Group Says Several Vaccines are Based on Cells From Aborted Babies, “Using Them is a Moral Evil”

[On this Feast of the Holy Innocents, let us remember the unfortunate souls of the aborted who go into eternity in Original Sin, and especially those who were torn asunder and employed to grow disease in their flesh.]

Group Says Several Vaccines are Based on Cells From Aborted Babies, “Using Them is a Moral Evil”

by Micaiah Bilger, Dec 28, 2017, Sydney, Australia

An Australian group recently urged the government to grant religious freedom exceptions to parents who do not want their children to have vaccines made from aborted baby body parts.

It is a difficult ethical dilemma for pro-life parents, and the Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network says the government should not penalize parents’ decisions.

In Australia, families who do not vaccinate their children do not receive childcare subsidies, Yahoo 7 News reports. AVSN said the government should make an exception to that policy for families who object on religious grounds.

“To use vaccines prepared with the products of abortion is a moral evil, and a direct violation of the teachings of pro-life religions, which include Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism,’’ the group said.

Vaccines that use cells derived from aborted babies include rubella vaccines, hepatitis A vaccines, varicella vaccines and the rabies vaccine [“RabAvert” is an ethical choice for rabies – Cyprian]. AVSN said it is not opposed to vaccines, it is “pro-choice” for parents.

“A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 2009 (Cth)2 should be amended immediately, to reinstate the right to conscientiously object to vaccinations on religious and secular belief, or conscience grounds,” it said.

But Australian Medical Association President Michael Gannon dismissed the group’s concerns as mere “conspiracy theories.”

“The AMA will not let ­religious freedom be used in a completely irrational and ­unscientific fashion,’’ Gannon said.

A number of vaccines have been developed using tissue from aborted babies. The pro-life organization Children of God for Life keeps track of them and the ethical alternatives available in the United States and Canada.

[more at the link]

Get AQ Email Updates

One comment on “Group Says Several Vaccines are Based on Cells From Aborted Babies, “Using Them is a Moral Evil”

  1. The Morality of using Vaccines derived from Fetal Tissue Cultures: A Few Considerations
    by Fr. Phil Wolfe, FSSP

    [skipping long discussion]

    Now how does all this apply to the situation with the MMR II vaccine? If a man in bad faith has to restore all the natural products of the property he has unjust possession of, how can the pharmaceutical companies possibly justify their possession of the natural product of a little baby, the tissue used to culture the vaccine; the same tissue which was – in an act of supreme injustice – carved out of the flesh of a baby? It is crystal clear that all those involved are in bad faith, and that restitution must be made; that these tissues not only not be utilized in any sort of experimentation or production at all, but that they be allowed to die. There are no provisos in the rules for restitution which could excuse a possessor in bad faith from returning his ill-gotten goods, on the condition that he could do all kinds of interesting research with his contraband. These people are in bad faith, and they are in unjust possession of someone else’s tissues without any right.

    But, you say, what if the mother agreed to donate the tissue from her aborted child for research? The parents have no right to donate their aborted child for medical research. Bodily rights ultimately belong to God and when He creates us He gives us conditional rights over our bodies. Through natural death, God cedes the right over the body to the next of kin (or state if there is no next of kin). When someone is murdered, they violate not only the person’s conditional rights over their body, but they also usurp God’s rights by killing that person. God’s rights are usurped because it is ultimately God’s body to give to whom He pleases. Through natural death it is clear that God is giving the body to someone else because He has taken it from the person who had it. So in abortion, the parents have usurped rights over the child’s body which is not theirs because God did not cede the rights to them; they illicitly took them. Therefore, the parents of an aborted child or the person who murders can not use the body of the person they killed. With abortion and murder, the only way that justice is served is that the body must be buried. This in a sense gives the body back to God and it respects the right of the individual by not doing anything with the body since the person’s will regarding their body can not be ascertained.

    The notion of possession in bad faith – when applied to fetal tissue culture – is only an analogical usage. Why? Because unlike the situation wherein a rustler could actually purchase the cattle he had stolen, and thus come into legitimate possession of that previously stolen livestock – no power on Earth can give anyone the right to possess, purchase or preserve tissue taken from a sacrificed baby. Human tissue obtained in such a manner is not an object of possession, and can never be an object of possession, irregardless if they are producing vaccines for every disease on Earth. The evil use of fetal tissue for someone’s good cannot justify the situation: it is a screaming violation of justice. In this case, the circumstance of “by what aid” is evil, and therefore the whole act of immunizing a child with the MMR II vaccine, as originally considered, is evil: Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu. (Goodness arises from an integral cause, evil arises from any defect whatsoever.)

    It is immoral to knowingly use any medical products – vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, stem cells, you name it, which are derived from tissue obtained via abortion or embryonic destruction.

Leave a Reply