Fetaltissue.org. 2021. | “Fetal tissue vaccines are the everyday means by which pro-lifers unawares develop some complicity in an industry they oppose.
Our aim is to accessibly summarise the relevant facts regarding fetal tissue vaccines — which are obscured behind a veil of academia and technical jargon, concealing from the public legitimate moral & ethical concerns. As with the MMR1 vaccine, the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine are produced in cell lines derived from abortions2 — by contrast Moderna and Pfizer’s vaccines used them in testing.3
The debate around the morality of fetal tissue vaccines frequently has at its heart three beliefs:
In receiving the vaccine we are not cooperating with past evil;4
In receiving the vaccine we are not contributing to present or future evil; 5
There is almost no connection between the vaccine and the murdered baby.6
These beliefs are flawed because they rest upon faulty assumptions — thus, whichever side you stand on, it’s worth considering the most common ones.
1. “Only a few babies were used.”
While each individual cell line contains the cells of just one baby, many aborted babies are used in the process of creating a cell line.7 For example, under oath, scientist Stanley Plotkin admitted that there were 76 aborted babies used in just one vaccine study.8 Furthermore, with cell line WI-25 we know that it was the 25th specimen from the 19th baby.9
The two cell strains used by Covid vaccines are named HEK293 and PERC6.10 The name HEK 293 stands for a Human Embryonic Kidney from the 293rd experiment11 — we can be confident that more babies preceded the final baby used for HEK293.12
2. “The babies were of a very early gestation.”
Most of the babies whose tissue formed the basis of the different vaccine cell lines, were over 3 months when aborted.13 For example, under oath, scientist Stanley Plotkin admitted that all of the 76 unborn babies used in the study were 3 months or older.14
At 3 months, a baby is fully formed: “she has begun swallowing and kicking… facial muscles are getting a workout as her tiny features form one expression after another…”15
3. “Consent was given, so usage is ethical.”
Parties to a murder cannot ethically donate the body of their victim to research. Thus it follows that no meaningful consent exists. (Though the mothers involved are often, to varying extents, victims themselves.)
4. “The baby was dead when the tissue was taken.”
With fetal tissue research, cell death renders the tissue unfit for purpose: tissues and organs must be harvested “within 5 minutes”16,17 and at times this occurs while the baby’s heart is still beating18,19 — this was also revealed during a Planned Parenthood court deposition.20,21
Thus, harvesting the organs can be a type of torture22 beyond the normal abortion procedure. Though we have no definitive proof live harvesting occurred specifically in the making of vaccine cell lines, since it is “no rare event”23,24,25,26 there are legitimate grounds for concern.27
5. “Some were from miscarriages.”
“The requirements for ‘freshness’ of many human foetal tissues”28 mean it is extremely unlikely any were from miscarriages.29,30,31 “To obtain embryo cells, embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used…”32
6. “Using a dead body is distinct from abortion.”
Some imagine that those involved in creating the cell lines have nothing to do with the abortion itself. However, in advance of the abortion of a fetus whose tissue will be used for research, there are a number of steps that take place. These include obtaining consent, conducting genetic screening,33 selecting the abortion method34 and other steps for optimal harvesting35 — all of which impact the abortionist’s conduct, creating considerable interplay with the agent seeking human material, who thus “becomes to some extent an accessory”.36 A parallel to Saul at Stephen’s stoning37 exists — Saul didn’t throw a stone, but as a consenting bystander he was not without moral guilt.38 In cases of live tissue extraction, research is still more directly connected to murder.
7. “No one now profits from the abortion.”
Companies who developed the cell lines continue to be rewarded by their use, including in vaccines.39 Thus direct benefit accrues to agents complicit in the original murder — encouraging the industry to continue.
8. “Vaccines don’t contain the child’s actual cells.”
Vaccines produced in cell lines contain fragments40 of the child’s DNA41 — one study even found “a complete individual genome”42 of the aborted child. The divided cells the vaccine was grown in would have been the child’s as she grew.43,44 Where vaccines used fetal cell lines only in testing, abortion benefit still exists, but the relationship to the victim’s cells is more distant.
9. “No extra abortions are necessary.”
Despite claims to the contrary, normal cell strains “are in fact ‘mortal’”45, bound by the “Hayflick Limit”46 of about 50 cell divisions. Since even the “immortalised” HEK293 becomes cancerous near this same limit,47 it too will need replacing48 — just as other early cell strains did.49 The use of vaccines eventually creates a need for further abortions to replace depleting stocks.
10. “The abortions were from decades ago.”
Though most abortions for vaccines were from before the 80’s,50,51 time cannot make murder moral. Moreover, a new Chinese cell line, WALVAX-2 was created in 2015,52 and as already explained, more lines will be necessary.
11. “No further babies are suffering as a result.”
While fetal tissue vaccines are widely accepted, general fetal harvesting is legitimised and impossible to ban53,54,55,56 — so it has grown instead, leading to many more babies suffering.
For example, in 1982 a container of 16,500 fetuses was found at the US home of a former laboratory owner.57 In 2003, the Dutch company behind HEK293 sought aborted babies as far afield as New Zealand58 and Australia.59 Journal articles discuss “the fetal tissue economy” in Britain.60 In 2019, 2,200 fetuses were found at an abortionists home61 and the court depositions of Planned Parenthood staff62 showed harvesting continues at scale.
Moreover, both polls63,64,65 (and some practice66) indicate that parents are more likely to choose abortion if “medical use” of a fetus is possible. Thus, if the option of having babies used for medical purposes was not available, less future babies would suffer and be aborted.
If even a percentage of the 2-3 billion nominal67 pro-lifers rejected such vaccines, moral alternatives would be found and an “ethically, morally and biblically wrong”68 industry might end.
12. “The ‘greater good’ outweighs concerns.”
To acquiesce with evil against an innocent unwilling victim for the sake of communal blessing enters dark waters — all historic child sacrifice is based on this premise. “However, it may then be argued that these baby body parts would otherwise be wasted, thrown away. But not only does this justify abortion, but it is pure utilitarianism, that says pretty well anything is justified as long as the end is (potentially) good. In good medical science the end does not justify the means.”69
Conclusion
From a Judeo-Christian perspective, the God of the Old and New Testament is set apart by not asking for the firstborn of men to die that others might live — but instead by giving his own firstborn in man’s place. There seems a potential conflict between ingesting the Lord’s flesh and blood, and that of a baby’s body “broken for you” — fetal tissue vaccines perhaps possess moral taint far beyond that of meat offered to idols.
If you have had a vaccine already and are now morally concerned, please be aware the scriptures have a category called unintentional sin: this is a massive distinction. Please see this podcast, as it touches on the issue: “What if you’ve taken the vaccine but subsequently wished you hadn’t?””
— from FetalTissue.org
FOOTNOTES Here…
Fetal tissue vaccines are the everyday means by which pro-lifers unawares develop some complicity in an industry they oppose.
Our aim is to accessibly summarise the relevant facts regarding fetal tissue vaccines — which are obscured behind a veil of academia and technical jargon, concealing from the public legitimate moral & ethical concerns.
Republished also by CBR UK & LifeSiteNews
See also Children of God for Life
We would do well to pray that our next Director(s) of Health and Human Services and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) will be truly and consistently Prolife, and will put in place rigorous ethical safeguards against the use of stemcell lines from aborted fetuses, and for the safety of all vaccines.
Catholic Critique 