What Qualifies As An “Issue of Conscience”?

Romans 14 & 1 Corinthians 8

There are two main passages that address what have become known as “Issues of Conscience”: Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. Both speak to issues that may be caused by weakness of faith or a lack of knowledge that causes disputes. Not only are they matters that cause disputes, but they are “disputable” matters, meaning they are questionable in value or possibly questionable as to whether it’s possible to find a Biblical answer to the disputes.

Romans 14 lists a couple areas that were causing disputes in the New Testament Roman church:

Nicodemus starts by assuming that Jesus is a “teacher come from God”, because “no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him” (v.2). Yet instead of saying, “Thank you, you’re absolutely right about that,” Jesus goes in a completely different direction. He introduces something that Nicodemus doesn’t know.

1. One person believes he can eat anything, and the “weak” person eats only vegetables.
2. One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike.

The probable reason for eating only vegetables? A lot of gentiles had come from the pagan background of idolatry, largely because it was so integral to the Roman and Greek cultures. For them, it was a social event to go to the Greek Acropolis or the Roman Forum Boarium, where there were numerous temples to worship the gods and as part of the worship they could eat at the “temple” restaurants. After all, if you’re sacrificing tons of animal meat, you might as well sell it, right? So restaurants with cheap meat were in order and the practical Romans also put a meat market right next to the Boarium to sell cheap meat to the people for their homes. In fact, it may have been hard to find meat that hadn’t been sacrificed to idols, so some who had come out of pagan idolatry who were used to eating the sacrificed meat and becoming one with the god by ingesting the meat found it too much of a temptation or too much of a connection with past idol worship to partake. We’ll cover that more in 1Corinthians 8.

He wanted to be a part of the kingdom—it’s why he was visiting Jesus—but he couldn’t comprehend how this would be possible. And Jesus had also shown something about man. There was the part about there only being one way to enter the Kingdom of God: being born again.

As for disputes over what day to worship, it was probably because the Jews had worshiped on the Sabbath (or Saturday) since the founding of the Old Testament Law in honor of the Lord’s resting from His work of creation on the seventh day of the week. New Testament Christians had shifted to worshiping on the first day of the week, or Sunday, in honor of the day that Jesus rose from the dead. After all, “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17), so his resurrection is pretty important.

However, Paul calls all of this quarreling over opinions, not substance (Romans 14:1). That’s a theme that he repeats in 1 Corinthians 8.

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul starts with tying together food offered to idols with knowledge that puffs up. He underscores that an idol is nothing, as it “has no real existence” because “there is no God but one” (v.4).

Paul is saying categorically that this is an argument over nothing. Since idols are nothing, they do nothing to the meat.

So what’s the problem?

The problem was that not everyone was secure in this knowledge. As pointed out above, because of their past, some became conscience-stricken about eating meat offered to idols. After all, it was part of their former idol worship to eat meat offered to idols (v.7). Wouldn’t there still be that connection? And in Acts 15:28-29 when the church Elders in Jerusalem were considering what to tell the Gentile believers, they said,

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well” (ESV).

But Paul says no, food isn’t anything and can’t connect us any pagan “god.” It makes no difference whether you eat it or don’t eat it. The only reason you’d feel bad about it is because you have a weak conscience (v.7-8). The principle in Scripture is that while a conscience is something God has given everyone, it can be “seared with a hot iron” and thus become useless (1 Timothy 4:2), or it can be weak (1Corinthians 8). It needs to be trained by the truth of Scripture.

But let’s back up. The real question is, What is the basis of issues of conscience in both cases?

Very simple. Issues of conscience are arguments over nothing. Arguments over whether to eat meat or not eat meat are over nothing—food is nothing. Arguments over worshiping on one day or another are over nothing—either option is fine.

Let’s look at the word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 8:4 translated as “nothing” by many translations. Strong’s Concordance lists #3762. oudeis and outheis, oudemia, ouden and outhen as,

The term “Son of Man” was used in the Old Testament as humans, but also more importantly to designate the Messiah (see Psalms 80:17, Daniel 7:3, 13-14). In the New Testament “Son of Man” is used almost exclusively as a title for Jesus in His office of Messiah. In addition, as used here by Jesus, the term carries with it an inference to His deity. “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man” (v.14) states baldly that Jesus has both ascended to and descended from heaven, and since no one living can see the face of God the Father and not die, from Exodus 33:20 Nicodemus had to know that Jesus was making a claim to be on face-to-face terms with God the Father Himself. He was claiming to have been sent directly from the presence of the Father to reveal to mankind the Father’s will.

3762 /oudeís ("no one, nothing at all") is a powerful negating conjunction. It rules out by definition, i.e. "shuts the door" objectively and leaves no exceptions. 3762 (oudeís) is deductive in force so it excludes every (any) example that is included within the premise (supposition). [3762 /oudeís ("not one, none") categorically excludes, declaring as a fact that no valid example exists.]

That rather narrows the field for what can or can’t be an issue of conscience. If the argument is substantive, it can’t be an issue of conscience. If the argument is not substantive, it is an issue of conscience.

Paul reiterates this in Colossians 2:16-17,

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ (ESV).

Let’s take a current example of an argument: whether vaccines using aborted tissue in some part of their development and testing should be something we as Christ followers should be concerned about, or is it just an “issue of conscience”?

Even those who do not see anything wrong with benefitting from aborted tissue through medical use tend to admit abortion itself is wrong. Abortion has been decried as far back as the first century, where the Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles from c.70AD, in a discussion of “The Second Commandment” states, “You shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill a child at birth” (see https://legacyicons.com/content/didache.pdf).

Athenagoras wrote in A Plea for Christians around 177AD, And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? (A Plea for Christians, Chapter XXXV, https://ccel.org/ccel/athenagoras/plea_for_christians/anf02.v.ii.xxxv.html). ). Tertullian, in his Apologeticum of 197AD wrote, “In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fœtus in the womb, while as yet the human being [the fetus] derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance” (Apologeticum, Chapter 9, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm).

So abortion has been considered wrong from the first century, but what about just using tissue from an abortion for medical purposes?

Let’s look at some of the arguments used to justify aborted tissue as an “issue of conscience”:

A fairly benign example of an argument is the comparison to tattoos. Tattoos were forbidden in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:28), after all, we are freed from the Old Testament law, right? That should fall into the category of worshiping on one day or calling all days alike as an issue of conscience, right?

Perhaps, but there’s a principle found in both testaments that could come into play—“you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations” (Deuteronomy 18:9), and there is 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 that calls the body a temple, though I think the particular argument of tattoos might qualify as an “issue of conscience.” It’s odd, however, that Christians are using the same argument as the current administration. It has instructed that military Chaplains who have men come to them for counsel on whether or not to get the vaccine using “the body is a temple” verse should look to see if the person asking has tattoos in order to suggest it is a contradiction and they are just “hesitant” rather than sincere. I would discount the “tatoo” argument as tainted and the comparison not quite on the mark. Aborted fetal tissue is definitely more egregious than a tattoo (although even the FDA suggests tattoos may be harmful—see “Think Before You Ink: Are Tattoos Safe?” https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/think-you-ink-are-tattoos-safe).

Christian Scientists say it’s okay

Another argument raised has been, “I have talked to/read/studied Christian scientists who have concluded that using aborted tissue is not an issue. Therefore, it’s an issue of conscience.

Let’s examine this one. First, scientists are indeed the last people you should talk to concerning this. Theologians and Biblicists are who you should consult, not scientists. This is not a question of science—when life begins is not a question of science—it’s a moral-ethical question. Science can tell you when the baby could survive outside the womb, but not whether it should be considered fully human. Only the Bible can do that.

This is a question of ethics and morality, of which few scientists have a grasp, and even those who do have a grasp of Scripture have a conflict of interest. They have scientific reasons why they don’t want to consider the tissue as being something they shouldn’t use for science.

I had a conversation a few years back with a young medical student who had been approved to teach Sunday School at the church of which I was a member. He was adamant that fetal tissue was nothing because the unformed baby was simply a blob of tissue and not a human being. Attaching itself to the mother’s womb was no more significant than getting a virus, a fungus, or a tape worm. It was alien tissue growing on its own and not truly a part of the mother. It could be dispatched with no more significance than removing a virus or fungus or tape worm. That is what he had been taught in medical school, and it was what science maintained to be true.

Unfortunately, this idea rather flies in the face of David’s declaration in Psalm 139:15-16,

My frame was not hidden from You
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully formed in the depths of the earth;
Your eyes have seen my formless substance;
And in Your book were written
All the days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

David’s “formless substance” speaks to the very “fetal tissue” in question. David says unequivocally that the formless fetal tissue in his mother’s womb was him, and all his days were seen by God even at that point. Science is not where you get moral answers, not even from normally moral people. They are tainted by their education, which is tainted by its conflict of interest—a desire to feel free to eliminate the tissue and/or a desire to use its study for science. Moral-ethical answers can only come from the Bible.

One of the more problematic arguments offered is that, well, the tissue is just a matter of cloned cells from a baby that died almost 50 years ago, and neither the people using them to help millions of people nor those using the product are doing wrong. The cells were needed to make something that was wonderfully useful to them. How could that possibly be wrong?

It’s true that Caiaphas, who was high priest the year Jesus was crucified, said, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish” (John 11:49-50), right? And Jesus died so that we all might live, so what’s wrong with taking something that would otherwise go to waste and use it so others might live? It was so long ago and nobody involved in the vaccine processes were directly involved in the abortion, so what’s the problem? Good is coming of it. Only those involved in the abortion itself sinned. It was for “the greater good.”

The big problem with this argument is that it attempts to parallel the preordained death of Jesus for the redemption of the world with the murder of an innocent baby. And even in the case of Jesus, all of us are responsible for His death whether physically there or not—it is the sin of all of us that put him there.

There’s one thing not being considered: This argument ignores the chain of custody issue. If someone robs a jewelry store and a “fence” chooses to cash it in—knowing it to be stolen goods—is the fence not responsible because they weren’t there at the robbery, even if the fence profits from the crime? No, the fence becomes as guilty of the crime as those who were at the crime because of his choice to profit from the crime. If there had been no crime involved in obtaining the jewelry, the person buying it (even at a heavily discounted rate) would not be involved in a crime. It’s because of how the jewelry was obtained—the original act—that makes his choice to purchase the stolen property a crime. The only time it isn’t a crime under current law, is if there is a statute of limitations on the original crime.

What about the cloning of cells from the lung tissue or kidney tissue of an aborted baby? Questions that come to mind when thinking this through are,

1. How different is using the aborted tissue of the baby for scientific experimentation, from China harvesting organs from political prisoners for transplants (see https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5250/rapid-responses).
2. And what about the tourists who are visiting China solely for the purpose of obtaining such transplants (see https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20131159/).
3. Is there a Biblical statute of limitations on murder when even civil law tends to put a statute of limitations on it, or does not God put a statute of limitations on benefitting from murder?

In the case of the murder of Jesus, God puts no statute of limitations. We are all guilty of his death and will pay the penalty for his death unless we accept God’s grace by faith. But the case of the Gibeonites also comes to mind. God sent a famine to Israel during the reign of David because Saul had tried to kill off the Gibeonites some years before (2 Samuel 21). What was God’s answer to that offense? The famine was “on account of Saul and his blood-stained house; it is because he put the Gibeonites to death” (21:1). What did David do when the Gibeonites said they wanted seven of Saul’s descendants to be put to death for Saul’s crime of years past? He handed them over to the Gibeonites and they killed them. What was God’s response to these killings to avenge Saul’s crime? When they had done “everything the king commanded..., God answered prayer in behalf of the land” (21:14b). No comment other than that.

But take a look at what David did for the bodies of Saul’s descendants that the Gibeonites killed in 21:10-12, 14:

Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth and spread it for herself on the rock, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell upon them from the heavens. And she did not allow the birds of the air to come upon them by day, or the beasts of the field by night. When David was told what Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, the concubine of Saul, had done, David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of his son Jonathan from the men of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the public square of Beth-shan, where the Philistines had hanged them, on the day the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa. ... And they buried the bones of Saul and his son Jonathan in the land of Benjamin in Zela, in the tomb of Kish his father. And they did all that the king commanded. And after that God responded to the plea for the land (ESV).

Why would David take such care to rescue the bodies of Saul’s sons and the remains of Saul and Jonathan that the Philistines had treated with contempt and the men of Jabesh-gilead burned, probably because they were so mutilated (1 Samuel 31:12-13)?

Because the body is the temple of the “image bearer” (Genesis1:26-27; 9:6) who dwells within the body and it should be treated respectfully as such. I don’t refer to the Holy Spirit, though the body is the temple for Him if the individual is a believer, but rather the spirit of the person, who is an eternal being and the true image bearer God created. It’s why Joseph of Arimathea requested to bury the body of Jesus, why Nicodemus and later the women wanted to anoint the body with oils and perfumes. Scripture doesn’t say we have to do those things, but there is overwhelming evidence that the bodies of the dead should be treated with respect. Encouraging abortions just to have specimens is not treating either the human beings represented nor their bodies with respect.

Let’s look at “medical tourists” and China. The “medical tourists” are just trying to get something that isn’t available in their own country (ibid.), and they had nothing to do with the killing of political prisoners. For all they know, the prisoners may have committed capital crimes, and besides, the Chinese government is saying they’ve quit using organs from political prisoners, right? No, I don’t think so. A Canadian filmmaker’s documentary, https://www.smh.com.au/world/chinas-gruesome-live-organ-harvest-exposed-in-documentary-20150407-1mgabb.html Human Harvest: China’s Organ Trafficking, reports that the transplants are from live prisoners in order to insure freshness of organs (something of a concern for scientific research, example below). The medical tourists are part of the system that allows profit from the murder of political prisoners. Ask yourself, “Would I feel fine about an organ transplant harvested from a Chinese political prisoner, possibly imprisoned because they were a believer in Christ?

But that’s all too recent, some might argue. Those prisoners are being murdered for immediate transplants. The cell tissue is a line that’s over 50 years old. Or is it?

Planned Parenthood is selling aborted tissue to scientists for research (see https://www.newsweek.com/university-pittsburgh-wont-explain-its-planned-parenthood-ties-opinion-1594564) and other scientists are saying “fetal tissue remains essential for vaccines and developing treatments” (see https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/medical-researchers-say-fetal-tissue-remains-essential). After all, it’s for the common good.

Ever ask why Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry are making so much money? It isn’t just from giving abortions. It’s also from selling aborted baby tissue for scientific study. The current administration’s Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the NIH has removed all restrictions on using fetal tissue for scientific research (see Goldstein, Amy, "Biden administration removes Trump-era restrictions on fetal tissue research," Washington Post, April 17, 2021 [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/biden-administration-removes-trump-era-restrictions-on-fetal-tissue-research/ar-BB1fJHwy]). This is probably only after it was discovered what the FDA had already been doing, as evidenced by emails dating from 2012 to 2019. Judicial Watch obtained records of FDA Purchases of fetal tissue, requesting fetal organs ‘fresh, shipped on wet ice’ to insure immediacy. The stated desire was to create “humanized mice” (gene-spliced with human DNA) for “biologic drug products.” I would highly recommend reading in full the Judicial Watch article of April 01, 2021 (https://www.judicialwatch.org/humanized-mice-fda/").

The Judicial Watch report this exchange in the article:

A May 9, 2013, email exchange in which [Dr. Kristina] Howard complained to [Procurement Manager Perrin] Larton about Fedex x-raying the packages in which fetal organs had been shipped. Howard wrote, “Our package was x-rayed and the tissues could not be used.” Larton responded, “DAMN … they were wonderful tissues. I procured them! I’m training a new tech in Minneapolis and I told her how important it is to put the DO NOT X-RAY stickers on the package. Of course if you have an IMBECILE on the Fedex side … but then, now it’s a moot point.” Howard replied, “Yes, we were absolutely heartbroken. They were beautiful tissues and to lose them like that was awful.”

Would they had been so heart-broken over the babies destroyed for them. I really don’t see much difference between what had been done to Saul and his sons and this.

The “transgenic mice” which were created using these freshly aborted babies and were then used in developing and testing the SARS CoV-2 vaccines (see Winkler, et. al., "SARS-CoV-2 infection of hACE2 transgenic mice causes severe lung inflammation and impaired function," PMC US National Library of Medicine, NIH [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7578095/"]). They may have also used cell tissue from 1970s abortions to test the vaccines, but the “humanized mice” were created using very fresh, very recent abortions.

Aborted cell lines are now used for everything from medical scientific research, to research on what flavors ignite the taste buds best (see Xiaodong Li, et. al., “Human receptors for sweet and umami taste,” March 26, 2002 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC123709/"]). Are we so hardened that aborted fetal cells are worth making Pepsi and Campbell’s Soup taste better? It was only after informed, outraged Christians stood up that PepsiCo backed down (see Bohon, Dave, “PepsiCo Says It Will Halt Use of Aborted Fetal Cells in Flavor Research, May 23, 2012 [https://thenewamerican.com/pepsi-says-it-will-halt-use-of-aborted-fetal-cells-in-flavor-research/"]). Senomyx is the main company involved in much of this research, but PepsiCo, Frito-Lay, Tropicana, Quaker, Gatorade, Lipton, Kraft, and Nestle have all used their services (Cox, Jerry, “Which Companies Test Products With Aborted Human Remains?”, Family Council, March 8, 2012 [https://familycouncil.org/?p=4666]; see also “U.S. Aborted Fetal Products,” CogForLife.org, December 2014 [https://www.cogforlife.org/fetalproductsall.pdf]). God help us.

I think Rev. N. P. Giorgio Austriaco puts it well:

The Ethics of Appropriation of Evil

We live in a world where persons of virtue live with and are surrounded by persons of vice. Often, we benefit from present and past actions of individuals and institutions that are entangled with evil. How are we to live in such a morally complicated world? The ethical strategy to evaluate scenarios where one finds oneself entangled with possibly benefiting from a past evil act involves considering whether or not this appropriation of evil is morally justifiable. An appropriator is someone who benefits in any way from a past action of an agent, in this case, from a past evil act.

If the appropriator approves of the evil act, then he is culpable of evil: He is formally appropriating the evil of the past action. The man who purchases a stolen item, grateful that the theft happened and that he is benefiting from it, did not himself commit burglary. However, he is still culpable of evil because he consented to an unjust act. He therefore is an unjust man. If the appropriator does not approve of the evil act, then he may or may not be culpable of evil, but he is still materially appropriating the evil of the past action. If his appropriation of the past action contributes to future evil acts, then he is culpable of evil as well (Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgia Austriaco, “Moral Guidance on Using COVID-19 Vaccines Developed with Human Fetal Cell Lines,” Public Discourse, May 26, 2020 [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7578095/", accessed 12-02-2021; a less scholarly paper that covers it well here: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200721/Mouse-model-of-fatal-COVID-19-developed-for-vaccine-and-drug-testing.aspx].

I wrote the above analogy of the “fence” and his crime before reading the Astriaco article, but it remains true. A real question on benefitting from past evil is whether our act of acceptance is causing a more relaxed attitude toward accepting present and future evil. The Senomyx use of fetal cell tissue for testing flavors and use by companies like Neocutis, which reports using cells from an aborted 14-week Swiss baby boy for cosmetics (see Clowes, Brian, “Are the Remains of Aborted Babies Used in Cosmetics?” Human Life International, June 16, 2020, https://www.hli.org/resources/cosmetics-that-use-fetal-tissue/"), are proof that the circle of what is seen as acceptable is widening to being out of control.

Dr. Kyle Christopher McKenna, in his NIH article entitled, “Use of Aborted Fetal Tissue in Vaccines and Medical Research Obscures the Value of All Human Life,” concurs. He said,

Each medical benefit or scientific advance from the use of fetal tissue from elective abortions desensitizes beneficiaries, scientists, and doctors to the original evil act that produced these cells. Aborted fetal tissues used in laboratories are minimized to merely human cells, and the human beings whose lives were taken to provide those cells become irrelevant and with time forgotten. Of greatest concern is that desensitization ultimately leads to scandal by erroneously validating elective abortions for a greater good. Without careful oversight, the fetus could become, like fetal tissue cell lines, merely cells, cultured within the uterus for scientific exploration. All people of good conscience have the responsibility to voice opposition to the use of fetal tissue from elective abortions in order to promote development of alternatives, affirm the value of all human life, and limit scandal (PMC, National Library of Medicine, NIH, pub. March 28, 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027112/).

In fact, what Dr. McKenna fears is actually happening now in Russia and the Ukraine. Human Life International reports that obstetricians are getting kickbacks to tell pregnant women whose unborn children are perfectly healthy that they are in fact terribly deformed. These women are then referred to abortionists who will pay them around $132 (US) for the child’s remains, but they offer much more if the women will wait until the baby is more fully developed. The abortionists then sell the remains to corporations who make “beauty treatments” that cost about $132,000 (US). How has this become possible? It is from a deadening of the conscience, having been “seared over” by scientific use.

The use of baby remains even for science needs to be very carefully considered, because it leads to a callous view of its use in other areas. Is our current indifference to the original act in these cases deadening our own consciences?

How is it possible human beings are doing this to remains of human babies? One only need read Jeremiah 17:9, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Man is totally depraved and only concerned with his own pleasure. “All have sinned and are [continuously falling] short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).

Romans 1:18-25 describes it this way:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. or what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made [i.e., in the image of God in man, and all creation]. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature [themselves and their lusts] rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen (ESV).

May God not give us over to a darkness of mind in the destruction of babies in the womb.

In any “Issue of Conscience,” the original act is what must be considered. Above, Paul stated that the act of offering a sacrifice to an idol is nothing because the idol is nothing. Holding one day sacred above another is nothing because the act of distinguishing between them is nothing. Eating only this or that is nothing because the act of eating and drinking is nothing. As Jesus said in Mark 7:15—it can’t defile a person because it’s the heart that defiles a man.

If after carefully considering abortion, you can honestly say that the act of abortion is nothing—ruled out by definition, "shuts the door" objectively and leaves no exceptions, is so deductive in force it excludes every and any example that is included within the premise (supposition), categorically excludes, declaring as a fact that no valid example exists—then you have an issue of conscience. It is the the original act that defines whether something is an issue of conscience.

This is not a question of science. It is a moral-ethical question that can only be answered by Scripture or Scriptural principles. If there is a hint of doubt that the original act of abortion is evil, it eliminates the possibility that using aborted tissue—past, present, or future—for scientific research can be seen as nothing.

Since it is the basis of the original act that constitutes an issue of conscience, considering the use of aborted fetal tissue as an “issue of conscience” can only be done by seeing the original act of abortion as nothing.

LINKS

BLOGS