Use of Vaccines derived from cells of Aborted Babies

Discussion in 'The Law of God' started by Puritan Sailor, Aug 16, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    Recently, I discovered that some common vaccines were developed through the use of tissue harvested from electively aborted babies. The babies were not aborted for the purpose of harvesting the tissue but for the convenience of the mother at the time. The scientists harvested the tissue after the fact. Basically, some lung cells were harvested (about 30 years ago) from the fetus and these cells continue to be multiplied and used even today as a culture through which weak viruses are produced and then are extracted and used as vaccines.

    Here is an article about it on National Right to Life. http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html

    I was surprised first of all that I had not heard of this practice before. Many of these vaccines I and my children have already received over the years. So the question, is it lawful to use such medical technology despite the sinful origins in which the culture was obtained? OR should we refrain from those particular vaccines?

    Do you know of any Reformed authors who have written about this ethical question? (Please provide references if you do)

    ** Disclaimer: If you already reject any vaccine use at all, then please do not respond to this thread. I already know what your answer will be. This is a discussion for those who accept the practice of vaccination in general. Thank you!
     
  2. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Patrick,
    being in the industry, like yourself, this doesn't surprise me.
     
  3. mgkortus

    mgkortus Puritan Board Freshman

    Patrick,

    This is what one Reformed doctor has to say on this issue:

    The entire article can be found here.
     
  4. mgkortus

    mgkortus Puritan Board Freshman

    As a research scientist, I have faced the issue of using cell lines that were originally derived from fetal tissue. For myself, I believe it is morally acceptable to use them. Although there was a sinful origin to the cell line, the cell lines themselves are obtained from commercial vendors. There are many other human goods that are commonly used that can be traced back to sinful origins. As another example from the medical field, some drugs that have been used in chemotherapy trace their origins back to programs in chemical warfare during the World Wars. The intent then was to take lives. However, the compounds developed during that time were later repurposed as chemotherapeutic compounds. In other words, a sinful origin does not preclude proper use at a later point.
     
  5. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    The Catholics do a good job on bioethics and have written extended pieces on this issue, do you want me to link you the Vatican's statement?
     
  6. Puritan Sailor

    Puritan Sailor Puritan Board Doctor

    I'm aware of the Catholic position already. I'm just curious if the Reformed world added anything new to the discussion.
     
  7. lynnie

    lynnie Puritan Board Senior

    There are charts out there if you go google hunting about which vaccs are not made with human cells if it bothers you. Some still from Japan available. Up until the 1980s vaccs were grown in animal cells.

    I am not anti vaccine in principle and my 5 kids got them, however, there is some good research available that when we starting using human tissue in the 80s, (and it is impossible to get all traces of human material out of vaccinations, they contain some human cellular contamination), that is when certain problems increased remarkably because of normal body responses to foreign human tissue. Some babies turned on their own brains in addition to rejecting the human vaccine materials.

    I realize people my age got some monkey tissue for example, but the researchers against the modern vaccs say that at least animal tissues do not set up an auto immune response against your own body. (they may have had cancer causing monkey viruses but most of us are still kicking). So the morality of the human cell lines is one issue, but the question of injecting human material into a baby is another subject altogether. If possible I would get any older vaccine still available instead of the human grown ones. Disclaimer- I am not a medical professional.
     
  8. Free Christian

    Free Christian Puritan Board Sophomore

    Morally acceptable!? You can put as much make up on a pig as you like, even a wig and a tutu, its still a pig.
     
  9. mgkortus

    mgkortus Puritan Board Freshman

    You clearly don't think so. Why not?

    As stated above:

    This applies to the cell lines used to make them - by using them one in no way supports the abortion industry. The cell lines are purchased through a commercial vendor. Nor does using them place a stamp of approval on the way they are obtained.
     
  10. Warren

    Warren Puritan Board Freshman

    The rise in Autism could be related to the use of viruses pulled from human cells. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know this could be verified, but the timing at least is telling.
     
  11. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Puritan Board Freshman

    For what it's worth, I agree with Matt's assessment. However...

    Indeed. Here's one for parents; some of the vaccines do not have a non-fetal line equivalent, but I'm not sure if it's up-to-date, being from 2010. Here's a chart with more or less the same information, but organized around the CDC vaccine schedule and optimized for pediatricians.
     
  12. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Puritan Board Freshman

    A couple things. One, the publisher of that journal is on Beall's list of possible predatory publishers. That doesn't disprove any of the claims within the journal, but it does make them suspect.

    Two, the article relies primarily on linear regressions, so I found a blog post about it by a statistics professor at Cornell named W.M. Briggs. He concludes that, while "there is overwhelming evidence that [the author of the study] is highly intelligent and believes what she is saying," he states that, "I find the paper poor in conception, argument, and quality, and regard her main contention as unproved." Briggs identifies several specific problems with the regression analysis, but let me quote the those that I think are most glaring from another math blog (which discusses a different study on the same topic by the same authors with the same general problems):

    Back to Briggs. The studies concern a purported rise in autism, but as Briggs points out, that in and of itself is spurious:

    Indeed, it seems that the "awareness" factors Briggs refers to are the primary cause of the increase in autism diagnosis rates, according to various recent studies:

    In closing, whatever you decide about vaccines from fetal cell lines, please do vaccinate your children:

     
  13. mgkortus

    mgkortus Puritan Board Freshman

    In addition to being a no-name journal, there is a clear conflict of interest in that the researchers belong to an institute that seems to be chasing a hypothesis.

    Regarding the supposed connection between vaccines and autism, here is another quote from the above article:

    Here is a link to the article from the New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the most widely respected journals in medical research.
     
  14. Free Christian

    Free Christian Puritan Board Sophomore

    Hi Matt. Because i am Christian. Big dif between a chemical and a living being. Hows that similar? When do you think Jesus was Jesus in Mary?
     
  15. Mr. Bultitude

    Mr. Bultitude Puritan Board Freshman

    It seems clear to me that Matt affirms the full personhood of children in the womb, given that he said of the vaccines in question, "There is a sinful origin to the cell line."

    You seem here to be referencing this portion of Matt's earlier post:

    If so, I think you're missing Matt's point. Here's the equivalence:

    1. Some chemotherapy drugs have their origin in chemical compounds that were designed for taking lives. Similarly, some vaccines have their origin in viruses that were harvested from people who were killed unjustly.
    2. In neither case was anyone killed for the express purpose of developing the treatment that was later developed (the parents did not abort their children with any awareness that the tissue would be used for medical research).
    3. Chemotherapy treatments are not now being advanced by chemical warfare, nor are any vaccines being advanced by present or future abortions (it's now illegal to use aborted fetal tissue for that purpose, at least in the United States).

    It's also important to note again that the vaccines contain no human tissue whatsoever, nor is any fetal tissue currently being used. The cells which originated the cell line have long since died. (Matt and anyone else, correct me if I say anything incorrect.)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page