Abortion-tainted vaccines

I’m not sure what you found. This PDF is from the website. I’ve skimmed it but haven’t had a chance to really read through it. It seems too have two green charts with the most important things - the ‘tainted’ vaccines and ethical alternatives.

1 Like

Hi Sara, sorry, I should have clarified: it’s from Eternal Perspective’s blog post which is separate from the main website, but here’s a link:
https://www.epm.org/resources/2012/Sep/11/it-true-vaccinations-contain-material-aborted-babi/

I found this link helpful because it’s written by a doctor who actually researched this issue and gave a list of vaccines developed from aborted babies (See the PDF link.). The blog post is dated (from 2012), so I am not sure if this information is still current.

Thanks,

Steve

1 Like

Why does this pertinent issue always seem to just fade away?

2 Likes

As of now, none of the vaccines are ethical.

1 Like

Sorry, but I’ve bored down on this thing and, as usual with credulous believers wishing to be presented with clear choices, it’s more complicated than the online warrior-experts want you to think. I’m not wanting to spend time arguing over it, yet I want readers to know my own judgments. Some might be thanful for my recording them here.

I will add one thing. Even if we accept the Children of God’s spreadsheets and flow charts, they are assuming that HEk 293 is traceable back to an abortion despite both researchers involved testifying independently of one another that they don’t know whether or not it came from an elective abortion. What, we just trash their testimony, saying we know what they say they don’t know? This is not right.

Sure, it radicalizes the conservative Christian constituency of such "ministries, but truth should trump rabble rousing and fundraising. Sorry to say so. Love,

3 Likes

Their testimony is that they don’t know? Better safe than sorry would be the response then, I suppose. I’m not saying it to be combative, but rather to say “let’s ensure that any vaccine is free and clear” — especially in this matter.

Eventually most vaccines for any virus will be made using them, and since it’s acceptable to get one if they’re all made using the babies, there will be no spine to say no. The bishop should have just said NO! Forgive me, this topic grieves me greatly as I know it does you brothers too.

I’m working on a piece on this topic (it’s not ready for public presentation yet). But I think there may be a solution in 1 Corinthians 10 for how Christians think about abortion tainted vaccines. Given all the evil, abuse, and immorality surrounding pagan worship practices in Corinth, it is striking that Paul still allows Christians to eat meat downstream from that pagan worship system.

I think there are very practical ramifications for not just how we think about abortion tainted vaccines, but also how we view our brothers with whom we have disagreements on this topic.

5 Likes

My point wasn’t that we’re uncertain of the provenance of HEK 293, but that neither of the two principal researchers in Holland where it had its origin have said it was an elective abortion. Abortion was illegal in Holland at the time and the researchers did not say the abortion was elective as opposed to spontaneous. This cell line has been used everywhere for everything ever since, including food products. For Christians to bind others’ consciences stating directly that this is from an elective abortion is deception.

If Christians want to say Covid is a farce and masks are idolatry and vaccines are evil, let them make their case and choose their churches accordingly, if they wish. But when they say the reason they oppose vaccines is the HEK 293 cell line is from a baby killed by his mother, they lie. We don’t assume the worst about everyone but ourselves. Love,

2 Likes

This video series (which I’ve shared earlier) addresses the science and ethics of fetal cell research. The host, Dr. Robert Carter, is a Biblical creationist whose bona fides can hardly be questioned on science or commitment to being pro-life. Of course there can be sincere disagreements with his application of biblical principles, but I feel there is a general lack of appreciation for the complexities surrounding this topic which are made more accessible by this series.

1 Like

I’m new to this and so have research to do, but it seems from what you’ve said that it would be more accurate to say that it is unknown whether it was. In which case everyone must make his own decision on his comfort level with that ambiguity.

Here is the overview of the historical background of HEK 293. In regards to the moral dilemma, the more relevant question is how many degrees of separation from evil are required to live righteously. Do you do business with companies that donate to Planned Parenthood? Do you know which companies donate? Do you know which companies donate indirectly by giving to charities that support Planned Parenthood? If you can’t answer these questions confidently then I feel HEK 293 is of relatively low concern. If you just want an answer about HEK 293 then I suggest you watch from here where Dr. Carter goes over a list of things tested with HEK 293. They include most medicine, food additives, clothing, fire retardants, dyes, and vaccines. In other words, we are all already tainted by HEK 293. I say that not to trivialize or relativize the issue but to say that the ultimate problem is sin. If we are called and qualified we should look for alternatives to existing and future uses of fetal cell lines. If we are not experts, I agree with @tbbayly that we should refrain from binding others’ consciences. @aaron.prelock pointed to the answer in 1 Corithians 10 and I look forward to reading his piece.

4 Likes

Perhaps. Maybe we’ve become too comfortable with it. I need some time to look into this.

I don’t have a lot of knowledge of the situation so it may not correlate perfectly, but the question that keeps coming to my mind whenever this subject is discussed is: Would you reject a needed kidney because the donor had been a murder victim?

If the person offering me the kidney was the murderer, yes?

2 Likes

Of course you wouldn’t. But that isn’t the case with the vaccine is it?

I’ll only chime in briefly on this, as I have written at greater length on the topic elsewhere.

People tend to one to focus on the question of, “did this vaccine come from such and such strain that came from an aborted fetus.” As I’ve argued elsewhere, that question barely scratches the surface.

The more I’ve learned about vaccination development in general, the more I’ve concluded that the research and development of vaccines – regardless of what “cell lines” are connected to the final product – has been largely predicated upon the use of aborted fetal tissue. A good demonstration of this is a video that can be found floating around online of Dr. Stanley Plotkins testifying in a court case where he is interviewed at length concerning development work he has done overtime for various prominent vaccines that utilized tissue from dozens of aborted fetuses. It was an eye-opening testimony for me.

I continue to conclude that Christians tend to think too shallowly about this topic – on either side. I am not against the concept of vaccination. But if the only way we can develop vaccines is at the expense of the unborn and their precious, pure, untainted little flesh for our petri dishes, then I can’t find it in my conscience to want anything to do with it.

Perhaps staunchly pro-vaccine Christians could direct some of their energies toward insisting upon ethics in the medical industry that align with their pro-life convictions, rather than spending all of their energies lecturing their non-vaccinating brethren concerning their civil duty? Food for thought, maybe.

5 Likes

Here’s an illustration of what I’m talking about, taken from this release: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/vaccine/VaccineDevelopment_FetalCellLines.pdf

“Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were found to be ethically uncontroversial by the pro-life policy organization the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Further, the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, a committee within the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has stated: “neither Pfizer nor Moderna used an abortion-derived cell line in the development or production of the vaccine.”…

Sounds great, right? No problem here. But read on…

“However, such a cell line was used to test the efficacy of both vaccines. Thus, while neither vaccine is completely free from any use of abortion-derived cell lines, in these two cases the use is very remote from the initial evil of the abortion…”

The author goes on to conclude that it’s ethically fine, because the connection with abortion is not direct.

I’m not buying it.

2 Likes

Dear Tim,

When you’ve said it’s more complicated I have heard you saying that these ethical issues are smaller and matter less than engineerish people are making them. But I wonder if what you have actually been saying has nothing to do with the importance of the issues but rather that the scope of the problem goes far beyond what we’re currently looking at, so that a solution that avoids a vaccine for instance but ignores all the other ways fetal tissue and cell lines may be used to produce the lives we live (for a hypothetical that maybe isn’t hypothetical) misses the heart of the issue and is in danger of making hypocrites of us, doing relatively small things to be able to see ourselves as clean while maintaining a blindness to all the ways we’re stained.

Love,