Using Products Developed Using Cells From Aborted Babies

[MissScripture]

In [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/114547-cheetos/page__view__findpost__p__2334408"]this[/url] thread we've been discussing Pepsico's use of a company that uses aborted fetal cells from elective abortions to develop flavorings for foods. While none of the cells are actually IN the food, they are using them to test flavorings. Is it immoral for us to use products produced by Pepsico because of the use of aborted fetal cells in the product development? Thanks.

[CatherineM]

You guys never ask easy questions anymore. If the aborted cells were in the product, that's a no-brainer. Their use of the cells in any part of the production process is extremely troubling. I suspect, however, that if we truly knew where most of our consumer products came from, we would all be reduced to only using vegetables that we have grown in our own gardens. You should read the FDA allowances on how many bug parts are allowed to be in certain products. I'm a firm believer in voting with my wallet. If you don't agree with the process that a company uses, boycott them. As to it being immoral, that is more complex than my brain can untangle right now.

[cappie]

[size=3]In general this may help[/size]

[size=3][font=Arial][b]The principle [i]of licit cooperation in evil[/i][/b][/font][/size]

[size=3][font=Arial]The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between [i]formal[/i] and [i]material cooperation[/i]. [i]Formal cooperation[/i] is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of [i]material cooperation[/i].[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=Arial]Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of [i]immediate[/i] (direct) and [i]mediate[/i] (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action [i]per se[/i], or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms [i]of proximate cooperation[/i] and [i]remote cooperation[/i] can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of [i]temporal[/i] space or [i]material[/i] connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. [i]Immediate material cooperation[/i] is always [i]proximate[/i], while [i]mediate material cooperation[/i] can be either [i]proximate[/i] or [i]remote[/i].[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=Arial][i]Formal cooperation[/i] is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person. [i]Material cooperation[/i] can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action), but when [i]immediate material cooperation[/i] concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question.[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=Arial]A further distinction made in classical morality is that between [i]active[/i] (or positive) cooperation in evil and [i]passive[/i] (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=Arial].[/font][/size]
[size=3][font=Arial]Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.[/font][/size]

Edited November 22, 2011 by cappie

[Theoketos]

My wife and I have a list of companies that we do not buy from because of this. After a little practice is not difficult to accomplish. And we eat a little healthier too. Note that we live off on one salary and a teachers salary at that.

[i][b][u]Buying products from these companies can and should be avoided when possible. [/u][/b][/i]


(When it is not possible to avoid these products and obtain food it is not sinful to do so.)