Debunking Dr Sarfati

At the request of some of my readers, I’ve done another debunk.

This time on a paper put out by Creation Ministries International, written by Dr Jonathan David Sarfati.  You can access his article here 

For the purposes of this blog (that has the stated goal of exposing and protesting aborted foetal organ harvesting) I have only focused on the segments of Dr Sarfati’s article that refer to abortion.  I have written the segments of Dr Sarfati’s paper in red, so that you can clearly distinguish between his arguments, and mine.  Links to my claims are hyper-linked in blue, and are underlined.

Please seek God, and pray that He will guide you into truth regarding this.  I do not want anyone accepting my opinion and links on this blindly.

Okay, on to the debunk….

Dr Sarfati’s first reference to abortion begins here:

“Vaccines contain parts of aborted babies.  As it stands, this claim is false. There are no baby parts in vaccines.  There is a most tenuous connection between abortion and vaccines, as follows: Bacteria are genuinely living organisms, so can be cultured on nutrients. Viruses are not living, so require some living cells to be cultured on.  Pasteur’s pioneering vaccination against rabies, caused by lyssaviruses, was obtained from the nerves of rabbits that had died from the disease. Pasteur weakened the virus by drying the nerve tissue for 5–10 days. Now most rabies is cultured on embryonic eggs—but those of chickens, not humans. Unfortunately, some vaccines have been cultured on cell lines that came originally from aborted babies: one (MRC-5) from an abortion that was performed in September 1966 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July 1962.”

Well this all depends on how you define “baby parts”.   If we think of the moment of our conception, we know that we all start off as a single cell, a zygote.  As we grow and develop, we go through the process of cell division.  The zygote divides into 2 and then these 2 cells divide again into 4, and continue to divide until we end up being a ball comprised of around 32 cells.  This is called a morula.   The inner cell mass of the morula is where the embryo develops.   The cells form the tissue that forms the organs of the developing baby (us).   Our bodies are essentially one huge mass of constantly duplicating and dividing cells.  When 1 cell divides into 2, the original cell is referred to as the “mother cell”, and the 2 new cells are referred to as “daughter cells”.  They become mother cells, when they divide in 2 again, and so on and so forth 🙂

Now here is the question:  Do you consider your cells to be a part of you?  Do you consider them to be your parts?  Yes?  Good 🙂

When you were first created, a single cell was what made up your entirety.  The cells that are in your body are your cells.  They are your parts.  They make up who you are.

Now if I were to tell you that a daughter cell, that one of your mother cells had just produced, was no longer yours, but only a descendent of your cells, you would think I was being ridiculous wouldn’t you?  

Of course it’s your cell.  It is a daughter cell.  But it’s your daughter cell.  It has your unique DNA and chromosomal structure.  It’s your cell.  There is no other way to look at it.

Now let’s say I killed you, the way an abortionist kills an unborn baby.   Let’s say I took your lungs (and threw the rest of you in the incinerator), packed them on ice and sent them to a scientist who had ordered you, who then chopped and minced your lungs into tiny minuscule pieces until it was no longer possible to tear the tissue apart any further, obtained a cell from this, and then the very second that it divided into daughter cells, they declared these daughter cells (and any further daughter cells these cells produced from that point onward) to no longer be your cells.  Do you think this would be fair? 

Our government, and the scientists that use them to make our vaccines, think it is. Especially now that the cells that were taken in the 60’s have been creating daughter cells for decades now.    This is what happened to the babies that made MRC 5 and WI-38. And not just those babies but many, many more.  MRC 5 was one of at least three babies that I have been able to find so far.  And WI-38 was one of at least twenty-one. RA27/3 (the disease strain that was obtained from the harvested kidneys of a baby aborted during a rubella epidemic, to make the rubella vaccine) stands for 27th baby, 3rd experiment. 

It is this way of thinking of foetal cells that gives rise to the common argument that these cells are no longer actually the babies’ cells, because the “cells that exist today never themselves formed a part of the original babies’ bodies”.  They are “generations removed” from them………

Are you a scientific researcher who wants human cells for medical science ?  Are you having problems because you can’t find anyone willing to relinquish ownership over their cells because they are not possible to obtain unless you take their lungs out?  Here’s a solution:  Just purchase a murder victim from your local serial killer, the victim was doomed to death anyway!  Then take the cells out in the way I have already described above, throw their bodies away, and voila! Previous ownership rights null and void!  Patent them and they are yours! It’s okay, this is science!………..  (WARNING: Do not try this with anyone other than an unwanted unborn baby, whose mother already wants to have them killed by an abortionist, or you’ll end up getting yourself arrested!  It’s not considered science otherwise, no matter how great the medical products are that come from it.  Sorry).

The MRC-5 and WI-38 cells are what several vaccine viruses grow in today (the other numerous cell lines I linked to, or listed above, are either sitting in cell banks waiting to be used, are used in other countries, are being tested to be used for vaccines that haven’t been brought to the market yet, or were destroyed or thrown away after expiration).  And although there is a purification process that takes place to try and remove these cells from the final vaccine, it is impossible to remove them completely without removing the virus that grows in them.   So cellular fragments, and DNA fragments, remain in vaccines made this way.

Not all vaccines contain them.  As Dr Sarfati has correctly stated, bacterial vaccines don’t require cell lines.  And not all vaccines that require cell lines, use aborted foetal ones.    In Tasmania, it is currently the MMRIIMMRV, all VaricellaShingles (but a new non foetal cell line vaccine is in development), all Hep A, and one of the Rabies vaccines, that contain them.  There is also the oral polio vaccine, which is not used in Australia anymore.  But if you were vaccinated in Australia for polio before 2005, then (with rare exceptions) you would have received this.  There is also the Quadracel vaccine that is sometimes used on the mainland (and has been used in the past in Tasmania, but not currently).  If you live in the US you have far more vaccines that are tainted in this way.  Children Of God For Life keeps a full up to date list of all current (and pipeline) vaccines, that are made this way.

Knowing this is true, I do not consider this connection between vaccines and abortion to be tenuous at all.  I consider it a very strong connection, and also a horrific one…and I hope and pray that you eventually come to see this too.  

I understand if you were just trusting what our government has been telling us for years.  I agree with Dr Sarfati when he says elsewhere in his article, that we should not be “anti-establishment” for it’s own sake.  But it is really, really unwise to trust our government to give a truthful account on anything related to abortion.

Every pro-lifer needs to take anything that our government says about abortion, with a  truckload  grain of salt.

Okay, on to the next section:

There is no question that these abortions were sinful. CMI takes a strongly pro-life position, that the human individual life begins at conception/fertilization, thus abortion is totally wrong, even for rape and incest (do children of rapists deserve the death penalty?).

Glad we agree :).

….The above is the tenuous connection between vaccines and abortion.  However, no new embryos are being generated for the purpose of culturing vaccines—this would be immoral. Rather, these vaccines use the cell lines from a baby already killed decades ago, and that not for the purpose of creating vaccines. That deed was unfortunately done, and cannot be undone.

No embryos were ever generated for the purpose of culturing vaccines.  It would be immoral if it was true, but it’s not.   And just because that immoral scenario isn’t true, it doesn’t mean that what actually happened (and still happens today) is moral.  

Can what we saw exposed in the planned parenthood videos be considered moral, simply because these babies were not generated embryos, but just the rejected unborn who were going to be aborted anyway?

MRC-5 and WI-38 (and the many, many others I mentioned above) were not generated embryos.  They were aborted babies. Foetuses if you prefer.  A foetus has the same moral value as a baby to me, so I don’t mind either way.

Now it’s true that these parents had their own reasons for aborting, that were completely separate from donation.  The mothers of MRC-5 and WI-38 didn’t wake up one morning and decide they wanted to make their babies into vaccines.  The reason for WI-38’s death was that her parents didn’t want any more children.  MRC-5’s death is recorded as being because of the psychiatric ill health of the mother.   But do you know what?  This doesn’t make exploiting these babies, by using their organs to “improve our own health”, okay.  

Do you know who else used the “They were destined to die anyway” excuse to exploit legally murdered bodies to advance medical science?  The Nazis

“To justify the concentration camp experiments Dr. August Hirt supplied this rational, “These condemned men will at least make themselves useful,” he said. “Wouldn’t it be ridiculous to execute them and send their bodies to the crematory oven without giving them an opportunity to contribute to the progress of society.” (Aziz, Doctors of Death, 3, 305).”  http://liveactionnews.org/fetal-tissue-documents-reveal-lessons-from-history-went-unlearned/

People often use the phrase “already killed decades ago” to try and imply that the decades that have passed since the babies were killed somehow lessens the immorality of their exploitation.  It doesn’t.  I don’t know what Dr Sarfati intended by his use of it.  But it is a commonly held belief regardless.

If you think this way, then how recently do these murders need to have occurred, before the exploitation of these aborted babies is considered immoral? 

What about 40 years ago, like HEK 293, IMR 90 and IMR 91, all aborted in the 70’s?  HEK 293 is used in vaccines being developed right now.  IMR 90 and IMR 91 were both created to replace WI-38 in vaccine production when it eventually expires?

What about 30 years ago like PER C 6? This unborn baby girl was aborted in 1985, and her retinas were taken to develop a cell line in 1995, which is also being used in vaccines in the pipeline as we speak.  This is only licensed for use in the Netherlands at the moment.  But this is highly unlikely to stay that way if the Ebola, HIV and Malaria vaccines made from it are successful.  

What about nearly 6 years ago like Walvax 2, aborted alive in 2010 by being induced too early for viability, using the “water bag breaking method”?  This cell line was specifically created to replace WI-38 and MRC 5 in vaccine production in China.  And if China has their way in achieving global vaccine production, it will eventually be used by the whole world…

What about the numerous (too numerous to count) aborted babies that have had their organs harvested every year up to the present one, since 2008 (see this blog post) for vaccine research and development?  Is that recent enough to be considered too immoral to benefit from?  

Should Stemexpress be told that their problem is just their sense of timing?  Should we advise them to just wait a couple of decades before they do anything with the organs they purchase, and make sure that none of the organs come from embryos generated for the purpose of harvesting, so that no one will care as much about the planned parenthood fiasco as they do now?  Should we tell them that if what they sell makes vaccines, then they will have helped “heroes” to save our lives?

There is also no evidence of any ‘moral hazard’56—that it would lead to more abortions.

Was there any evidence that the horrific medical exploitation committed by Nazis lead to more Jewish people being slaughtered?  I don’t think there was.  This didn’t matter in the Nuremberg trials.  And it shouldn’t matter to us.

Besides, I’m not even sure the above argument is even true for abortion.  I was a part of a pro-choice/pro-life discussion page last year, and I was part of a discussion where a pro choicer proudly told me that she used abortion as birth control. This was her “right” as a woman.  And the fact that she was allowed to donate to further medical science was a source of pride to her.  She fully intended to donate all her future pregnancies.  And she saw this as a good thing.  I don’t dismiss the possibility that she was just saying this to rile me up.  But it is a fact that foetal organ donors are encouraged to feel proud of what they do, for contributing  to “life saving” medical science.  Cecile Richards made sure of this.  

I am a person who believes there is hope for a mother to change her mind about abortion.  No matter how determined she might be, no matter what her initial reasons might be, there is always the chance she could be convicted and could stop.  Right up until it’s actually happening.  And even halfway through if you consider abortion reversals for RU486.

With donation, women must decide to do so before the actual abortion takes place (cell death happens too quickly after the baby has been killed for abortionists to wait until after the abortion to gain consent.  Tissue needs preserving immediately after the abortion ).  So up until the point of the abortion, the mother could still change her mind.  It might be a week. It might be a day. It might be an hour that lapses between the time consent to donate is given and the abortion takes place. Whatever the time frame is, it is time in which a change of heart will be much harder for this mother to come to, if she has already convinced herself that she is performing a “good deed” for medical science, and therefore society, by having her baby killed and donated. 

Also worth taking into account, is the fact that both popular science blog nature.com and the International Society For Stem Cell Research (ISSCR), are publicly claiming that foetal tissue is essential for medical research (which includes vaccines).   Various universities and hospitals across the US that receive grants from NIH to do research on aborted baby tissue, and the NIH itself, are also claiming the same thing.  Now are they telling the truth when they say this?  I don’t think they are.  But it doesn’t really matter because who do you think the government (that keeps abortions legal) is listening to?

What happens to all these scientists who are currently making a living from exploiting aborted babies, if they suddenly aren’t able to do that anymore?  What is going to happen to their “life saving research” if aborted babies are no longer readily available?

When abortion is no longer legal, abortion rates drop.  If medical research heavy weights keep claiming that foetal tissue research is what is keeping us all healthy and alive, and is what is going to stop us from all dropping dead from things like Ebola, then abortion is likely to stay legal isn’t it?  Again, it doesn’t matter whether they are telling the truth.  They are the heavy weights whose voices hold the most sway.  What they say goes.  You can tell the NIH and the ISSCR that they are lying if you want to….let me know how that goes…

A similar comparison would be organ donation. Would we refuse a life-saving organ that was from a victim of a drunk driver for example who listed “Organ Donor” on the driver’s license, because he was killed in a sinful way? Accepting this organ is in no way condoning drunk driving.

I understand where this argument is coming from.  You figure that just because you accept an organ from someone who died in a way that you don’t approve of, this doesn’t necessarily mean that your acceptance of the organ shows approval of how they died.  Dr Sarfati is right.  When this rule is applied to the situation above, it doesn’t show approval for the immoral act of drink driving.  

But foetal organ harvesting is not the same as the drunk driver scenario.  You can not compare the donation of organs from a  drunk driver (who consented on his driver’s licence, and was killed by his own sin: “careless driving due to DUI”) with harvesting the organs of a legally murdered baby.  

If the driver of the car was hijacked by someone who was hired to kill them, and also hired by another person to harvest the drivers organs after they killed him,then you would have a more plausible comparison to foetal organ harvesting.  But even then, the hired killer would not legally be able to harvest or donate their victims organs.  A doctor who didn’t kill them, who was completely unrelated to their murder, would do it at the direction of the expressed prior consent the driver gave on their driver’s licence.   The hijacker’s wishes would not be considered, and they would be thrown into prison for murder.  If they weren’t brought to justice, but instead were free to legally do it again to more and more people, then your acceptance of this organ could very much be viewed as approval of the hijacker’s actions.

Aborted babies do not have “organ donor listings” on driver’s licences, they don’t have licences.  They don’t have consent cards.  They can not consent.  Their killers consent for them.  Right before they legally torture them to death, in some of the most horrific ways imaginable.

If you accept an organ from a donor who consented to donating it and was killed by their own hand because of careless driving, then this is nothing (and I cannot emphasise this enough) at all like accepting the organs from a murder victim (aborted baby), whose organs were donated by the person who arranged to have the baby killed (the baby’s parent), and who was murdered by someone who was legally paid to do so, and was encouraged by the government to keep on doing it to other victims (abortionist).

There is not much risk that your every day, regular drunk driver, will think to themselves: “Someone just accepted the organs of a person who was killed because of their drunken driving!   I’m going to go out and drink and drive some more!  Maybe if I accidentally end up crashing into a tree and dying, I will help advance medical science!”…..

But abortionists (and women who have had abortions and donated their babies) quite regularly do think: “People are accepting the treatments made from the donated organs of the babies I’ve been aborting.  I’m contributing to life saving work!  The majority of the annoying pro-lifers, who think I’m committing murder, are even happily benefiting from what I’ve done.  Practically everybody vaccinates!  I should be very proud“.  

The success of vaccines is regularly touted as the reason why aborted foetal organ harvesting needs to continue. Just type “foetal tissue saves lives” into google and you will see what I mean.  I don’t think typing “drunk driving saves lives” will have quite the same response…

Another example: it would be totally immoral to murder someone to harvest his organs, even if it would save another person’s life.

Good, I’m glad we agree again.  Yes it would.

However, if someone you loved was murdered during an armed robbery, would it be immoral to consent to organ donation, so that even though a terrible sin had been committed, something good came from it, one silver lining on a very dark cloud? And would acceptance of such an organ mean condoning the murder? Similarly, should we refuse a life-saving treatment that is the one good thing that came from the abomination of murdering those two babies? The general principle here is that the beneficiary of the organ must not have been complicit in the crime in the slightest (called ‘formal cooperation in evil’).

Just as a consenting donor, who is killed by their own DUI, is not in anyway comparable to an unborn baby who is legally killed….neither is it fair to compare the legally murdered non-consenting unborn, to a murder victim from an armed robbery, whose loving next of kin (who had nothing to do with their murder) consented to donation on their behalf.  And whose murderer was not thanked or paid a legal salary, or encouraged to go around murdering more people, like an abortionist is.

If the current organ donor laws remain the same and you are one day given the opportunity to benefit from the the donation of someone’s organ/s, then you will be both legally and morally free to accept them if they are taken from a consenting victim of a DUI, or from an armed robbery victim whose loved one (who didn’t kill them) consented to donating on their behalf.  

But don’t expect to be able to do the same thing with the organs donated by the local serial killer who is not brought to justice, but instead is paid and encouraged to kill more, and whose victim did not consent. You wouldn’t be legally allowed to do this.

Current laws in place protect every single already born person (or wanted and treasured unborn person) from having their organs forcibly harvested by their murderers, without their consent, (or the consent given on their behalf by a loved one not responsible for their death).  

Regardless of the level of any life threatening peril we may be facing, we do not have an automatic moral or legal right to other (already born, or treasured and wanted unborn) people’s organs. The fact that they are dead (or destined to die shortly), and the fact that we think we need their organs, doesn’t entitle us to have them for ourselves.  Consent is required.  And if consent is unable to be obtained, then the next of kin who consents on their behalf, is legally disqualified from doing so if it turns out that they were the ones who had them killed.   The rejected, legally murdered (or more realistically: “soon to be”) unborn baby, is not given this respect.  

As painful as it is to note, it is important to point out here that it is ultimately the rejection of this foetus (in the form of government approval of their own parent/s deciding (or in some cases being forced to decide) they must die at the hands of an abortionist) that is the deciding factor in stripping their human rights away.  Not their gestational age or unborn state.  An unborn child that is wanted (or even an unwanted unborn child whose parents desire their murder performed in a way the government doesn’t approve of), is afforded the same human rights regarding organ donation, as every other human being on this earth, except the legally aborted one.

A six week old embryo that is loved and wanted, has more rights than a 32 week foetus that is sentenced to the abortionist’s death row.

Actually the biblical ethical principles were deduced centuries ago.

No, this can not be biblically justified.  Using a horrifically murdered, non-consenting, rejected unborn baby, as your “donor” is not okay.  And if you think you can find Biblical support, then I would really like to hear it…but I suspect you are using eisegesis.

First, there is the Principle of Double Effect. That is, if a contemplated action has both good and bad effects, then it is permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result.

Let’s say I take you on a tour at the abortion clinic so you can see how aborted foetal organ harvesting makes vaccines.  First you watch the baby being killed.  Then you watch the organ harvesting process.  Then you follow the biotech tissue procurer over to their institute, and watch the tissue being diced and torn apart in order for cells to be made.  You then follow the cells to the vaccine scientist, who you carefully watch as they grow the virus for Rubella, or Polio, or Varicella, in cells in their petri dish.  

You have watched the jovial and friendly cooperation and interaction that has occurred between the abortionists and bio techs and scientists this whole time, and to be honest, it makes you a bit uneasy.  They all go so happily and proudly about their work, and thank each other for the exchanges.  Then continue to do the same thing, over and over again.  

Now, imagine you think to yourself : “Well, this is tragic!  But they are dead now.  Refusing this vaccine isn’t going bring these babies back from the dead!”  So you sit down, roll up your sleeve (or you sit your child down and roll up their sleeve, or pant leg, for them), and let them inject the newly made vaccine into your arm, or the arm or leg of your child.

Are you feeling okay about this? Do you think Jesus is?

Wait…sorry that wasn’t realistic was it?….it takes years to make a vaccine!  You don’t get the vaccine right there and then after taking a tour through the vaccine making process.  That would be awful.

What you do is you go to your local GP (or friendly pharmacist or nurse). You sit down in a nice, friendly office, with a nice, friendly doctor, where neither of you have to see any of the nastiness that made the vaccine possible.  No one is chopping babies’ lungs to pieces where you are.  That happened far away from you, behind closed doors, so you didn’t have to see it.  And the scientist who made the vaccine didn’t have to see it either.  They got the baby cells from a cell bank.  A place where it’s much easier to ignore the nasty process that got these cells to the cell bank in the first place.

Second, there is “remote mediate material cooperation”, meaning that the moral object of the co-operator (in this case, the one being vaccinated) and that of the wrong-doer (the abortionist who aimed for a dead baby) are distinct. Under this principle, vaccination can be allowed if necessary to prevent severe illness and death (which it does), and if we also clearly condemn both the two abortions from which cell lines were derived and any future abortion to create more cell lines (which incidentally was not the purpose of the two abortions in question).59

When an abortionist harvests an aborted babies’ organs for vaccine research, and when a biotech company accepts these tissues to sell them to vaccine scientists, and when the vaccine scientists create their vaccines from this tissue, they are all very much aware that if no one (or barely anyone) accepts these vaccines, then this will ultimately be a pretty pointless exercise.   You, as a vaccine consumer, play an integral role in this whole process.

If there are no consumers for the products they make, then there isn’t any point making them.   So it is not accurate or helpful to view yourself as only being remotely complicit in this process.   All those who are considered by Dr Sarfati to be more complicit in this process than you, repeatedly justify what they do by claiming they are doing it for your benefit, and the benefit of society as a whole.  If you allow what they do to benefit you, then the fact that you may strongly disagree with abortion, the fact that you may condemn aborted foetal organ harvesting in the strongest way possible, will not stop your consumption of their product from sending a strong message to these people, that what they are claiming about being a benefit to you, is true.  Do you really think this is a good idea?

You can condemn abortion and the process of foetal organ harvesting that made your vaccines, but be honest.  Apart from those labelled “anti-vax”, who do you ever see doing this with any passion?  When was the last time you did?  

If you tell your doctor who is injecting you or your child, that you object to the way it was made, and condemn the actions that made it, then (with rare exception) they tend not to take this very well.  They don’t like what you are inferring, given that they spend a significant part of their careers giving these vaccines out to people.   

If you conscientiously object and refuse, they don’t take this very well either.  Very few people will.  

Expect to be labelled an “anti-vaxxer” and publicly blamed and mocked for being responsible for children dying, and for bringing all the “deadly, vaccine preventable” diseases back into your country, or state, or town…

Expect the majority of people, and even some of your closest friends, to strongly feel that you deserve this.  And also don’t be surprised if they think that you also deserve to be financially penalised for it too, if you are poor or struggling.   Expect mainstream media articles and blogs to regularly refer to you as the scum of the earth.   And don’t expect this to change if you tell them you are trusting God with your child’s health, believing He will honour your convictions, that wont allow you to violate your conscience in this way.  Don’t expect much support from the Church or mainstream Christian organisations.   The new Australian law that removed religious exemptions for vaccines on January 1st, wasn’t challenged by any churches.  It was supported or ignored.  You will most likely be seen as crazy and a little deluded (or a lot), by the majority of people you tell, whether they be pro-life Christians, or not. 

Now if you accept the vaccine, you are still considered to be free to object to how it was made.  But be careful who you tell, and how you say it…even if you are “fully vaccinated”, and repeatedly claim that you are in fact pro vaccines, just “anti-aborted baby exploitation”, you are likely to be given the title of “anti-vaxxer in denial” anyway.  You need to understand that although nothing is 100% perfect, vaccines are “just fine for mainstream use, exactly the way they are thank you very much!”.  If you suggest anything to the contrary, you are seen as giving “anti-vaxxers” justification to avoid using them.

Medical staff that give out vaccines, and the pharmaceutical companies that make them, are okay with you objecting in a reasonable fashion (quietly and rarely), as long as you accept the vaccines anyway.  When you tell the doctor that you object to how they were made, they will pass it on to the pharmaceutical companies for you (once you have taken the vaccine first, okay?).  You can even write to them directly if you so choose.  Then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that they will feel convicted by this, and then will agree not to ever do it again.  They don’t feel encouraged to continue what they are doing at all by people like you continuing to use their products.  Nobody ever uses your complicitness of this, and the complicitness of millions of others like you, to justify the continued exploitation of the murdered unborn.  

An official statement from the Roman Catholic Church, which for all its flaws, has been among the staunchest defenders of the unborn, is notable here. The Pontifical Academy for Life, the Vatican’s official voice in the area of abortion/right-to-life, wrote a considered statement on this issue, at the request of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future (and now former) Pope Benedict XVI.

This statement would certainly prefer that no vaccines were made on cell lines from aborted babies. It further strongly urges its flock to demand alternatives without any ethical taint, such as using chicken eggs.  But until these alternatives exist, the statement states that it is permissible to use these vaccines.

When this statement was released in 2005, it was possible for conscientiously objecting parents, to choose non abortion tainted options for measles and the mumps.  Four years later, the pharmaceutical companies removed this option by removing the single shots from the market.  

It is dangerously naive to believe that the extremely rich pharmaceutical companies are going to listen to, and comply with, the protests of people who continue to consume their products.  

Knowing full well what the Vatican statement had said, after 4 years of allowing the Vatican statement to be followed by faithful and obedient Catholics, the pharmaceutical companies ignored what little protest there was to make moral alternatives available, and instead made it harder.  

It is now 2016.  And no moral alternative vaccines exist in Australia or the US for MMR (and several others too).   And Merck is happy with this.  They don’t intend to give up their role as the sole provider of the MMR vaccine for the majority of the world today.  So keen are they to dominate the market with this specific vaccine, that they were willing to commit decade long fraud with it, in relation to the effectiveness of the mumps strain.

Does this sound like a company that puts consumer safety before business and profit?  

Does it still seem so unreasonable for those considered to be “anti vaxxers” to claim they want to trust non-abortion tainted health treatments to keep their children healthy and safe?  Does it still sound insane for them to be so bold as to claim they want to trust God to honour their convictions?

Indeed, if we did not, we would allow the further evil of endangering one’s own children and the whole community: As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health.  However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles.  In any case, there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically. However, the burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population—especially with regard to pregnant women.  

Is it really a Godly thing to do, to lay responsibility for sickness and death on those that have no trust in corporate criminals like Merck, and who conscientiously object to consuming products that contain the end result of aborted babies?

Doesn’t this strike you as being unfair?  

When drug companies hold their consumers hostage in such a way as they are now, by forcing pro lifers to choose between the perceived health of their own children, and those of their friends and community, and the lives of the unborn they are desperately and passionately trying to stop the horrific slaughter of, is it really a good idea to lump guilt and fear on the resisters?  

Pharmaceutical companies, and our government really want you to think so.   They want your support in making sure that these “life endangering anti vaxxers” are stomped out of existence, for good….

So in Summing up:

  •  Vaccines do infact  not have parts of aborted babies in them.   It is True, that some vaccines against viral diseases are cultured on cell lines from two babies aborted over 40 years ago (with many more aborted foetal cell lines waiting in cell banks around the world, some of which are being used to make vaccines that are in the pipeline as I write this) , but no and while it is true that no babies are specifically being aborted today to make vaccines.  It IS true that numerous aborted babies have had their organs forcibly harvested every year since at least 2008, and almost every decade since the 1920’s, to research, develop, and create vaccines, and other medical products.  Morally, it would be better to use an alternative, but if it is unavailable, but if not, it is not true to claim that using the abortion tainted ones it would be no different from using the organs of a person killed by other sinful means—as long as the beneficiary played no part in the killing.

Thank you for taking the time to read this post.  I’m sure it was not an easy thing to do.  It has been heartbreaking to write.  It is my hope that you will sincerely pray and seek God about what is happening now.   Don’t come under fear.  In all things put your complete trust and devotion in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.  Seek His will in this, and He will guide you into all truth.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s