You're equating a natural process with an unnatural and evil one. There is a categorifal difference between the recycling of matter in nature and the creation of pharmaceuticals from the harvested bodies of murdered babies.
Discussion
You're equating my views with those of a religious person :-)
But on a more serious note, the cells used here are grown from foetuses aborted in the 1960s. So it is in no part an ongoing "evil abortion industry" (if I understand correctly).
Are you against the fact that results from Dr Mengele's experiments in the concentration camps are being used in medicine today? The general view is that using those results honour the victims of those crimes.
The fact that the original babies were murdered decades ago doesn't really change the moral calculus.
The Mengele question is a good one. I've not studied that very much so I cannot provide a very informed opinion on it, specifically.
On a deeper level, people justify any number of moral atrocities by arguing how they have led to beneficial advancements in this or that thing. Doesn't negate the evil.
It also assumes that similar or better advancements could not have been made in morally upright ways.
On the subject of honoring Mengele's victims, that seems to me a strange and almost perverse means of easing the conscience (which is not me making a moral judgment about you, to to be clear. Only responding to your comment about the general perspective).