RE: 1. Doing so provides a false moral justification for the murder.
The author argues that we should condemn ANY murder, even of the unborn.
His argument is that given the evil deed has already been done, is who is not responsible for the evil deed responsible for harvesting the organs of the evil deed done by others?
Re: Doing so provides a continued market, and thus incentive, for the byproducts of murder
The author argues that it DOES NOT. We still continue to condemn and oppose murder, and oppose and fight any profit motives for doing so.
The issue is MORAL CULPABILITY. Is the scientist who generate cures from already murdered people ( including the unborn ) CULPABLE of the person’s murder?
When one denounces an evil act only by their words...
...but profits from an evil act by their actions...
...then one is endorsing the evil act.