Christianity Creation/evolution Decay of society Science

Using Aborted Babies For Vaccines Is Never Justified

The cells from aborted healthy babies have been used in the development of vaccines and medicines for about 80 years.  The argument has been made that since the cell lines are significantly unrelated to the act of the abortion of the baby it is morally justifiable for a Christian to receive vaccines that used such cells in their development and manufacture.

However it is argued that it would be morally wrong if the babies were aborted for the express purpose of using their parts to develop the vaccines and other medicines. I agree. But even if these babies weren’t aborted for the purpose of using their body parts, it would still be morally wrong to use them to develop vaccines and other medicines. But as it stands, the aforementioned argument relies on the notion that the cell lines used are so old, coming from aborted babies back in the 1960s, that there is now little connection to them.

Jonathan Sarfati of CMI wrote in an online letter defending their use:1

“No new embryos are being generated for the purpose of culturing vaccines (this is immoral). The vaccine makers had nothing to do with the abortions.”

Using aborted babies 50 days or 50 years after being killed does not make it morally right. Additional time cannot make something morally right. And whether the researchers had anything to do with the abortions is irrelevant to the argument whether it is morally right to use aborted baby parts. Furthermore is that premise really true in vaccine and other medical research today?

Decay of society Science

Fetal cells used in vaccine production

As you may already know aborted human fetal cells are used to culture active agents in preparation of many vaccines. Here is a table of various vaccines which used fetal cells and with them a list shown of some ethical alternatives that did not use aborted baby products.

Let’s put aside the whole issue of whether you are pro-vax or anti-vax. I want to ask the following question and I would like your feedback in the Comments section please. Let me know which way you would lean on this.

Is it morally equivalent to say that accepting a vaccine based on an aborted fetal cell line is the same as accepting a transplant organ from a murdered person?

Creation/evolution Science

Science the new religion

Science has become the new religion. Those who dare challenge the dictates of ‘science’ are often declared crackpots, pseudo-scientists or just plain crazy. If you deny or doubt evolution, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), now called ‘climate change’, or the effectiveness or safety of certain vaccines, or the universal safety of genetically modified foods, as compared with natural breeding and hybridization practices, you are called nasty names. These might include ‘flat-earther’, particularly if you deny Darwinian evolution.1

It has come to a point now that to be called a ‘creationist’ is a big negative, like you are a pseudo-scientist, or follower of astrology, or witch doctors, etc. Such a person is thinking irrationally and cannot be trusted according to the new paradigm.

Then there are those who are called some sort of ‘climate change denier’, who must be funded by ‘big oil’, as though they must have a corrupt vested interest or be just plain crazy. As a physicist I have analyzed the global temperature data, spanning the last 100 years, downloaded from the Met Office Hadley Centre.2 I have no vested interest here, but I find that a continued warming trend is not supported by the data. But I remain skeptical. The main problem I see is the limitation of human time scales and the lack of any really robust model that successfully predicts developing trends.3