Morally Permissible to use Vaccines developed using Aborted Fetal Tissues?

[Red_Meg]

Is it morally permissible for Catholic parents to allow their children to receive vaccines which were developed using aborted fetal tissue? There are technical details concerning the vaccine manufacturers and fetal cell lines, as well as lengthy arguments, mostly against the use of such vaccines, at www.cogforlife.org I feel using these vaccines is permissible because it would constitute remote material cooperation and there is a proportionate reason for doing so. My husband, unfortunately, feels it is not remote at all and that we must not use them.

 

[1ke]

Red Meg:

Is it morally permissible for Catholic parents to allow their children to receive vaccines which were developed using aborted fetal tissue? There are technical details concerning the vaccine manufacturers and fetal cell lines, as well as lengthy arguments, mostly against the use of such vaccines, at www.cogforlife.org I feel using these vaccines is permissible because it would constitute remote material cooperation and there is a proportionate reason for doing so. My husband, unfortunately, feels it is not remote at all and that we must not use them.

Some vacc’s have a non-fetal tissue alternative. I think the moral obligation is to ask for the alternative vacc where possible. I believe that the church does teach this is remote cooperation, using an already developed vaccine. However, I don’t have the quoatation for you. Maybe “ask the apologist” would have it. Or the ask over at EWTN on their moral theology expert board.

 

[huskerfan]

My feeling is absolutely not. It seems to me that you justify the abortion then. But what do I know???

 

[Red_Meg]

1ke:

Some vacc’s have a non-fetal tissue alternative. I think the moral obligation is to ask for the alternative vacc where possible.

That is true. Unfortunately, there are no alternatives for the rubella & chicken pox vaccines. Further complicating matters is the fact that chicken pox is a much more serious disease in adults than in children. My children have never even been exposed to it because so many of their peers are vaccinated. So while this reduces the chance of their getting it, it does present the possibility of a more serious disease later in life if they do get exposed somehow…

 

[lassi]

OH MY GOSH!!! I had no idea that these vaccines had aborted babies in them. That is sooooo gross! Thanks for the info and web link!!

 

[chevalier]

Sounds like Hitler’s human soap.

Do you mean that the tissue is in the substance used for vaccination or that it was used for testing or whatever such?

 

[ChiroCatholic]

I think there’s an added component of whether it’s morally acceptable to vaccinate children at all, at least w/out fully researching the pros/cons. The risks of many vaccines far outweigh the benefits, and your regular healthcare provider sure isn’t telling the public this.

To specifically address the Rubella and Chickenpox vaccines: I wouldn’t worry about your child not getting either of them. In fact, it may even be preferable to contract these diseases in childhood, as the risks do increase if they’re contracted in adulthood. To vaccinate children against them, esp. at an age when they’re best able to develop a good natural & lifelong immunity to the diseases, is ridiculous.

Just for the record, vaccinated children can spread the disease. If I were you, I’d take the “risk” and let your children go unvaccinated. At least by those two that you mentioned. Concentrate on building their immune system with good nutrition, exercise, and regular chiropractic adjustments.

 

[Red_Meg]

Chiro, as the mother of a developmentally disabled child, I am already very aware of the debate about the larger health issue of vaccinations in general. That is, however, a different question than the one I am raising. I’m really just getting at the question of whether or not it is morally permissible to use these types of vaccines.

 

[crazyage3]

I’ve been asking the same questions! I’ve also posted on the apologist board but no one answered! I agree that if you support this you are also saying it is okay to take from aborted fetus’

 

[Mom_of_one]

Here’s a link that I found for you. I vaccinated my child against chickenpox(not knowing that it was derived from aborted fetal cells) because it was, at that time, safer for other family members for him to be vaccinated than to get chickenpox. The rubella I knew was from aborted fetal cells, but I had heard that since the baby was aborted so long ago, it was OK. I don’t remember the exact reasoning, so don’t ask me to elaborate. I also figured that since I didn’t know originally and only found out when it was time for a booster that it wouldn’t make any difference.

all.org/issues/kellmyer.htm

 

[Mom_of_one]

chevalier:

Sounds like Hitler’s human soap.

Do you mean that the tissue is in the substance used for vaccination or that it was used for testing or whatever such?

**The tissue is used to grow the viruses so that there are sufficient quantities to make the vaccines. **This is from the link I posted above from the American Life League:

Why Fetal Tissue is Used

In order to produce a bacterial or a viral vaccine, laboratory personnel must have large quantities of the bacterium or virus in question. Fortunately, bacteria can be grown in large quantities simply by giving them the equivalent of chicken broth. Unfortunately a virus, a simple strand of DNA or RNA, isn’t as capable. A virus needs cellular machinery, machinery it doesn’t have, in order to reproduce. It must insinuate itself into a cell, hijacking the cell’s machinery. To grow large quantities of virii, a tissue culture, essentially a vast “lawn” of cells which coat the inside of the flask like scales on a fish, must be prepared. The virus is placed in contact with the cell tissue, invades the cells, hijacks the cellular machinery, and reproduces itself. After large numbers of viruses have grown, they are removed from the cell culture, inactivated, and processed in order to produce the vaccine. The problem: viruses need good cells to hijack. The cells must provide excellent machinery for virus production, and be easy for the virus to invade. Two human cell lines used to produce cell cultures, WI-38 and MRC-5, have problematic origins. WI-38 is normal lung tissue taken from a three-month old female child aborted in Philadelphia in 1961. MRC-5 is normal lung tissue taken from a 14-week old male child aborted because a Swedish couple wanted no more children. Both cell lines support a broad range of rhinoviruses. Both are “immortal,” which means they reproduce rapidly and self-consistently enough to remain essentially similar to the tissue taken from two dying bodies over thirty years ago.