Vaccines and Pro-Life

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

Okay, so I wanted to start a new discussion so I can hear from other people about this. It seems a bit silly, but I was just wondering.

Ever since the invention of vaccines for preventable diseases, infant mortality rates have dropped by about 74%. Before the 1950s, childhood death rates used to be 1500 per million due to diseases like measles and smallpox.

But now babies don't have to suffer and die from diseases like that. But nowadays many parents would rather see their children in pain and risk dying or living the rest of their lives being crippled than just getting a shot.

I mean, as a parent, why would you take that risk? I have a hard time understanding, because if there's an option to not let your kid get a deadly illness, why wouldn't you take it? I thank you in advance for your input, and Bless you all!

 

[Ziggy]

It would have been nice if as a kid I didn't have to suffer through measles, mumps, and chickenpox, but I did.

Neither my son nor grandchildren have had to undergo any of that, and I am happy for them.

 

[robycop3]

When I was a kid, my mom useta tell me, "Don't play in mud puddles; you could catch polio & end up in an iron lung the resta your life!" However, I got the polio vaccine when I was six from Dr. Salk himself. (He was a much-better inventor than hands-po doctor; it felt as if he'd stuck a kitchen knife in my arm!)

However, I had both kinds of measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough, & pneumonia. I have a smallpox vaccination scar on my left deltoid. (It was mandatory for schoolkids then.)

In the navy, I received vaccinations against many diseases H hadn't learned existed til corpsmens' A-school. But I was in CINCPAC, & many of the islands we visited were disease-ridden pest holes. (Not to mention Vietnam.) I didn't ever get sick.

I had my sons vaccinated against American childhood diseases without hesitation, including typhoid and even yellow fever, even though I didn't know of one case of it in my area.

Now, my wife and I receive annual flu shots, the large doses due to our age, & we've had pneumonia, shingles, & Hep-A shots as well. (There was an outbreak of hep-A in nearby Ashland, Ky.)

Sure, there's a chance of possible adverse reactions, including contracting the disease being vaccinated against, but we're willing to take the risk. Such consequences are rare, & the diseases are treatable if one gets them. Chances of getting ill are much-higher in trusting in "luck" to not get them !

 

[Revmitchell]

Okay, so I wanted to start a new discussion so I can hear from other people about this. It seems a bit silly, but I was just wondering.

Ever since the invention of vaccines for preventable diseases, infant mortality rates have dropped by about 74%. Before the 1950s, childhood death rates used to be 1500 per million due to diseases like measles and smallpox.

But now babies don't have to suffer and die from diseases like that. But nowadays many parents would rather see their children in pain and risk dying or living the rest of their lives being crippled than just getting a shot.

I mean, as a parent, why would you take that risk? I have a hard time understanding, because if there's an option to not let your kid get a deadly illness, why wouldn't you take it? I thank you in advance for your input, and Bless you all!

The concern is that the agent that goes along with the vaccine is often as harmful as the lack of a vaccine itself.

Adjuvants help vaccines work better. | Vaccine Safety | CDC

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

We are debating which vaccines we want to administer to our child. Some vaccines are made from aborted children.

No, I'm not crazy, look it up on the CDC website. They use cells from aborted babies to develop the cell cultures used in vaccines.

From the Catholic Church (and no, I don't support them, but on the item of Sanctity of Life they are correct):

"Vaccines currently produced using human cell lines that come from aborted foetuses

To date, there are two human diploid cell lines which were originally prepared from tissues of aborted foetuses (in 1964 and 1970) and are used for the preparation of vaccines based on live attenuated virus: the first one is the WI-38 line (Winstar Institute 38), with human diploid lung fibroblasts, coming from a female foetus that was aborted because the family felt they had too many children (G. Sven et al., 1969). It was prepared and developed by Leonard Hayflick in 1964 (L. Hayflick, 1965; G. Sven et al., 1969)3 and bears the ATCC number CCL-75. WI-38 has been used for the preparation of the historical vaccine RA 27/3 against rubella (S.A. Plotkin et al, 1965)4. The second human cell line is MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) (human, lung, embryonic) (ATCC number CCL-171), with human lung fibroblasts coming from a 14 week male foetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" from a 27 year old woman in the UK. MRC-5 was prepared and developed by J.P. Jacobs in 1966 (J.P. Jacobs et al, 1970)5. Other human cell lines have been developed for pharmaceutical needs, but are not involved in the vaccines actually available6.

The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:"
Vatican Statement on Vaccines Derived  From Aborted Human Fetuses

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

And here's where the pro-life argument comes in. No, I do not agree with how they obtained the stem cells in the 60s. Abortion is wrong. But the cell line is so far removed from the original cells that there isn't much of a connection anymore. Furthermore, no more fetuses are aborted to make vaccines. However, those specific vaccines prevent millions of babies from dying of deadly disease. What I wonder about is the consequence that parents think up when considering this vaccine. Do they think getting those vaccines will condemn their children to hell or something?

 

[MartyF]

We are debating which vaccines we want to administer to our child. Some vaccines are made from aborted children.

No, I'm not crazy, look it up on the CDC website. They use cells from aborted babies to develop the cell cultures used in vaccines.

From the Catholic Church (and no, I don't support them, but on the item of Sanctity of Life they are correct):

"Vaccines currently produced using human cell lines that come from aborted foetuses

To date, there are two human diploid cell lines which were originally prepared from tissues of aborted foetuses (in 1964 and 1970) and are used for the preparation of vaccines based on live attenuated virus: the first one is the WI-38 line (Winstar Institute 38), with human diploid lung fibroblasts, coming from a female foetus that was aborted because the family felt they had too many children (G. Sven et al., 1969). It was prepared and developed by Leonard Hayflick in 1964 (L. Hayflick, 1965; G. Sven et al., 1969)3 and bears the ATCC number CCL-75. WI-38 has been used for the preparation of the historical vaccine RA 27/3 against rubella (S.A. Plotkin et al, 1965)4. The second human cell line is MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) (human, lung, embryonic) (ATCC number CCL-171), with human lung fibroblasts coming from a 14 week male foetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" from a 27 year old woman in the UK. MRC-5 was prepared and developed by J.P. Jacobs in 1966 (J.P. Jacobs et al, 1970)5. Other human cell lines have been developed for pharmaceutical needs, but are not involved in the vaccines actually available6.

The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:"
Vatican Statement on Vaccines Derived From Aborted Human Fetuses

If you really oppose vaccines based on this, then you should invest you time and money developing a vaccine without the use of fetal tissue for one of the steps.

Not vaccinating will actually cause more abortions to happen.

 

[Shoostie]

And here's where the pro-life argument comes in. No, I do not agree with how they obtained the stem cells in the 60s. Abortion is wrong. But the cell line is so far removed from the original cells that there isn't much of a connection anymore.

Don't you feel like you're legitimizing abortion if you use vaccines made from long ago aborted babies? Stem cells can be obtained without killing. Would you use a lamp shade made by nazis in WWII of Jewish skin, assuming such a thing exists. Using it now doesn't hurt anyone, and assume it's a beautiful leather shade that would perfectly fit your decor.

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

Don't you feel like you're legitimizing abortion if you use vaccines made from long ago aborted babies? Stem cells can be obtained without killing. Would you use a lamp shade made by nazis in WWII of Jewish skin, assuming such a thing exists. Using it now doesn't hurt anyone, and assume it's a beautiful leather shade that would perfectly fit your decor.

Stem cells can be obtained without killing. If this is the major issue, then you should invest time and money into pushing for a new mmr vaccine that doesn't use aborted fetal cells. Vaccinating doesn't legitimize abortions no more than doctors using cadavers from murder victims legitimizes murder. But, for the time being, the current mmr vaccine is what keeps millions of babies from suffering and dying of horrible disease.

On a side note, the fetuses were not aborted for the purpose of making the vaccines.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Don't you feel like you're legitimizing abortion if you use vaccines made from long ago aborted babies? Stem cells can be obtained without killing. Would you use a lamp shade made by nazis in WWII of Jewish skin, assuming such a thing exists. Using it now doesn't hurt anyone, and assume it's a beautiful leather shade that would perfectly fit your decor.

The lamp shade is not something that preserves life and safety. Moreover, it is a stark example of callous disregard for the value of someone made in the image of God.

A more appropriate example would be the use of useful data gained by cruel human physiology experiments by Nazi scientists on prisoners - Roma, Jews, Russian POWs - for applications that would preserve life and safety today.

For instance:

At the Dachau concentration camp in 1942, Nazi doctor Sigmund Rascher submerged approximately 300 naked victims in ice water for two to five hours and monitored their heart rate, muscle control, and core temperature, and he noted when the subjects lost consciousness. (His stated goal was to see how long a downed pilot could survive in the North Sea.) More than 80 of the prisoners died during the experiments; nevertheless, some argue that Rascher’s data are valuable and irreproducible. Dozens of medical journal articles have cited the research, which has played a minor role in the development of survival suits for cold-water fishing boats and warming techniques for hypothermia patients.

Rascher’s findings do not establish an absolute human tolerance for cold, since his victims were emaciated and suffering from weeks or months of inhumane treatment. But the results do supplement and extend modern experiments, in which subjects aren’t permitted to go below 95 degrees. (The guinea pigs at Dachau were left in the ice water until their body temperatures dropped to 80 degrees or less.) From this we glean that cooling rates at very low temperatures are generally consistent with those in moderate conditions.

The tests were torture and murder inflicted upon innocent victims, but any useful data does not harm the victims again, nor legitimize the Nazi experiments. It simply allows legitimate scientists to make some qualified analysis of the findings so they can help preserve life and safety with survival suits and bring some good from evil.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

If you really oppose vaccines based on this, then you should invest you time and money developing a vaccine without the use of fetal tissue for one of the steps.

Not vaccinating will actually cause more abortions to happen.

I work 50 to 80 hours a week, so I dont have time, nor money to give. However, someone called to this kind of science can certainly find a new way to create the problematic vaccines.

I dont understand how not vaccinating for certain diseases will cause abortions to happen.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

The lamp shade is not something that preserves life and safety. Moreover, it is a stark example of callous disregard for the value of someone made in the image of God.

A more appropriate example would be the use of useful data gained by cruel human physiology experiments by Nazi scientists on prisoners - Roma, Jews, Russian POWs - for applications that would preserve life and safety today.

For instance:

At the Dachau concentration camp in 1942, Nazi doctor Sigmund Rascher submerged approximately 300 naked victims in ice water for two to five hours and monitored their heart rate, muscle control, and core temperature, and he noted when the subjects lost consciousness. (His stated goal was to see how long a downed pilot could survive in the North Sea.) More than 80 of the prisoners died during the experiments; nevertheless, some argue that Rascher’s data are valuable and irreproducible. Dozens of medical journal articles have cited the research, which has played a minor role in the development of survival suits for cold-water fishing boats and warming techniques for hypothermia patients.

Rascher’s findings do not establish an absolute human tolerance for cold, since his victims were emaciated and suffering from weeks or months of inhumane treatment. But the results do supplement and extend modern experiments, in which subjects aren’t permitted to go below 95 degrees. (The guinea pigs at Dachau were left in the ice water until their body temperatures dropped to 80 degrees or less.) From this we glean that cooling rates at very low temperatures are generally consistent with those in moderate conditions.

The tests were torture and murder inflicted upon innocent victims, but any useful data does not harm the victims again, nor legitimize the Nazi experiments. It simply allows legitimate scientists to make some qualified analysis of the findings so they can help preserve life and safety with survival suits and bring some good from evil.

In that example I wouldn't use that data. In my view people's data is an extension of their property. To use their data, which was taken by force, is similar to knowingly buying or using stolen property.

If I had need of that data and I was a scientist then I would perform experiments on willing volunteers and pay them for their data.

I expect the difference of opinion on vaccines boils down to whether you believe something is "tainted" by its origins or not.

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

I work 50 to 80 hours a week, so I dont have time, nor money to give. However, someone called to this kind of science can certainly find a new way to create the problematic vaccines.

I dont understand how not vaccinating for certain diseases will cause abortions to happen.

Perhaps abortions isn't the right word. But not vaccinating would cause millions of babies to suffer and die of horrible and deadly diseases. How can someone be pro-life and then say it's okay to let millions of babies die?

 

[Shoostie]

The lamp shade is not something that preserves life and safety. Moreover, it is a stark example of callous disregard for the value of someone made in the image of God.

Cruel nazi experiments yielded information. Using stem cells from aborted babies is not just information, but is a remnant of murdered human beings. which is why I think the lamp shade is a better analogy.

There was an episode of Star Trek Voyager in which the medical doctor (an intelligent machine) was saving alien lives with information gained from an alien scientist. When the doctor learned that the information was gained through cruel medical experiments, the doctor deleted all the information from his database. So, there are people who think that information gained from nazi experiments should be ignored, even if it costs lives today.

So, isn't it reasonable for prolifers to reject vaccines made from stem lines derived from aborted babies, especially considering that stem cells can be obtained without abortion?

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Perhaps abortions isn't the right word. But not vaccinating would cause millions of babies to suffer and die of horrible and deadly diseases. How can someone be pro-life and then say it's okay to let millions of babies die?

Because in my mind saving your own life, or your child's life by sacrificing an innocent child is not moral and is selfish. It is ill gotten gain. I understand some folks view this differently.

My wife and I agree the vaccines that contain aborted baby parts are unethical. The question my wife and I face now is whether we are selfish enough to forgo the Holy Spirit's conviction and give our child an unethical vaccine, or to not give the vaccine and place all of our trust in God, hoping that he will protect our child.

The question for us really is, "How much do you trust God?". Not to necessarily keep our child safe, but rather to do with our child as He will. Do place our trust in God as Abraham did with his son, or do we place our trust in a vaccine formulated out of a murdered child?

This same logic we apply throughout our life. It is why we do everything we can to avoid eating factory farm meat, GMOs, and to avoid buying clothes made by children in Asian sweatshops. Our lives should be radically different from the world's...

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

Because in my mind saving your own life, or your child's life by sacrificing an innocent child is not moral and is selfish. It is ill gotten gain. I understand some folks view this differently.

My wife and I agree the vaccines that contain aborted baby parts are unethical. The question my wife and I face now is whether we are selfish enough to forgo the Holy Spirit's conviction and give our child an unethical vaccine, or to not give the vaccine and place all of our trust in God, hoping that he will protect our child.

The question for us really is, "How much do you trust God?". Not to necessarily keep our child safe, but rather to do with our child as He will. Do place our trust in God as Abraham did with his son, or do we place our trust in a vaccine formulated out of a murdered child?

This same logic we apply throughout our life. It is why we do everything we can to avoid eating factory farm meat, GMOs, and to avoid buying clothes made by children in Asian sweatshops. Our lives should be radically different from the world's...

A) The aborted babies were not aborted to make the vaccines. They were already dead, and the doctors just used the tissue in storage. And it saves not just one child, but MILLIONS of babies. No other fetal cells are needed in the production of vaccines.

B) The vaccines themselves do not contain the fetal cells, just the vaccine. The cells are used to grow weakened strains of the virus. The virus is then extracted. I repeat, no human cells in vaccines.

C) The fetal cells were used in the 1960s. These cells are long dead and gone. What exists now are cell lines from those cells, generations beyond the original cells.

You can absolutely trust the Lord with the safety of you and your children. Also keep in mind that the Lord provides us with knowledge of medicine so that we don't have to die. The apostle Luke was a doctor. And saying that you're pro-life, but that you don't care that not vaccinating has and will result in the deaths of millions of babies is contradictory.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

A) The aborted babies were not aborted to make the vaccines. They were already dead, and the doctors just used the tissue in storage. And it saves not just one child, but MILLIONS of babies. No other fetal cells are needed in the production of vaccines.

B) The vaccines themselves do not contain the fetal cells, just the vaccine. The cells are used to grow weakened strains of the virus. The virus is then extracted. I repeat, no human cells in vaccines.

C) The fetal cells were used in the 1960s. These cells are long dead and gone. What exists now are cell lines from those cells, generations beyond the original cells.

You can absolutely trust the Lord with the safety of you and your children. Also keep in mind that the Lord provides us with knowledge of medicine so that we don't have to die. The apostle Luke was a doctor. And saying that you're pro-life, but that you don't care that not vaccinating has and will result in the deaths of millions of babies is contradictory.

A) Did the babies give consent to be murdered and filleted? If the answer is no then that is not only murder, but theft and desecration. The ends do not justify the means.

B) This is irrelevant in my view as I'm not concerned if it contains human cells or not. My contention is that it was taken from a murdered human being without consent. Had the babies theoretically given consent I would be fine with the vaccine. The willing sacrifice of a human to save others emulates Christ whereas forced extraction of organs is Satantic.

C.) The origin of this "medicine" comes from a murdered child. The entire vaccine is built on that. That foundation is still there and you cant keep the top half of the "building" and "take out" the foundation of murder.

It is not contradictory. Death is not evil. Death is nothing more than us being ushered into Christ's kingdom.

Murder is evil. Theft is evil. And injecting others with a weak virus, incubated in murdered and stolen baby tissue (whether it is original tissue or generations down the line doesn't matter), is evil.

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

A) Did the babies give consent to be murdered and filleted? If the answer is no then that is not only murder, but theft and desecration. The ends do not justify the means.

B) This is irrelevant in my view as I'm not concerned if it contains human cells or not. My contention is that it was taken from a murdered human being without consent. Had the babies theoretically given consent I would be fine with the vaccine. The willing sacrifice of a human to save others emulates Christ whereas forced extraction of organs is Satantic.

C.) The origin of this "medicine" comes from a murdered child. The entire vaccine is built on that. That foundation is still there and you cant keep the top half of the "building" and "take out" the foundation of murder.

It is not contradictory. Death is not evil. Death is nothing more than us being ushered into Christ's kingdom.

Murder is evil. Theft is evil. And injecting others with a weak virus, incubated in murdered and stolen baby tissue (whether it is original tissue or generations down the line doesn't matter), is evil.

Then would you support the creation of a new measles vaccine by donating money to organizations looking to create a vaccine without the use of fetal stem cells?

Doctors and forensic scientists use cadavers from murder victims to gain knowledge to prevent similar murders from happening. Obviously the murder victim cannot give consent, but the knowledge obtained prevents more deaths from happening. And when you talk about 'desecration', there is no soul in the bag of bones. It will return to dust, same as any other dead body. There is nothing sacred about our flesh, Christ will give us new incorruptible bodies upon his return. After we die, our bodies have no value. It's just dust.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Then would you support the creation of a new measles vaccine by donating money to organizations looking to create a vaccine without the use of fetal stem cells?

Doctors and forensic scientists use cadavers from murder victims to gain knowledge to prevent similar murders from happening. Obviously the murder victim cannot give consent, but the knowledge obtained prevents more deaths from happening. And when you talk about 'desecration', there is no soul in the bag of bones. It will return to dust, same as any other dead body. There is nothing sacred about our flesh, Christ will give us new incorruptible bodies upon his return. After we die, our bodies have no value. It's just dust.

Yes, I would support that 100%. From what I understand Japan has already done this using animal organs, but our government refuses to allow it here.

I'm not sure I understand the cadavers point. I'd have to see what they're doing and what they're trying to achieve to determine if I think it's wrong or not. It sounds like they're trying to figure out how to stop murders based off a dead body and in my mind the answer would be "don't stab/shoot/bludgeon people".

I understand that the soul is gone, but the body is still made in God's image. That's why murder is wrong. Murder affects only the physical, not the spiritual, yet is still morally wrong. Likewise cutting up a human body like a hog doesn't affect the soul, but is still what I would term as "desecration". Same reason for cannibalism and other nasty after-death actions.

There is something special about life, even in animals. I've butchered thousands of animals and even that bothers me (as it should), but seeing a stranger's dead body laid out in a coffin is different, even if I didnt know the person. There is something naturally special about how God created the body in His image that can make actions after death to a body "desecration".

 

[NoQuieroUnQueso]

Actually, if this is a concern, you can get single-dose monovalent vaccines that DO NOT use human fetal tissue. Instead, the single-dose measles are produced in chick embryo cells. This goes for mumps too. So, instead of getting the triple MMR vaccine, just get the three separate.
https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vaccine_rates_information_sheet.pdf

And it would seem only the Rubella Vaccine uses human fetal tissue.
A Look at Each Vaccine: Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccines | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Attenuvax - The monovalent vaccine grown for measles.