Comments on: Vaccines and aborted fetal tissue

By: NVE

NVE — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 18:55:17 +0000

The moral issue of aborted stem cell lines was our first red flag with vaccinations. But I believe that the moral issue of big pharma not being held accountable to the damage they do to young children was the second red flag for us. I can understand they need protection from lawsuits that are frivolous but they are protected by law from ANY adverse affects, and this only causes them not to perfect the vaccines that we already have. And I do believe that this is a moral issue, also.

By: Mindy

Mindy — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:52:21 +0000

Furthermore, our family has decided to be vax-free. In the early 80′s there were only a handful of vaccines recommended and our death rates from infectious diseases was just as low as it is today, but now the government is recommending damn near 40 vaccines before a child reaches the age of six. This seems terribly wrong to me. It think vaccines have their place in third world countries, but not the US. My children will continue to be vaccine free. I once thought and believed they were good, so my first child was vaccinated until the age of two. Since then, I have decided it is in my children’s best interest not to vaccinate. We live in a time where we’re blessed to have the medical resources we do, but I do not believe in the over-medicalization of this country. Vaccinations are dangerous and contain NUMEROUS KNOWN TOXINS, like formaldehyde, aluminum, aborted fetal tissue and many others. I think parents should at least wait to vaccinate until an age when the immune system can handle it, and that is NOT in babies and children under the age of six. These vaccines actually alter our DNA. That’s scary!

By: Mindy

Mindy — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 01:45:43 +0000

I was actually having a discussion about this last night. According to the CDC, 4 vaccines (Varicella, Zoster, Hepatitis A, and Dtap) all contain fetal tissue.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf —- Here’s the source

By: Nicole

Nicole — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 04:09:32 +0000

As I am on the road for vaccinations for Claire – I have come back to this post several times. Thanks for collecting the info!

She will get two vaccines tomorrow – while I am stressed about which vaccines to give or not to give for safety.. I was happy to see on your links that tomorrows vaccines do not involve aborted fetal cell lines.

By: HButler

HButler — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:24:02 +0000

wow….thanks for sharing.

By: suzanna

suzanna — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:57:00 +0000

Thank you for your post about abortion and vaccination. I am a mother of three and only found about this two days ago. I was sick when I realized I had vaccinated my kids with the MMR, derived from a baby’s dead body. I am glad to find a voice (yours) out there telling people. I am going to provide a link to this blog on the one I wrote in my outrage. Yours is more informational, mine was just a rush of emotion at the horror of it. Thanks, and God bless you.

By: John C. Hathaway

John C. Hathaway — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:37:00 +0000

M. Alexander,
My wife came across this thread the other day.
Thanks for your reply. Yes, the basics come from Debbie Vinnedge, but a lot of it is my own reasoning or research–I’ve corresponded with the Pontifical Academy for Life directly on this issue. I link COG for Life on my blog, and I correspond with Debbie periodically.

By: M. Alexander

M. Alexander — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:48:00 +0000

Referencing #5- a married woman should be tested for rubella immunity before automatically assuming she needs the vaccine. She may have gotten rubella and already be immune. This would save the woman from getting a vaccine that is made from the body of an aborted child.

By: M. Alexander

M. Alexander — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 23:46:00 +0000

Didn’t all this information come from Children of God for Life or http://www.cogforlife.org?

I’m wondering why neither you nor Domenico Bettinelli reference Debbie’s fine work? Am I missing something?
Mary Alexander

By: John C. Hathaway

John C. Hathaway — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 03:46:00 +0000

Now, it is important to keep a few things in mind regarding the Vatican document, and Rubella in particular:

1) It is morally permissible to use these vaccines *if* you are a) highly susceptible), b) in an epidemic region and/or c) forced to do so against your will.

2) We are not in an epidemic, but if there were an epidemic to hit the US, it would be permissible to use Rubella.

3) If a woman of child-bearing years is not vaccinated, or has never had rubella, and intends to have children, she can and should get the vaccine ASAP. There is no moral responsibility for parents to vaccinate their children just in case they meet an unexposed pregnant mom.

This is one of the problems with the popular interpretations of the Catechism's teachings on the fifth commandment. Many ethicists and theologians--from across the Catholic "spectrum"--talk about a "duty to protect health."
They take the Church's teachings on things like good diet, exercise, not smoking, etc., and extend them to say you'r sinning if you don't vaccinate, or if you "put someone else at risk of getting sick" (e.g., these people say it's a mortal sin to go to mass if you have a cold).

THere is no such obligation. We have a duty to engage in ordinary, reasonable care of our bodies or not put ourselves or others in immediate and obvious risk. There is no moral culpability involved in remote disease prevention.