Sir, Kevin Myers (January 16th) really does get into a terrible wax when he pronounces on the moral turpitude of humanity. This thing about foetal eyeballs seems to have set him off like a string of Chinese firecrackers.
Of course abortion is distasteful and the use of foetal tissue even more so, but, while the former may be immoral (and the jury still seems to be out on that one), it does not necessarily mean that the latter is.
We are not talking here about the use of human tissue for trivial purposes such as the ornamental heads, filleted and shrunk by the fine gentlemen of Sarawak or the lamp shades of human skin favoured by certain Nazi camp commandants. The use of human tissue in research and therapy of human disease has a long and mainly honourable history. The methods whereby the material is obtained may sometimes be morally dubious but humans are nothing if not pragmatic. For most, the end really does justify the means.
At the moment, foetal cells are the best bet we have, for they are not anathema to the mature immune system and can be en grafted relatively easily. Sure, the sourcing of the material presents a moral dilemma but there are attempts afoot to sidestep the issue (sic). There will come a time when the foetuses of transgenic pigs will provide us with all the cells we want. Will Kevin be happy with this? Or will he feel that the quasi human pig deserves the application of quasi human morality?
What is so horribly wrong is that the growth of technological wizardry (and population) has been exponential, while morality and social conscience seem not to have evolved at all. It was this perception amongst others that drove the late Arthur Koestler to suicide.
Regrettably, Kevin, the human race was not bequeathed a common moral code, only a genetic one. Yours, etc., South Hill, Dartry, Dublin 6.