Infant Vaccinations

Status
Not open for further replies.

zsmcd

Puritan Board Freshman
Alright folks, my wife is due Friday and I am looking for info regarding the very heavily debated topic of infant vaccinations. Trying to be wise about making sure my child gets vaccinated if 1. the disease is high risk, still around, and life threatening and 2. the vaccine itself is morally upright. I know there are many vaccines for diseases that are no longer a danger or its a vaccine for a std or something. I also know some vaccines have been created using abortive tissue strands which I would like to stay away from obviously. Any thoughts/insight?
 
Be weary of all the hype around the dangers of vaccinations which are all over the place. I believe it would be a vary rare thing to seriously consider not doing the shots for your children. One can look into this so deeply that the proper thing to do is avoided by many people. In other words, I believe unless you have some type of rare condition in your family or child's history that precludes vaccination get them vaccinated. Also ask your Dr. if you trust him. :)
 
The risks of vaccination are exceedingly small compared to the diseases vaccines protect against. From the perspective of the health of your child, the regular set of vaccines is unquestionably a good thing medically (despite some of what you'll read in social media). A second issue is that, when people do not vaccinate their children, they increase the risk of exposing infants who have not yet had vaccines to some really nasty diseases. I wouldn't allow our babies to stay in our churches nursery until they had their first set of vaccines due to the recklessness of some parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, and increase the risk of needlessly spreading potentially fatal, preventable diseases.
 
I'll give two conflicting pieces of advice.

1) Don't get your medical advice from social media.

2) Vaccinate your children. The importation of undocumented people from second, third, and fourth world counties ensures that your children will be exposed to diseases that were unknown in this country a generation ago. Vaccines aren't risk free, but they sure beat some of the diseases they protect against.
 
Yes, I understand that there is controversy surrounding the delayed vaccine schedule. I recommend Dr. Sears because he speaks specifically to the effectiveness, risks, and prevalent status of each disease as well as the particular risks involved with each vaccine. One can glean a lot of useful information from this book even if one disagrees with his delayed vaccine schedule.
 
My 7 month old daughter contracted German measles (aka rubella) last month because someone didn't get the MMR vaccination; the MMR vac isn't administered until 12-15 months old so it wasn't our fault, but I am more determined than ever to follow our pediatrician's vac advice. I also agree with what was previously stated: don't get your vaccination advice from social media. Much of the fear mongering about vaccinations is laughably unscientific.

On a somewhat related note, I listened to a very interesting lecture from Dr. Rhonda Patrick--one of the foremost experts on vitamin D--last week, and she explained how, since the 70s, increased autism rates have correlated with increased vitamin D deficiency. She readily admitted--because she is a scientist--that this does not prove causality, but further researcher is worth pursuing to see what this correlation means.
 
I am not an expert, but my two cents would be to check the intensity of the schedule. Part of the issue are not vaccines per se (many have been around for decades are are acceptably safe) but rather vaccinating against too many diseases too quickly. I had about twice as many vaccinations as a child (1990s) than my parents (1960s). I think the number has at least doubled since then.
 
Vaccinations are an example of an act that serves a communal benefit rather than just an individual benefit. The evidence is strong that the spread of dangerous diseases halts dramatically when strong vaccination programs are in place—that's the communal benefit. In such a situation, the individual benefit of being vaccinated starts to disappear. It may even be in an individual's best interests not to risk getting vaccinated and instead to trust the widespread vaccinations of others, which create a generally healthy community, to protect you as an individual.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is selfish. It means benefiting from a risk that others are taking without being willing to take that risk yourself as a part of the overall effort to protect the whole community. Christians, being unselfish, should be first in line for vaccinations... not because we've researched the risk/benefit to ourselves individually, but because we care about the benefit to everyone.
 
More info on Dr Sears:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/19/after-all-this-time-dr-bob-sears-finally-tips-his-hand-on-vaccines-part-iv/

Indeed, Dr. Bob has even publicly admitted that it’s not evidence-based...

http://www.immunize.org/concerns/offit_moser2009.pdf

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/

http://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/countering-dr-sears.asp

When Christians latch on to sketchy beliefs (like Babywise or the Anti-Vax movement, or Moon Landing denial) they destroy their credibility and folks may not believe them when they start spouting off about a Jewish carpenter dying 2,000 years ago for the sins of mankind.
 
Here are more links about autism and vaccines NOT being linked:

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/yes-autism-rate-rising-vaccines-caused-vaccines/

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/22/3650089/massive-study-autism-vaccine/

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism


But...I know, I know.... there must be a massive cover-up by the "Big Vaccine" industry to suppress the real truth (thank God for all the activist housewives who can still educate people about vaccine dangers through Facebook ;) ).

p.s. My wife and I are R.N.s and my wife worked in public health, head of the Pulaski County infectious diseases dept while I was in the army. So...we are already suspect because we have worked for the "establishment" in the past.
 
Some good friends of mine are into alternative medicine.
They refused the vacines and all their kids caught whooping cough.
This happened in Brisbane, and they were pretty unrepentant about it.
Nobody died but some were hospitalised, took ages to get over.

It was a weird couple of months.
 
Some info on the abortive cells issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539 said:
Some childhood vaccines, including the one against rubella -- which is part of the MMR vaccine given to millions of children worldwide for measles, mumps and rubella -- is cultured in "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts," according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's fact sheet on the vaccine's ingredients.

Merck, the vaccine's manufacturer, acknowledged that those cells were originally obtained from an electively aborted fetus. They were used to start a cell line, which is a cell multiplied over and over again to produce cells that are of a consistent genetic makeup. The WI-38 cell line is used as a culture to grow live viruses that are used in vaccines.

...

"These abortions, which occurred decades ago, were not undertaken with the intent of producing vaccines," said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers Disease Control and Prevention.

The original cells were obtained more than 50 years ago and have been maintained under strict federal guidelines by the American Type Culture Collection, according to Merck.

"These cell lines are now more than three generations removed from their origin, and we have not used any new tissue to produce these vaccines," the company added in its statement.

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html said:
The ethical quandary created by the tainting of these otherwise beneficial vaccines is vexing. Parents are justified in wanting to protect their children from potentially life-threatening diseases, and it can be legitimately argued that parents have an obligation to do so. Likewise, as a society, we must take into consideration the morality and cost of failing to prevent widespread outbreaks of disease.

The moral perspective of those opposed to the use of these vaccines is equally justifiable. If these vaccines were merely tested on patients without their consent, similar to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, there would be widespread outrage and those responsible for the violation of patients’ rights would face serious consequences. Yet the researchers in this case not only failed to receive consent from the research subjects, but purposefully took their lives.

When dealing with difficult ethical issues, one of the main questions is how should individuals act in a moral way when they are acting in a world that is filled with immorality? The further away the current act (using a vaccine) and intent (protecting a child from a disease) of an individual are from a previous immoral act (aborting a child), the less that individual is restricted by the immorality of the previous act. While the act of aborting the child was certainly immoral, all of the steps involved with the development and use of the vaccines thereafter did not cooperate with the abortion.

The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, and the U.S. and British bishops conferences have studied the issue in detail and concluded that using the vaccines is morally permissible. However, once a person learns that certain vaccines are morally tainted, there is an obligation to seek out ethical alternatives where possible and to make objections known to health care providers and vaccine manufacturers. In addition, parents are entirely justified in citing a “conscientious objection” to tainted vaccines being used to immunize their children, particularly when the vaccine is not for a substantially threatening illness (Chickenpox). A number of noted prolife activists have weighed in on both sides of the issue. Some have encouraged parents to use and demand nothing less than vaccines obtained through morally acceptable means.(6) Others like Jack Willke, M.D., former National Right to Life Committee president and the late Bernard Nathanson, M.D., prolife activist and creator of “The Silent Scream” have opined that using the vaccines is morally allowable.(7,8)

What is unanimous among all commentators on the subject is that everyone ought to know the facts surrounding the vaccines, and prolife citizens should make an effort to persuade - even pressure - vaccine producers to eliminate their tainted products in favor of ethically acceptable products.

I found two charts with information on which vaccines contain abortive tissue and what alternatives are available. Use the one that you find more readable. (The second is the one that pediatricians would find most useful.)

Personally, I would urge you to still vaccinate, even with those that use fetal cell lines and have no alternative. Vaccinations are extremely important to public health, and to your child's health and his/her peers. I'd urge you, at the very least, to talk to your doctor and pastor and to pray about it.
 
With regard to the other points you raised, the only vaccine that has to do with STDs is the HPV vaccine, which the CDC recommends for age 13-18.

All of the vaccinations recommended by the CDC are for high-risk and life-threatening illnesses:

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2015/sep/23/ben-carson/carson-wrong-vaccine-claim/ said:
The CDC recommends a series of shots to protect children against 15 infectious diseases. They are measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Human papillomavirus (HPV), Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib), polio, influenza (flu), rotavirus, and pneumococcal disease.

Most everyone likely knows about measles, the flu and the two types of hepatitis – and that all of those diseases can be deadly.

But of the others, are any not lethal or, at the least, not crippling?

Hardly. Several experts told us no such disease is prevented by those on the childhood immunization schedule.

"Every one of those can kill or cripple or maim you," said Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrics professor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and one of three inventors of the rotavirus vaccine.

And just what is rotavirus? Think of it as a particularly nasty stomach flu – one estimated to have killed 453,000 children under the age of 5 in 2008, most in developing countries, according to the World Health Organization.

The others:

Mumps – Death is rare, and happens usually in adults. But complications of childhood mumps include deafness and sterility in both genders.

Rubella – A relatively mild virus that usually leads to severe birth defects and blindness and can cause miscarriage and stillbirth in expectant mothers.

Chicken pox – Another relatively mild virus that killed 100-150 children annually before vaccines.

Diphtheria – Once a major cause of death among U.S. children – including a record 15,520 in 1921 and the terror behind the original Iditarod sled-dog race in Alaska, this powerful disease killed a 6-year-old boy in Spain last year.

Tetanus – This bacteria kills up to 20 percent of those infected, with many suffering from spasms severe enough to break bones.

Whooping cough – A brutal disease that killed 20 in 2012, including 15 infants too young for the vaccine. The World Health Organization estimates it caused 89,000 deaths worldwide in 2012.

HPV – The more controversial of all vaccines, largely because it prevents a sexually transmitted virus that can cause several types of cancer which can be deadly, even with treatment.

HiB – A bacteria that can cause several invasive diseases, including meningitis, which that killed about 1,000 American children annually before vaccines. In 2008, it killed an estimated 199,000 children worldwide.

Pneumococcal disease – One of the leading causes of illness in children that kills about 5 percent of those infected and leaves some survivors with permanent injury.

And any disease that's "no longer a danger" is only so because of vaccines -- so it's still important to vaccinate in those instances:

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/6/7988715/the-vaccine-delayers-they-hate-anti-vaxxers-but-dont-quite-vaccinate said:
The reason these diseases don't affect most Americans now is precisely because people like them have been using vaccines.

If we stop vaccinating, or put off giving them to kids in a way that exposes them to infection, these diseases will undoubtedly return.

...

The parents who took their kids to Disneyland in December probably didn't imagine they'd leave with an ancient virus, the measles. Many travelers to Europe, one CDC official told me, forget to check in on their vaccines because they don't think about the fact that diseases like measles are now prevalent in some parts of Europe.

That's what happened to one of Sears' very own patients: the child contracted measles on a trip to Switzerland. When the boy returned to the US, he infected 11 others. All it takes is a single traveler to hit a community of similarly unvaccinated people for an outbreak to spark.

What's worse, Sears has admitted there are dangers to too many people opting out, which is why he tells delayers to keep their decision secret. "I also warn them not to share their fears with their neighbors," he writes, "because if too many people avoid the MMR, we'll likely see the diseases increase significantly."

If you're concerned about overloading your child's immune system, don't be:

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full said:
Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously. [src]
 
Last edited:
Neither the companies that manufacture vaccines, nor the doctors have the same care invested in your children than you do. When it comes to making decisions for my children, I want to be informed to the best of my ability because I'm invested in my children in a unique way.

I have a sister, now a teenager, who has incurable epilepsy. She started having seizures shortly after receiving a round of vaccines. I understand that most people don't have problems with the vaccines, but my sister's condition has turned my family's life upside-down. She has multiple seizures every day. She convulses, grinds her teeth, falls and hits her head, chokes on her food. After bad seizures she can hardly speak. She cannot concentrate. She has to wear a padded hat most of the time. Must I go on? After trying everything, the doctors said the only option left is exploratory brain surgery.

I personally know another boy who did not have a major reaction to being vaccinated, but the toddler regressed in his verbal abilities after each vaccination.

I understand that for most people who are vaccinated, life goes on as normal. However, if you spent a day with my family, you would probably want to spend some time researching the risks/benefits of each vaccine prior to use, not simply taking the advice of the medical practitioner. After all, at the end of the day, you are the one responsible for your child's health, not the pediatrician or vaccine manufacturer.

I am not anti-vaccine. Vaccines have done amazing and unprecedented things for public health. For that I am grateful. But are we over-vaccinating? I would venture to say yes.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I think that the "establishment" is out to get us. I do not read Jenny McCarthy. But, big money is involved. Where there is big money, history has demonstrated that dishonesty, scare tactics and skewed statistics are often used and abused.

It seems short-sighted and ignorant when I hear people making this topic into a moral issue when someone decides not to get every vaccine that the pediatrician recommends. It certainly changes one's perspective when a loved one suffers because mom and dad simply took the doctor's prescription.
 
She started having seizures shortly after receiving a round of vaccines.

Has it been established that there was a relationship, or is there just a proximity in time and an assumption that the two events might be related?
 
Here is some info on vaccines and fetal tissues:

http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion

Where do the vaccine companies get the cells for these vaccines? They get them from companies like Coriell Cell Repositories, 403 Haddon Avenu, Camden, New Jersey 08103, 800-752-3805. This company has many cell lines, which are cultures of self-perpetuating cells. Each culture of cells is continually reproducing, making more cells. Those cells are sold to researchers, drug companies, and other medical technology firms. The specific cell lines used in vaccines are the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines1, and they have been supplying medical research of all types for more than 45 years. Where do these cell lines come from? That's where the grain of truth in this lie comes from. Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September,19662 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 19623.

The cells that were taken from the two aborted babies more than 35 years ago are much like my loved one's heart. Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus, these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder.

It is important to note that Federal law is quite specific in the matter of donated fetal tissue. The law does not allow for an abortion to be performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the law even explicitly states that the abortion procedure cannot be changed in order to collect the tissue4. It also prohibits the baby's family or the doctor from profiting from the donation5. Thus, these cells were truly donated, just as any organ might be donated. If a person is an organ donor and he or she is murdered, it is not immoral for you to use those organs. Once again, at least something good will come out of the murder if those organs are used.


http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539


Here is what I advised someone last week who asked about vaccines and fetal cells:

The Catholic Bioethics experts (who are, regrettably, more consistent and informed on "Life Issues" than us Protestants" approves of the use of these vaccines, despite their origins. This is their statement:

"We should always ask our physician whether the product he proposes for our use has an historical association with abortion," the National Catholic Bioethics Center states on its website, but then goes on to say "one is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion."

"The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine," the center's position statement continued. "This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them."

and

The Merck MMR vaccine was obtained from "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts," obtained from aborted babies.

In some cases, there are different producers of vaccines and one might be able to avoid Merck so as not to be associated with the way in which they obtained their ingredients.

But if not...if one is faced with the choice between the risks of going unvaccinated and using a Merck vaccine, I don't think we are morally commanded to go unvaccinated if we believe it poses risks to our living children.

I view this issue in the same way as buying groceries or gas from corporations that hold stock in evil enterprises or give to Planned Parenthood. If I can buy my latte from a coffee shop that does not give donations to Planned Parenthood that is preferable, but it is questionable whether my buying a coffee at Starbucks is supporting Planned Parenthood. Most would not see this as implicit support of abortion, even though their CEO is a liberal.

And it is questionable whether I can even reasonably shop in a way that avoids supporting evil corporations. If a Muslim and a Christian both bake bread...I need not always buy the bread of the Christians when shopping and avoid the muslim bread-baker due to his false religion. When shopping, I merely buy the bread I prefer to taste most of the time. There is a degree of separation between the intent of the purchaser or customer and the producer.

I believe we ought to campaign for the production of vaccines that do not use cell lines from elective abortions. But for now, if that is all that is available, I don't believe it is sin to use those vaccines already produced.

President Bush's compromise stance on stem cell research around the year 2000 was a very Christian one I feel that mirrors this issue of vaccines (he limited much stem cell research where it would encourage new abortions to happen in order to procure new cells, but he allowed research using those cells already obtained since they were already obtained and no new abortions would be performed in order to procure said tissue. I guess he figured that we ought to make good use of those cells already obtained since they were available, even if they were obtained in a bad way, rather than throw them away unused).

I suppose another analogy would be this: Villagers are hungry and someone steals bread. The bread is stolen and obtained through sin. But, if there is no way to give back the bread, might as well eat the bread and take good benefit from a thing obtained through an evil means rather than waste the bread. If I were truly hungry, I feel there is no moral obligation to throw away the stolen bread, but to eat it for your health. In like mannner, vaccinating your kids to keep them healthy, even if the vaccine production was produced under conditions of sin, is okay.

And also, Merck did not encourage abortions to happen IN ORDER THAT they may make those vaccines...Merck used those cells on hand and seemed to have no motive or push towards performing the abortion. They merely used the products of abortion that were already available.

And currently, the same is not being done....those cell lines were made long ago.
 
She started having seizures shortly after receiving a round of vaccines.

Has it been established that there was a relationship, or is there just a proximity in time and an assumption that the two events might be related?

Proximity and timing. We cannot say with absolute certainty that there is a correlation. The seizures started out very small, and we didn't realize what they were at first (she was six at the time). Of course the further time went on made making a case more difficult.
 
Neither the companies that manufacture vaccines, nor the doctors have the same care invested in your children than you do. When it comes to making decisions for my children, I want to be informed to the best of my ability because I'm invested in my children in a unique way.

...if you spent a day with my family, you would probably want to spend some time researching the risks/benefits of each vaccine prior to use, not simply taking the advice of the medical practitioner. After all, at the end of the day, you are the one responsible for your child's health, not the pediatrician or vaccine manufacturer.


...It certainly changes one's perspective when a loved one suffers because mom and dad simply took the doctor's prescription.

Tim, I am sorry to hear about your sister. I can imagine that is a hard providence to bear. Knowing this, I thank God for your life's witness: you don't come off as a bitter person at all - quite the opposite in fact. You are a great example to others who might have similar situations arise in their lives. Keep it up, brother.

To offer my perspective to you and the OP, it is exactly because of your quotes above that we choose to vaccinate our children with the advised vaccination schedule. We have diligently sought the advice of our family physicians, asking for the reasons behind their advice. We have performed our own research into the studies behind both sides of the issue. For us, the clear choice was to get each of the recommended vaccinations for our infants and young children on the recommended schedule. None of our family physicians have ever tried to hide the fact that vaccination injuries do occur. But the simple facts have shown that the risks of non-vaccination are greater than the injury risks due to vaccinations.

So, my take is that is seems a bit unfair to make remarks along the lines of "simply took the doctor's prescription". Doctor's prescriptions in this area seem to be rooted in hard evidence on the side of vaccinations. In His providence, God has provided a means by which we can reduce the probability that our children will contract devastating diseases. Our family chooses to make use of these means as recommended.

Here are a couple of sources to consider regarding the vaccination schedule:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-infection-schedule-vrs-the-vaccination-schedule/
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/multiple-vaccines-immunity.html
 
I'd ask someone with these important qualifications: A Christian. Doctor. With Children. (someone you know, not a celeb with a theory or book to sell) He/She should have the biblical mindset, the medical knowledge, and the experience to address the issue best.

Too many opinions I've read come from non-Christians, medically ignorant or biased, people with something to sell, or folks without children who can be pretty flippant.

I think a Christian doctor with kids is best. Did he vaccinate his kids? Should be the best advice in my opinion.
 
I'd ask someone with these important qualifications: A Christian. Doctor. With Children. (someone you know, not a celeb with a theory or book to sell) He/She should have the biblical mindset, the medical knowledge, and the experience to address the issue best.

Too many opinions I've read come from non-Christians, medically ignorant or biased, people with something to sell, or folks without children who can be pretty flippant.

I think a Christian doctor with kids is best. Did he vaccinate his kids? Should be the best advice in my opinion.

The Standard Bearer is a Reformed magazine associated with the PRCA. The October 1, 2015 issue includes an article by Dr. Brian Decker entitled "A Christian Doctor's Perspective on Vaccines." Dr. Decker is a family practitioner in a suburb of Grand Rapids, MI, and is a father of at least four children. The article provides the grounds upon which he urges his patients to vaccinate their children. I have a hard copy but unfortunately I can't find a link to the article.
 
The Standard Bearer is a Reformed magazine associated with the PRCA. The October 1, 2015 issue includes an article by Dr. Brian Decker entitled "A Christian Doctor's Perspective on Vaccines." Dr. Decker is a family practitioner in a suburb of Grand Rapids, MI, and is a father of at least four children. The article provides the grounds upon which he urges his patients to vaccinate their children. I have a hard copy but unfortunately I can't find a link to the article.

I could not find that specific issue. Would you happen to have a link?
 
Here is some info on vaccines and fetal tissues:

http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion

Where do the vaccine companies get the cells for these vaccines? They get them from companies like Coriell Cell Repositories, 403 Haddon Avenu, Camden, New Jersey 08103, 800-752-3805. This company has many cell lines, which are cultures of self-perpetuating cells. Each culture of cells is continually reproducing, making more cells. Those cells are sold to researchers, drug companies, and other medical technology firms. The specific cell lines used in vaccines are the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines1, and they have been supplying medical research of all types for more than 45 years. Where do these cell lines come from? That's where the grain of truth in this lie comes from. Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September,19662 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 19623.

The cells that were taken from the two aborted babies more than 35 years ago are much like my loved one's heart. Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus, these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder.

It is important to note that Federal law is quite specific in the matter of donated fetal tissue. The law does not allow for an abortion to be performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the law even explicitly states that the abortion procedure cannot be changed in order to collect the tissue4. It also prohibits the baby's family or the doctor from profiting from the donation5. Thus, these cells were truly donated, just as any organ might be donated. If a person is an organ donor and he or she is murdered, it is not immoral for you to use those organs. Once again, at least something good will come out of the murder if those organs are used.


http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539


Here is what I advised someone last week who asked about vaccines and fetal cells:

The Catholic Bioethics experts (who are, regrettably, more consistent and informed on "Life Issues" than us Protestants" approves of the use of these vaccines, despite their origins. This is their statement:

"We should always ask our physician whether the product he proposes for our use has an historical association with abortion," the National Catholic Bioethics Center states on its website, but then goes on to say "one is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion."

"The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine," the center's position statement continued. "This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them."

and

The Merck MMR vaccine was obtained from "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts," obtained from aborted babies.

In some cases, there are different producers of vaccines and one might be able to avoid Merck so as not to be associated with the way in which they obtained their ingredients.

But if not...if one is faced with the choice between the risks of going unvaccinated and using a Merck vaccine, I don't think we are morally commanded to go unvaccinated if we believe it poses risks to our living children.

I view this issue in the same way as buying groceries or gas from corporations that hold stock in evil enterprises or give to Planned Parenthood. If I can buy my latte from a coffee shop that does not give donations to Planned Parenthood that is preferable, but it is questionable whether my buying a coffee at Starbucks is supporting Planned Parenthood. Most would not see this as implicit support of abortion, even though their CEO is a liberal.

And it is questionable whether I can even reasonably shop in a way that avoids supporting evil corporations. If a Muslim and a Christian both bake bread...I need not always buy the bread of the Christians when shopping and avoid the muslim bread-baker due to his false religion. When shopping, I merely buy the bread I prefer to taste most of the time. There is a degree of separation between the intent of the purchaser or customer and the producer.

I believe we ought to campaign for the production of vaccines that do not use cell lines from elective abortions. But for now, if that is all that is available, I don't believe it is sin to use those vaccines already produced.

President Bush's compromise stance on stem cell research around the year 2000 was a very Christian one I feel that mirrors this issue of vaccines (he limited much stem cell research where it would encourage new abortions to happen in order to procure new cells, but he allowed research using those cells already obtained since they were already obtained and no new abortions would be performed in order to procure said tissue. I guess he figured that we ought to make good use of those cells already obtained since they were available, even if they were obtained in a bad way, rather than throw them away unused).

I suppose another analogy would be this: Villagers are hungry and someone steals bread. The bread is stolen and obtained through sin. But, if there is no way to give back the bread, might as well eat the bread and take good benefit from a thing obtained through an evil means rather than waste the bread. If I were truly hungry, I feel there is no moral obligation to throw away the stolen bread, but to eat it for your health. In like mannner, vaccinating your kids to keep them healthy, even if the vaccine production was produced under conditions of sin, is okay.

And also, Merck did not encourage abortions to happen IN ORDER THAT they may make those vaccines...Merck used those cells on hand and seemed to have no motive or push towards performing the abortion. They merely used the products of abortion that were already available.

And currently, the same is not being done....those cell lines were made long ago.

Perg,

This is like justifying the Dr. Mengele's torture of twins in the name of science. Two wrongs do not make many rights. Pontius Pilate tried to wipe his hands clean, but we know he is being judged for the murder of Jesus. Just because these are saving many lives does not mean we should partake because it MIGHT help prevent disease.

I am not anti-vaccination. I would use vaccinations. However, I am anti-murder of children no matter what the so-called "benefits" might be. Sacrificing children to Molech for the community is evil no matter how you look at it. Likewise, the ACT that leads to "benefits" is just as important as INTENT.

By the way, the bread analogy is ridiculous since scripture clearly teaches restitution. The bread stolen CAN be returned through the criminals repayment of his crime.
 
Last edited:
Alright folks, my wife is due Friday and I am looking for info regarding the very heavily debated topic of infant vaccinations. Trying to be wise about making sure my child gets vaccinated if 1. the disease is high risk, still around, and life threatening and 2. the vaccine itself is morally upright. I know there are many vaccines for diseases that are no longer a danger or its a vaccine for a std or something. I also know some vaccines have been created using abortive tissue strands which I would like to stay away from obviously. Any thoughts/insight?

Remember that, if they ever attend public schools or public universities, there are certain vaccination requirements.

For Virginia, they can be found here:

http://www.vdh.state.va.us/epidemiology/immunization/requirements.htm
http://www.virginia.edu/studenthealth/NSImmunizations.html
http://www.virginia.edu/studenthealth/NSVaccineInfo.html#Required

Blessings!
 
I could not find that specific issue. Would you happen to have a link?

Sorry, I don't. It looks like they don't make recent articles available on their website. There's a good chance they will send you that issue of the magazine if you contact them and ask for it though.
 
I hate how certain vaccines are historically associated with aborted children; however, I cannot undo what was done to those little ones, nor are ongoing abortions necessary to maintain the supply of vaccines. Therefore, I have no qualms of conscience when using vaccines historically associated with abortions; if anything, since this is the sad set of circumstances we find ourselves, I want to honor those aborted children by helping prevent the unnecessary death of as many other children as possible.
 
Here is some info on vaccines and fetal tissues:

http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion

Where do the vaccine companies get the cells for these vaccines? They get them from companies like Coriell Cell Repositories, 403 Haddon Avenu, Camden, New Jersey 08103, 800-752-3805. This company has many cell lines, which are cultures of self-perpetuating cells. Each culture of cells is continually reproducing, making more cells. Those cells are sold to researchers, drug companies, and other medical technology firms. The specific cell lines used in vaccines are the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines1, and they have been supplying medical research of all types for more than 45 years. Where do these cell lines come from? That's where the grain of truth in this lie comes from. Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September,19662 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 19623.

The cells that were taken from the two aborted babies more than 35 years ago are much like my loved one's heart. Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus, these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder.

It is important to note that Federal law is quite specific in the matter of donated fetal tissue. The law does not allow for an abortion to be performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the law even explicitly states that the abortion procedure cannot be changed in order to collect the tissue4. It also prohibits the baby's family or the doctor from profiting from the donation5. Thus, these cells were truly donated, just as any organ might be donated. If a person is an organ donor and he or she is murdered, it is not immoral for you to use those organs. Once again, at least something good will come out of the murder if those organs are used.


http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539


Here is what I advised someone last week who asked about vaccines and fetal cells:

The Catholic Bioethics experts (who are, regrettably, more consistent and informed on "Life Issues" than us Protestants" approves of the use of these vaccines, despite their origins. This is their statement:

"We should always ask our physician whether the product he proposes for our use has an historical association with abortion," the National Catholic Bioethics Center states on its website, but then goes on to say "one is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion."

"The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine," the center's position statement continued. "This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them."

and

The Merck MMR vaccine was obtained from "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts," obtained from aborted babies.

In some cases, there are different producers of vaccines and one might be able to avoid Merck so as not to be associated with the way in which they obtained their ingredients.

But if not...if one is faced with the choice between the risks of going unvaccinated and using a Merck vaccine, I don't think we are morally commanded to go unvaccinated if we believe it poses risks to our living children.

I view this issue in the same way as buying groceries or gas from corporations that hold stock in evil enterprises or give to Planned Parenthood. If I can buy my latte from a coffee shop that does not give donations to Planned Parenthood that is preferable, but it is questionable whether my buying a coffee at Starbucks is supporting Planned Parenthood. Most would not see this as implicit support of abortion, even though their CEO is a liberal.

And it is questionable whether I can even reasonably shop in a way that avoids supporting evil corporations. If a Muslim and a Christian both bake bread...I need not always buy the bread of the Christians when shopping and avoid the muslim bread-baker due to his false religion. When shopping, I merely buy the bread I prefer to taste most of the time. There is a degree of separation between the intent of the purchaser or customer and the producer.

I believe we ought to campaign for the production of vaccines that do not use cell lines from elective abortions. But for now, if that is all that is available, I don't believe it is sin to use those vaccines already produced.

President Bush's compromise stance on stem cell research around the year 2000 was a very Christian one I feel that mirrors this issue of vaccines (he limited much stem cell research where it would encourage new abortions to happen in order to procure new cells, but he allowed research using those cells already obtained since they were already obtained and no new abortions would be performed in order to procure said tissue. I guess he figured that we ought to make good use of those cells already obtained since they were available, even if they were obtained in a bad way, rather than throw them away unused).

I suppose another analogy would be this: Villagers are hungry and someone steals bread. The bread is stolen and obtained through sin. But, if there is no way to give back the bread, might as well eat the bread and take good benefit from a thing obtained through an evil means rather than waste the bread. If I were truly hungry, I feel there is no moral obligation to throw away the stolen bread, but to eat it for your health. In like mannner, vaccinating your kids to keep them healthy, even if the vaccine production was produced under conditions of sin, is okay.

And also, Merck did not encourage abortions to happen IN ORDER THAT they may make those vaccines...Merck used those cells on hand and seemed to have no motive or push towards performing the abortion. They merely used the products of abortion that were already available.

And currently, the same is not being done....those cell lines were made long ago.

Perg,

This is like justifying the Dr. Mengele's torture of twins in the name of science. Two wrongs do not make many rights. Pontius Pilate tried to wipe his hands clean, but we know he is being judged for the murder of Jesus. Just because these are saving many lives does not mean we should partake because it MIGHT help prevent disease.

I am not anti-vaccination. I would use vaccinations. However, I am anti-murder of children no matter what the so-called "benefits" might be. Sacrificing children to Molech for the community is evil no matter how you look at it. Likewise, the ACT that leads to "benefits" is just as important as INTENT.

By the way, the bread analogy is ridiculous since scripture clearly teaches restitution. The bread stolen CAN be returned through the criminals repayment of his crime.

Nah, it does no such thing. I have the same position as the Catholic Bioethicists, who are usually well-thought on these issues. Andrew Thornquist states it better than I do above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top