Moral Question: Vaccine Ingredient WI-38 & WALVAX-2 -- Aborted Fetal Tissue

[TheOldCourse]

Can someone enlighten me on what difference it makes if it’s not the dead baby’s cells, or if none are present? Seems to my mind that there’s a chain of events between killing a baby and my son receiving the vaccine, even if it’s not the exact same cells or if no cells are present at all.

That an event in a chain is sinful does not mean that the chain throughout is sinful any more than our joining a church makes us participants in Judas' betrayal of Christ. While we may not sin that good will result, nevertheless we know that God, in his providence, does oftentimes bring good out of sin, and we may happily enjoy that good while shunning the sin.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

That an event in a chain is sinful does not mean that the chain throughout is sinful any more than our joining a church makes us participants in Judas' betrayal of Christ.

This parallel doesn't seem to match exactly. The ongoing nature of abortion and the fact that Walvax-2 (2015) will eventually replace WI-38 (1960) should make one pause. Why does it require an aborted fetus' cells? Its different than supporting business that support abortion because it happens afterwards. A better example would be a business using abortion in its means of production.

Why are other means not sought after? Answer, because nobody is making it an issue.

 

[Romans922]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=243721619837646

Not sure how to see this except to go to facebook. Watch to the end, it seems important to know these things when talking about vaccines.

Also, the video is a good response to some posts on this thread.

As you can see, the date is 2018 (recent). This is some form of a court case dealing with vaccines. The one being questioned is a leading vaccine scientist, and a devout atheist (as he testifies).

 

[OPC'n]

I don't think it's right to use vaccines made with fetal tissue for ethical/moral reasons and also for health reasons.