I didn't know that some vaccines, including the rubella serum in the MMR vaccine, contain matter taken from aborted fetal cells. I wonder if Lil Pixie would continue to take such vaccines. The Catholic Church says no to them. [Source: Dr Mark Stengler's e-letter 2015/01/30]
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Measles Spreading in California
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI didn't know that some vaccines, including the rubella serum in the MMR vaccine, contain matter taken from aborted fetal cells. I wonder if Lil Pixie would continue to take such vaccines. The Catholic Church says no to them. [Source: Dr Mark Stengler's e-letter 2015/01/30]
http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion
The vatican letter:
http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
Which basically says that if there is a way to avoid using a vaccine prepared with human fetal lines, then one should do so, but if there is a risk to a child or the population then the vaccine should be taken.Last edited by Sparko; 01-30-2015, 01:25 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostDo you have another source besides Stengler? Using a biased source such as that doesn't do much to convince me. Also the vaccines do not contain fetal matter. That would cause direct immune responses in nearly everyone who took it. Instead the vaccines are incubated in human tissue lines. If a man was murdered and his organs could save someone else, would it be unethical to use his organs to save lives?
http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion
The vatican letter:
http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
Which basically says that if there is a way to avoid using a vaccine prepared with human fetal lines, then one should do so, but if there is a risk to a child or the population then the vaccine should be taken.
Also the vaccines do not contain fetal matter. That would cause direct immune responses in nearly everyone who took it. Instead the vaccines are incubated in human tissue lines.
If a man was murdered and his organs could save someone else, would it be unethical to use his organs to save lives?The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI didn't know that some vaccines, including the rubella serum in the MMR vaccine, contain matter taken from aborted fetal cells. I wonder if Lil Pixie would continue to take such vaccines. The Catholic Church says no to them. [Source: Dr Mark Stengler's e-letter 2015/01/30]
Two main human cell strains have been used to develop currently available vaccines, in each case with the original fetal cells in question obtained in the 1960s. The WI-38 cell strain was developed in 1961 in the United States, and the MRC-5 cell strain (also started with fetal lung cells) was developed in 1965 in the United Kingdom. No new or additional fetal cells are required in order to sustain the two cell strains.
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/con...ne-development
You might want to stop listening to crack pots and start doing a little research on your own."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostUmmm, sorry TS, that isn't true, at all. Here is the reality:
Two main human cell strains have been used to develop currently available vaccines, in each case with the original fetal cells in question obtained in the 1960s. The WI-38 cell strain was developed in 1961 in the United States, and the MRC-5 cell strain (also started with fetal lung cells) was developed in 1965 in the United Kingdom. No new or additional fetal cells are required in order to sustain the two cell strains.
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/con...ne-development
You might want to stop listening to crack pots and start doing a little research on your own.The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostWhat is exactly wrong with what I wrote?
"contain matter taken from aborted fetal cells."
That is, in fact, 100% false."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostDid you not read your claim? Your claim is:
"contain matter taken from aborted fetal cells."
That is, in fact, 100% false.
In some cases, women who were infected with rubella while pregnant terminated their pregnancies due to the serious risks from CRS.
Following one such abortion, the fetus was sent to Plotkin at the laboratory he had devoted to rubella research. Testing the kidney of the fetus, Plotkin found and isolated the rubella virus. Separately, Leonard Hayflick (also working at the Wistar Institute at that time) developed a cell strain using lung cells from an aborted fetus. Many viruses, including rubella, grew well in the resulting cell strain, and it proved to be free of contaminants. The strain was eventually called WI-38.*Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by DesertBerean View PostActually, pix, it appears he's correct...
"contain matter taken from aborted fetal cells."
A cell culture is not the same thing, at all. The correct way to phrase it should be:
The MMR vaccine was developed from a cell culture, taken from an aborted fetus.
While I don't agree with the source (they could have taken the cell culture from a miscarriage too), TS is trying to say that vaccines are linked to abortions. That simply is not true. In theory, they could have got that cell culture from a miscarriage too and if people have problems with using cadavers for medical research... well... they might want to abstain from all medical treatment since quite a few medical treatments were developed from test done on cadavers."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
What's the difference between the two exactly? Abortion(besides the obvious) and a miscarriage when it comes to taking the cells?"Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerealman View PostWhat's the difference between the two exactly? Abortion(besides the obvious) and a miscarriage when it comes to taking the cells?"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostDB, the claim is:
"contain matter taken from aborted fetal cells."
A cell culture is not the same thing, at all. The correct way to phrase it should be:
The MMR vaccine was developed from a cell culture, taken from an aborted fetus.
While I don't agree with the source (they could have taken the cell culture from a miscarriage too), TS is trying to say that vaccines are linked to abortions. That simply is not true. In theory, they could have got that cell culture from a miscarriage too and if people have problems with using cadavers for medical research... well... they might want to abstain from all medical treatment since quite a few medical treatments were developed from test done on cadavers.Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostThe Catholic Church says no to them (vaccines prepared from human tissue lines). [Source: Dr Mark Stengler's e-letter 2015/01/30]
The official position on the morality of such vaccines can be read here: http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm
Here's the revelant summary at the end:
"-there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;
- as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;
- the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
- such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible." MORAL REFLECTIONS ON VACCINES PREPARED FROM CELLS DERIVED FROM ABORTED HUMAN FOETUSES - PONTIFICIA ACADEMIA PRO VITA
Meaning the Vatican considers the way the two human diploid cell lines were derived to have been morally illicit, and encourages competition so that vaccines can be developed that don't rely on those cell lines. However its not morally illicit for a Catholic (or anyone else) to make use of the created vaccines, in so far as there isn't an alternative, and that it prevents a grave risk to the health of the person and the public.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
160 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
379 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment