Thanks for the response, Dv7,
I would point back to the socially acceptable part in response to your first paragraph. at this point, I can see many people in America finding it socially acceptable to sell aborted children's body parts, (whereas selling "live" children would not be ). I Wouldn't expect planned parenthood to sell on the black market, as with the scrutiny they are under, I agree that they have much to lose. on the other hand, though, if you can make a few bucks on the side as and do it in a way that does not arise suspicion, why not?
I agree that mothers wouldn't abort a baby to make a few shekels, but if one were going to do it anyway and the concerns that many conservatives have aren't a bother to you, why not profit? Especially if it is determined that Planned parenthood already is already profiting from your abort a child (not proven, I know).
To draw my comments to a conclusion (not a lawyer or philosopher), if a mother is able to kill her child in the uterus, why should she not be able to sell the body parts?
If we go back to the original topic of the discussion, wrangor expressed outrage at the selling of body parts, possibly for profit, of unborn babies. He draws a line in the sand, as do I, that when a sperm and egg unite, the baby is formed. Any intentional destruction of this organism would be considered killing and to sell the body parts of a murdered child, even for science, is even more outrageous. For many people in society, the line is drawn at a different point. The age of viability, I believe, is currently around 22 weeks, which is why late term abortions are so controversial. What if laws change and it is OK to abort a child up to 25 weeks?Where should the line the drawn? And does it move based on science? What is the age of viability drops to 10 weeks because of technology? Just food for thought, I don't have all the answers.