 30 years ago. The fact is that people are profiteering of of a line of cells extracted from aborted children, and thus the cell line was obtained illicitly and should not be used. Also, any users of this line of cells and any others illicitly obtained are materially complicit in the act of abortion, according to the Pontifical Academy for Life, who addresses the topic here:
External Link 
The Vatican document "Dignitas Personae" also addresses the topic and can be found here:
External Link 

Here is the relevant excerpt from Dignitas Personae:

"For scientific research and for the production of vaccines or other products, cell lines are at times used which are the result of an illicit intervention against the life or physical integrity of a human being. The connection to the unjust act may be either mediate or immediate, since it is generally a question of cells which reproduce easily and abundantly. This “material” is sometimes made available commercially or distributed freely to research centers by governmental agencies having this function under the law. All of this gives rise to various ethical problems with regard to cooperation in evil and with regard to scandal. It is fitting therefore to formulate general principles on the basis of which people of good conscience can evaluate and resolve situations in which they may possibly be involved on account of their professional activity.

It needs to be remembered above all that the category of abortion “is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos. This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted in some countries… [T]he use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person”.[54] These forms of experimentation always constitute a grave moral disorder.[55]

35. A different situation is created when researchers use “biological material” of illicit origin which has been produced apart from their research center or which has been obtained commercially. The Instruction Donum vitae formulated the general principle which must be observed in these cases: “The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other human beings. In particular, they cannot be subjected to mutilation or to autopsies if their death has not yet been verified and without the consent of the parents or of the mother. Furthermore, the moral requirements must be safeguarded that there be no complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided”.[56]

In this regard, the criterion of independence as it has been formulated by some ethics committees is not sufficient. According to this criterion, the use of “biological material” of illicit origin would be ethically permissible provided there is a clear separation between those who, on the one hand, produce, freeze and cause the death of embryos and, on the other, the researchers involved in scientific experimentation. The criterion of independence is not sufficient to avoid a contradiction in the attitude of the person who says that he does not approve of the injustice perpetrated by others, but at the same time accepts for his own work the “biological material” which the others have obtained by means of that injustice. When the illicit action is endorsed by the laws which regulate healthcare and scientific research, it is necessary to distance oneself from the evil aspects of that system in order not to give the impression of a certain toleration or tacit acceptance of actions which are gravely unjust.[57] Any appearance of acceptance would in fact contribute to the growing indifference to, if not the approval of, such actions in certain medical and political circles.

At times, the objection is raised that the above-mentioned considerations would mean that people of good conscience involved in research would have the duty to oppose actively all the illicit actions that take place in the field of medicine, thus excessively broadening their ethical responsibility. In reality, the duty to avoid cooperation in evil and scandal relates to their ordinary professional activities, which they must pursue in a just manner and by means of which they must give witness to the value of life by their opposition to gravely unjust laws. Therefore, it needs to be stated that there is a duty to refuse to use such “biological material” even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself, within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life. Therefore, the above-mentioned criterion of independence is necessary, but may be ethically insufficient.

Of course, within this general picture there exist differing degrees of responsibility. Grave reasons may be morally proportionate to justify the use of such “biological material”. Thus, for example, danger to the health of children could permit parents to use a vaccine which was developed using cell lines of illicit origin, while keeping in mind that everyone has the duty to make known their disagreement and to ask that their healthcare system make other types of vaccines available. Moreover, in organizations where cell lines of illicit origin are being utilized, the responsibility of those who make the decision to use them is not the same as that of those who have no voice in such a decision.

In the context of the urgent need to mobilize consciences in favour of life, people in the field of healthcare need to be reminded that “their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness”.[58]"