Are Certain Vaccines Immoral To Give Our Children?

[katie]

Hello!

My husband and I are trying to discern if we should give our sons the MMRII vaccine or not. They have received the others (except chickenpox and Hepatitis A & B) and we don't have an issue with them. However, the Rubella part of the MMR is made from aborted fetal cells. The two M's stand for Measles and Mumps.
Both of these are NOT made from the baby cells. Merck, the vaccine manufaturer, has quit producing the vaccine minus the RUbella. SO, if we choose not to vaccinate, our boys will not have protection against the Measles or Mumps. My uncle is clinically sterile from contracting the mumps as a child. Understandably, we are rather nervous about this decision.

SO, Is it moral to use this vaccine, in full knowledge taht it contains baby cells?

A wonderful website that my Doctor sent me to is www.codforlife.org It has all the information on aborted fetal cell vaccines. It stands for CHildren of God for Life.

[cmotherofpirl]

This might be helpfuil: http://www.immunize.org/concerns/furton.pdf

[MithLuin]

I think playing 6 degrees of separation with these types of questions can add some perspective.

Aborting the baby is immoral.

Using the tissue of a dead baby to establish a cell line is of questionable morality. In and of itself, it isn't too immoral, but it is quite possible that in offering to 'use' the products of conception, the research group is inadvertently encouraging a woman to seek an abortion. Meaning, she now feels that what she is doing can help someone else, so...it must be a good thing, right? Whether it is to assuage her guilt or dull her conscience, the incentive can play a role in her decision. And thus...those who offer such an incentive (even unintentionally) are not entirely guiltless in her action.

Using the cell line to make vaccines is generally a good thing. At this stage, there is very little contribution to the abortion going on, though of course the people doing this obtained those cells from somewhere.

Buying the vaccine is several steps removed from the abortion, so I think you can vaccinate your kid with a clear conscience. Failure to vaccinate (when you know the risks) can make you question whether or not you are living up to your responsibility as a parent. If there were no risk to your family, of course it would make sense to avoid something that (however tangentially) was connected to an abortion.

I say six degrees of separation, because...is it immoral to let your kids play with a classmate if you find out that said classmate's mother had an abortion 15 years ago? No. You might determine that this family isn't a good influence for your child and make a conscious decision not to get too close, but it is not [i]morally wrong[/i] to associate with her family. In the end, it's your call on what is best for your family. If you pay a clerk at a grocery store, and then the clerk uses her paycheck to procure an abortion...are you involved? No.

Using monkey cells instead of human cells is how diseases like HIV (when we didn't know about retroviruses) can jump species and cause problems. For this reason, I am [i]extremely[/i] hesitant to suggest that something other than human cells should be used to develop these vaccines. Sure, the cell line is screened for viruses (of 6 different varieties). But that's just when a prion or some other new and exotic pathogen that we know nothing about will make its way into our lives from the world of chickens and wreck havoc. I do agree that we should find a source of human cells that is not an aborted baby. But failure to vaccinate just allows these diseases to continue to infect and harm people in the population at large. In the cases where a more moral alternative is available, sure...go for it. If nothing else, you're supporting ethical research that way. But in the absence of an alternative, I honestly don't think you are remotely culpable if you use the vaccine, even knowing the history.

All that being said, i didn't receive my MMR booster until the age of 18 due to a paperwork error (I received the measles booster rather than the MMR but my school was none the wiser), and I turned out fine. Life is full of calculated risks, so it's up to you to decide whether or not to vaccinate your child. The kid will need the MMR to attend a college campus, of course.

[Sternhauser]

MithLuin called it.

Is it moral to use offshore life preservers with collars? Because the collars were put on because of the research done by German "scientists" in death camps, who found that Jews submerged in icewater survived longer when their heads were above the water. In the same vein as fetal cell lines, one can be said to be "benefiting" from the suffering of the concentration camp prisoners.

~Sternhauser

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1284166917' post='2171610']
MithLuin called it.

Is it moral to use offshore life preservers with collars? Because the collars were put on because of the research done by German "scientists" in death camps, who found that Jews submerged in icewater survived longer when their heads were above the water. In the same vein as fetal cell lines, one can be said to be "benefiting" from the suffering of the concentration camp prisoners.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


It makes you wonder, does it not. Of course if one does not immunize their offspring there is the chance of disfiguring disease and even death, add to that the ostracizing of the child from social activities including school, camp and sports. Now, putting on a life vest could be looked at as placing your best interests above the suffering of innocents. This all reminds me of the old flood story, a guy in a flood is standing on his porch as the water rises when a rescue boat comes to his aid, he says "If God wants me to live he will save me .... " This happens twice more till the last time when he is on his roof with the water lapping at his feet. The boat comes by one more time and he answers the same way. The boat leaves and he soon after is swept away. When he arrives at His presence he asks " Why my God did you not save me ?" Of course he hears the answer " I sent the boat by four times, what more did you want?"

ed

Edited September 11, 2010 by Ed Normile

[Archaeology cat]

This is something we debated about a lot. We did the MMR with my son, based on the reasoning that we didn't want him to get rubella and then expose a pregnant woman to it, since some doctors would then recommend she abort. We did write to the manufacturer to express our concern and encourage them to find an alternative for the rubella component of the vaccine, though their reply seemed to brush us off. I don't know if we'll make the same decision with our daughter, as she may have been exposed to rubella already, so I'd like to have her titres checked before we decide.

I think something to consider is whether the disease is serious enough to warrant vaccination. For example, chicken pox is almost always mild, so using that vaccine (which also was developed using aborted foetal cells) doesn't seem great, in my opinion. I fully admit that I'm not an expert, though.

[Archaeology cat]

[url="http://www.dgwsoft.co.uk/homepages/vaccines/usvaccines.html"]Here's a link[/url] to alternatives to some of the vaccines that use foetal cells.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1284190247' post='2171774']
This is something we debated about a lot. We did the MMR with my son, based on the reasoning that we didn't want him to get rubella and then expose a pregnant woman to it, since some doctors would then recommend she abort. We did write to the manufacturer to express our concern and encourage them to find an alternative for the rubella component of the vaccine, though their reply seemed to brush us off. I don't know if we'll make the same decision with our daughter, as she may have been exposed to rubella already, so I'd like to have her titres checked before we decide.

I think something to consider is whether the disease is serious enough to warrant vaccination. For example, chicken pox is almost always mild, so using that vaccine (which also was developed using aborted foetal cells) doesn't seem great, in my opinion. I fully admit that I'm not an expert, though.
[/quote]
I have nothing more than the comments of one of my professors to back this up, so take it with a grain of salt, but she was telling us they're finding out that the chicken pox vaccine isn't nearly as great as they make it out to be, and kills as many kids as just getting the chicken pox does, so it's kind of dumb to bother vaccinating them. But like I said, take it with a grain of salt.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1284197006' post='2171800']
I have nothing more than the comments of one of my professors to back this up, so take it with a grain of salt, but she was telling us they're finding out that the chicken pox vaccine isn't nearly as great as they make it out to be, and kills as many kids as just getting the chicken pox does, so it's kind of dumb to bother vaccinating them. But like I said, take it with a grain of salt.
[/quote]
AFAIK, they're not sure how it affects getting shingles later, either.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1284197678' post='2171801']
AFAIK, they're not sure how it affects getting shingles later, either.
[/quote]
I thought the point of it was to avoid shingles! Wow, that's even lamer than I originally thought...

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1284197913' post='2171803']
I thought the point of it was to avoid shingles! Wow, that's even lamer than I originally thought...
[/quote]
This is what I found: [url="http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/01/12896.aspx"]link 1[/url]
[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1158655/Why-giving-children-chicken-pox-jab-YOU-shingles.html"]link 2[/url]
[url="http://www.vaccineinformation.org/varicel/qandavax.asp"]link 3[/url]

So the info link (link 3) says it is possible to get shingles from the vaccine; the other two talk about how the rates of shingles in the elderly has gone up because they're no longer exposed to kids with chicken pox, which provide a natural booster.

[katie]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1284201744' post='2171808']
This is what I found: [url="http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/01/12896.aspx"]link 1[/url]
[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1158655/Why-giving-children-chicken-pox-jab-YOU-shingles.html"]link 2[/url]
[url="http://www.vaccineinformation.org/varicel/qandavax.asp"]link 3[/url]

So the info link (link 3) says it is possible to get shingles from the vaccine; the other two talk about how the rates of shingles in the elderly has gone up because they're no longer exposed to kids with chicken pox, which provide a natural booster.
[/quote]


Yes, there have been no studies done on the length that the vaccine lasts....potentially 3 or 4 boosters are neccesary, but then again, shingles is still a question mark. I found this site to be very helpful, however, I got the impression that they felt that you should not vacc your kids with the MMR. My dr. also does not believe that we hsould have our sons vaccinated against MMR. Obviously, we are not doing chickenpox.

anyway, it is www.cogforlife.org

[Archaeology cat]

Thanks for the site. I'll look at it when I get a chance.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1284201744' post='2171808']
This is what I found: [url="http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/01/12896.aspx"]link 1[/url]
[url="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1158655/Why-giving-children-chicken-pox-jab-YOU-shingles.html"]link 2[/url]
[url="http://www.vaccineinformation.org/varicel/qandavax.asp"]link 3[/url]

So the info link (link 3) says it is possible to get shingles from the vaccine; the other two talk about how the rates of shingles in the elderly has gone up because they're no longer exposed to kids with chicken pox, which provide a natural booster.
[/quote]
Wow. I always thought it was kind of a questionable vaccine, this just enforces that even more!

On a seperate note --so, in link 3 it says:
[quote]In addition, in a recent study, 7 out of 10 children said given the choice, they'd rather have the shot than have the natural disease.[/quote]

I would REALLY like to know how they phrased that question, and the age group they asked. I guess I just find it kind of lame that they're trying to use that as support for using a vaccine. Totally an emotional appeal and says nothing about the actual vaccine. Maybe it's just me, but that kind of throws the rest of the information into question for some MAJOR biases.

[mommas_boy]

I agree with MithLuin and CMom that the "proximity" of our action to the action of the abortionist is an important consideration that decreases our culpability. I have a question, though, that I haven't been able to find an answer to:

I recall reading that stem cell lines eventually can no longer be used after so many occurrences of mitosis -- that one can only culture a stem cell line for so long before one needs to develop a new line. Now, fetal lung epithelial cells are not stem cells, and so maybe this doesn't apply. But, what happens when one of the cell lines used in the vaccine wears out?

Do our actions now make us culpable for a future abortion and subsequent cell line creation? Yes, the separation is there, but I see this as being different than the current cell lines. With the current cell lines, the abortion happened, and the cells became available, therefore the vaccine. By this, I mean to say that the abortion caused the vaccine, rather than the other way around. With any future cell lines that are developed, I see our use of the current vaccine as creating a [b]demand[/b] that [b]causes[/b] future evil. In summary, I view use of current cell lines as not only an immaterial cooperation with a past evil that has already happened, but also as a material cooperation with a future, inevitable evil. Am I correct in thinking this?