Vaccines using fetal tissue: 12 faulty assumptions

Written by lifesitenews.com on April 7, 2021. Posted in Current News

Some beliefs about the morality of vaccines using fetal tissue are flawed because they rest upon faulty assumptions — thus, whichever side you stand on, it’s worth considering the most common ones.

April 1, 2021 (Fetal Tissue Vaccines) — As with the MMR [1] vaccine, the Oxford/AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine are produced in cell lines derived from abortions [2] — 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;
• In receiving the vaccine we are not contributing to present or future evil;
• There is almost no connection between the vaccine and the murdered baby.

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.[4] For example, under oath, scientist Stanley Plotkin admitted that there were 76 aborted babies used in just one vaccine study.[5] Furthermore, with cell line WI-25 we know that it was the 25th specimen from the 19th baby.[6]

The two cell strains used by COVID vaccines are named HEK293 and PERC6.[7] The name HEK293 stands for a Human Embryonic Kidney from the 293rd experiment [8] — we can be confident that more babies preceded the final baby used for HEK293.[9]

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.[10] For example, under oath, scientist Stanley Plotkin admitted that all of the 76 unborn babies used in the study were 3 months or older.[11]

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 …”[12]

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” [13, 14] and at times this occurs while the baby’s heart is still beating [15, 16] — this was also revealed during a Planned Parenthood court deposition.[17, 18]

Thus, harvesting the organs can be a type of torture [19] 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” [20, 21, 22, 23] there are legitimate grounds for concern.[24]

5. “Some were from miscarriages.”

“The requirements for ‘freshness’ of many human foetal tissues” [25] mean it is extremely unlikely any were from miscarriages.[26] “To obtain embryo cells, embryos from spontaneous abortions cannot be used…”[27]

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,[28] selecting the abortion method [29] and other steps for optimal harvesting [30] — 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”.[31] A parallel to Saul at Stephen’s stoning [32] exists — Saul didn’t throw a stone, but as a consenting bystander he was not without moral guilt.[33] 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.[34] Thus direct benefit accrues to agents complicit in the original murder.

8. “Vaccines don’t contain the child’s actual cells.”

Vaccines produced in cell lines contain fragments [35] of the child’s DNA — one study even found “a complete individual genome” [36] of the aborted child. The divided cells the vaccine was grown in would have been the child’s as she grew.[37, 38]

9. “No extra abortions are necessary.”

Despite claims to the contrary, normal cell strains “are in fact ‘mortal’” [39], bound by the “Hayflick Limit” [40] of about 50 cell divisions. Since HEK293 becomes cancerous after time,[41] it will need replacing — just as other early cell strains did.[42] 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 80s,[43, 44] time cannot make murder moral. Moreover, a new Chinese cell line, WALVAX-2 was created in 2015,[45] 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 legitimized and impossible to ban [46, 47, 48] — 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.[49] In 2003, the Dutch company behind HEK293 sought aborted babies as far afield as New Zealand [50] and Australia.[51] Journal articles discuss “the fetal tissue economy” in Britain.[52] In 2019, 2,200 fetuses were found at an abortionists home [53] and the court depositions of Planned Parenthood staff [54] showed harvesting continues at scale.

Moreover, both polls [55, 56, 57] (and some practice [58]) 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 nominal [59] pro-lifers rejected such vaccines, moral alternatives would be found and an “ethically, morally and biblically wrong”[60] 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.”[61]

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. Fetal tissue vaccines perhaps possess moral taint far beyond that of meat offered to idols.

See more here: lifesitenews.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.