Re: aborted fetus in vaxs

[Guest guest]

My thought is this.... " Does that matter? " It's still in there regardless, and

ethically that's wrong to me.

~Odrade~

> A friend of mine said that they called Merek and were told that it was 1

> aborted fetus, many years ago, that they used and just duplicate the

> cells over and over. Is this true?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/11/00 10:12:27 AM Central Daylight Time,

midwife1@... writes:

<< So my " beef " with

that is every time they want a new vaccine and they need

aborted fetal cells to grow this S*** on, than they use

aborted babies again, >>

Don't get me wrong--I'm in agreement with the moral side of this--but even

the new vaccines made using cell lines from an aborted baby (chicken pox and

hep A) are using the same cell lines from about 25 or 30 years ago. So far,

they have not created new cell lines for this purpose. I'm sure they will

find a reason to do so in the future.

[Guest guest]

Personally I agree. I am trying though to convince them and hoped

that they were misinformed. Apparently it's okay for them if it was

"just 1 way back when" but it wouldn't be if it were multiple. Go

figure.

Odrade wrote:

My thought is this...."Does that matter?"

It's still in there regardless, and ethically that's wrong to me.

~Odrade~

> A friend of mine said that they called Merek and were told that

it was 1

> aborted fetus, many years ago, that they used and just duplicate

the

> cells over and over. Is this true?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/11/00 11:12:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

midwife1@... writes:

<< than they use

aborted babies again, and because they use them ONE time

makes it justifiable?????? >>

YES, but it IS FOR THE GOOD OF THE HERD!!! <said very sarcastically>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/11/00 11:39:02 AM Central Daylight Time,

tomnrachel@... writes:

<<

I see this topic a lot and I felt the need to voice my opinion, I hope I did

not offend anyone, it is easy to cast the stone.

>>

I wasn't under the impression that other people were saying that everyone has

to agree with them on the abortion issue. I don't even think that is what

this whole posting was about. It is the idea that someone should not be

forced to do something that is against everything they believe in--in this

case, no one should be forced to take a vaccine, or any medical treatment

against their will regardless of the reasons why they don't want to. For

some it is philosophical and for others it is religious. I don't think

anyone was trying to make an abortion debate out of this.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/11/00 12:03:16 PM Central Daylight Time,

midwife1@... writes:

<< I have yet to see proof that they are the same lines. From what my

research has

uncovered, they're different. That's why they have different names.

J >>

<A HREF= " http://www.dgwsoft.co.uk/homepages/vaccines/usvaccines.html " >US

fetal derived vaccines</A>

There are two different cell lines, but all I was saying is that they were

obtained 20 or more years ago. I'm not saying it is okay--its gross. I'm

assuming that the DNA from another human is injected in each person who takes

the vaccine. Is the right?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/11/00 2:21:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jcannand@...

writes:

<< wasn't under the impression that other people were saying that everyone

has

to agree with them on the abortion issue. I don't even think that is what

this whole posting was about. It is the idea that someone should not be

forced to do something that is against everything they believe in--in this

case, no one should be forced to take a vaccine, or any medical treatment

against their will regardless of the reasons why they don't want to. For

some it is philosophical and for others it is religious. I don't think

anyone was trying to make an abortion debate out of this.

>>

Right, and I have a feeling that for most people, no matter WHAT your stance

on abortion is you would still find the use of the cells in creating vaccines

offensive.

[Guest guest]

OK, remember that the chicken pox vac is a new one and they

use aborted cells in that vaccine too. So my " beef " with

that is every time they want a new vaccine and they need

aborted fetal cells to grow this S*** on, than they use

aborted babies again, and because they use them ONE time

makes it justifiable??????

I'm not awake yet but I hate the vaccine manufactures and

their lies... hope this makes sense.

wrote:

> Personally I agree. I am trying though to convince them

> and hoped that they were misinformed. Apparently it's

> okay for them if it was " just 1 way back when " but it

> wouldn't be if it were multiple. Go figure.

>

> Odrade wrote:

>

>> My thought is this.... " Does that matter? " It's still in

>> there regardless, and ethically that's wrong to me.

>> ~Odrade~

>>

>>

>> > A friend of mine said that they called Merek and were

>> told that it was 1

>> > aborted fetus, many years ago, that they used and just

>> duplicate the

>> > cells over and over. Is this true?

>>

>>

>

[Guest guest]

Good grief! If there were absolutely no other reason to question vax's, this

alone would be offensive enough!

Katrina

>From: " Larsen, Licensed Midwife " <midwife1@...>

>Reply-Vaccinationsegroups

>Vaccinationsegroups

>Subject: Re: aborted fetus in vaxs

>Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 08:11:06 -0700

>

>OK, remember that the chicken pox vac is a new one and they

>use aborted cells in that vaccine too. So my " beef " with

>that is every time they want a new vaccine and they need

>aborted fetal cells to grow this S*** on, than they use

>aborted babies again, and because they use them ONE time

>makes it justifiable??????

>

>I'm not awake yet but I hate the vaccine manufactures and

>their lies... hope this makes sense.

>

>

> wrote:

>

> > Personally I agree. I am trying though to convince them

> > and hoped that they were misinformed. Apparently it's

> > okay for them if it was " just 1 way back when " but it

> > wouldn't be if it were multiple. Go figure.

> >

> > Odrade wrote:

> >

> >> My thought is this.... " Does that matter? " It's still in

> >> there regardless, and ethically that's wrong to me.

> >> ~Odrade~

> >>

> >>

> >> > A friend of mine said that they called Merek and were

> >> told that it was 1

> >> > aborted fetus, many years ago, that they used and just

> >> duplicate the

> >> > cells over and over. Is this true?

> >>

> >>

> >

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

I think this is a very sensitive subject aborted fetal tissue/abortion. I am

pro-life. But it is easy for me to say that. I never had to go through this

because my mother was smart and made me get on the pill, but a lot of others

I knew did. I was never the subject of a rape pregnancy or incest where I

got pregnant either. But I will say I do not think it should be against the

law that is a very personal choice. I think the laws need to change in so

many ways with partial birth and it would be nice if the pill were free to

people. But in rare circumstances and notice I said rare it is my opinion

that it is the choice of the woman.

I said to my sister in law who is so Christian and so pro life that the

rubella vaccine contained aborted fetus in it, do you think she cared. Maybe

a little but not enough not to get it. People have there own agendas and

ideas until it happens to them. I remember her and I got on this hot topic

and I said to her. So if you were dating Jim in college the two of you were

engaged to be married and you got raped on campus and pregnant you would

still have the child, she said I do not know.

I know that are a lot of people myself included that are passionate about

the subject this is a life but I am certain these vaccines are not the only

thing with aborted fetal tissue in them. But we also do plenty of testing on

hopeless animals, these things have to be grown and tested on something. I

believe animals have feelings and feel pain as much as we do. But I still

eat chicken and meat. Myself I think it should be prisoners, I bet crime

would go down significantly if they new there were going in to be gun pigs.

I have know people who are survivors of incest and have been date raped or

taken advantage of by someone they trusted, and to continue to be

embarrassed and ashamed and revictimized for 10 mos. This Is a personal

choice one I never had to make and I hope no ones daughter has to make. But

I try not to pass judgement unless it is being used as birth control which

it mostly commonly is.

I see this topic a lot and I felt the need to voice my opinion, I hope I did

not offend anyone, it is easy to cast the stone.

[Guest guest]

I have yet to see proof that they are the same lines. From what my research has

uncovered, they're different. That's why they have different names.

Jcannand@... wrote:

> In a message dated 8/11/00 10:12:27 AM Central Daylight Time,

> midwife1@... writes:

>

> << So my " beef " with

> that is every time they want a new vaccine and they need

> aborted fetal cells to grow this S*** on, than they use

> aborted babies again, >>

>

> Don't get me wrong--I'm in agreement with the moral side of this--but even

> the new vaccines made using cell lines from an aborted baby (chicken pox and

> hep A) are using the same cell lines from about 25 or 30 years ago. So far,

> they have not created new cell lines for this purpose. I'm sure they will

> find a reason to do so in the future.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Good point... sarcasm noted

teresav26@... wrote:

> In a message dated 8/11/00 11:12:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> midwife1@... writes:

>

> << than they use

> aborted babies again, and because they use them ONE time

> makes it justifiable?????? >>

> YES, but it IS FOR THE GOOD OF THE HERD!!! <said very sarcastically>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I know they weren't. As I stated in my post, I was posting my opinion on the

subject. I brought the issue up because it is a reality to those who do

choose to partially or fully vaccinate or for those who do not. Gross,

gross, gross, would indicate an opinion so I stated mine that is all.

Thanks,

[Guest guest]

No, they gave those cell lines THAT name R/A 27/3 because that was the fetus

they

were able to grow rubella on. So I'm still assuming the chickenpox vac is grown

on different babies. Does this make sense? I really wish I had more time to dig

out my papers on this. I went to our university and copied as much as I could

find from all the old medical journals and texts.

Jcannand@... wrote:

> In a message dated 8/11/00 12:03:16 PM Central Daylight Time,

> midwife1@... writes:

>

> << I have yet to see proof that they are the same lines. From what my

> research has

> uncovered, they're different. That's why they have different names.

>

> J >>

> <A HREF= " http://www.dgwsoft.co.uk/homepages/vaccines/usvaccines.html " >US

> fetal derived vaccines</A>

>

> There are two different cell lines, but all I was saying is that they were

> obtained 20 or more years ago. I'm not saying it is okay--its gross. I'm

> assuming that the DNA from another human is injected in each person who takes

> the vaccine. Is the right?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Why, exactly, do you find it offensive?

I mean, it would offend me if people were being encouraged to abort so they

could donate the tissue but, personally, using tissue that would otherwise

be discarded does not offend me.

Is it any different from donating your body to science or donating organs?

Just trying to understand...

Melinda

At 02:55 PM 8/11/00 EDT, you wrote:

>In a message dated 8/11/00 2:21:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Jcannand@...

>writes:

>

><< wasn't under the impression that other people were saying that everyone

>has

> to agree with them on the abortion issue. I don't even think that is what

> this whole posting was about. It is the idea that someone should not be

> forced to do something that is against everything they believe in--in this

> case, no one should be forced to take a vaccine, or any medical treatment

> against their will regardless of the reasons why they don't want to. For

> some it is philosophical and for others it is religious. I don't think

> anyone was trying to make an abortion debate out of this.

> >>

>Right, and I have a feeling that for most people, no matter WHAT your stance

>on abortion is you would still find the use of the cells in creating

vaccines

>offensive.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

A catholic priest sent me this attachment, at my request. It has very

interesting info., like exactly where these cells came from. It does have to

be downloaded if interested. This priest is against these vaccines, but not

all priests are. The stand at the biotech center is different.

The arguments that have been used to justify the use of vaccinations derived

from cell lines of aborted fetuses are flawed in a number of ways. The two basic

points of these arguments are that 1) these vaccines are the only available

alternative to the spread of the disease (hepatitus A, a viral infection of the

liver); 2) the individual receiving the vaccine is not in immoral cooperation

with the evil of abortion.

HOW THE VACCINES ARE DEVELOPED

Before explaining why these two basic points and their accompanying arguments

are flawed, it is helpful to review what essentially is involved in the

development of these vaccines. In his article, " The Moral Implications of Fetal

Tissue Vaccines " (available at http://www.all.org), Kellmeyer explains:

" 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 is that 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. "

FLAWED MORAL ARGUMENTS

If you examine the two basic points made by the arguments for the moral

justification of these vaccines, you will notice that they are intimately

related. 1) The first point (they are the only alternatives to treating the

disease) is essentially a matter of arguing that they are morally justifiable

because we NEED them. 2) The second point (the person receiving the vaccine does

not WILL the abortion from which it is derived) is essentially a matter of

arguing that, because the abortion at issue happened so long ago and that no

further abortions are required for this vaccination, receiving the vaccination

is morally justifiable.

The first point is flawed for a number of reasons. First of all, leaving it

simply at saying that something is morally justifiable because I NEED it as a

means to an end, and indeed, a good end ( preservation of one's life) is

absolutely identical with the Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the

means (or, that evil may be done in order to accomplish good) and, thus,

absolutely unacceptable and morally indefensible. Secondly, precisely because

this Machiavellian principle is morally indefensible, one needs to examine the

very thing needed in this particular case -- cell lines from aborted fetuses. To

say that one NEEDS the cell lines of aborted fetuses to preserve one's life is

inseparable from saying that one NEEDS the abortions -- intrinsically evil

actions -- that make the cell lines available. And this is where the point of

the first argument meets -- and betrays -- the point of the second argument.

To say that a person receiving this vaccination -- derived from a fetus aborted

long ago -- does not WILL the abortion that makes the vaccination possible may

well be true in the individual and isolated case of the person who does not know

the origin of the vaccine. However, one cannot base the moral argumentation for

a practice intended for the entire population upon the ignorance of this person

or upon the correct moral behavior of the individual recipient of the vaccine.

In fact, the second argument in favor of the moral justification of the use of

these vaccines not only very clearly presupposes the knowledge of the origin of

the vaccine, but also advocates that society in general adopt the use of this

vaccine. With that knowledge in place, and with the institutionalization of the

vaccine within the very fabric of society in place, to say that a person

receiving this vaccination -- derived from a fetus aborted long ago -- does not

WILL the abortion that makes the vaccination possible is patently false. If I

NEED it (and it is a NEED that can be satisfied only by an aborted fetus) and I

defend my NEED, I WANT it. The person receiving the vaccination may well be

living long after the fetus was actually aborted, and had no involvement in and

may even have no knowledge of the PARTICULAR and ACTUAL fetus that was aborted.

However, the remoteness in time is not sufficient for arguing that there is no

act of the will on the part of the recipient of the vaccine, even if only an

elicited act of the will (an act of " pure will " within one's own soul that

involves no bodily action whatsoever, and can be identical with passive

acceptance).

On this issue, and so many like it, we desperately need to see more than a few

feet in front of us. Thinking that we know what we NEED here and now does not

necessarily mean that we do know or, therefore, that we should WANT it. This is

why it would be wise to abide by the US Bishops' directive forbidding the use of

tissue from aborted fetuses, even for therapeutic purposes. This is also why it

would be wise to heed the directive of the Holy See's 1987 document, Donum Vitae

(Gift of Life): " The corpses of human embryos and fetuses, whether they have

been deliberately aborted or not, must be respected just as the remains of other

human beings.... the moral requirements must be safeguarded, that there be no

complicity in deliberate abortion and that the risk of scandal be avoided. Also,

in the case of dead fetuses, as for the corpses of adult persons, all commercial

trafficking must be considered illicit and should be prohibited. "

Fr. F. Torraco

[Guest guest]

I would agree.

[Guest guest]

So are you saying from the information you received the live virus does not

need to be dissected first. And then the continual process of cell renewal

would begin? I am confused are you saying the information I have is

incorrect?

[Guest guest]

Okay, I have a question that many of you on this list will be able to answer

for me. I know it's probably another " duh, " but you have to understand how

new I am to this. What are the drawbacks, if any at all, for seeing a

gynecologist for pap smears/exams? (Other than the fact that they are

horribly embarrassing and humiliating.) Anything I should know that you can

share with me?

[Guest guest]

If you can find it get Mendelsohn's book: MALE PRACTICE How

Doctor's Manipulate Women.

It is older but very well written....

It took Amazon a month to find it for me and I paid$30 for it but it was

worth the money.

selahdream@... wrote:

>

> Okay, I have a question that many of you on this list will be able to answer

> for me. I know it's probably another " duh, " but you have to understand how

> new I am to this. What are the drawbacks, if any at all, for seeing a

> gynecologist for pap smears/exams? (Other than the fact that they are

> horribly embarrassing and humiliating.) Anything I should know that you can

> share with me?

>

>

--

@...

***************************************************************

Any information obtained here is not to be construed as medical

OR legal advice. The decision to vaccinate and how you

implement that decision is yours and yours alone.

[Guest guest]

I can not think of any as long as they are listening to your concerns and

you feel the exam is thorough. I personally think there are a lot of

benefits to doctors.

[Guest guest]

selahdream@... wrote:

> Okay, I have a question that many of you on this list will be able to

answer

> for me. I know it's probably another " duh, " but you have to understand how

> new I am to this. What are the drawbacks, if any at all, for seeing a

> gynecologist for pap smears/exams? (Other than the fact that they are

> horribly embarrassing and humiliating.) Anything I should know that you

can

> share with me? >>

one other drawback is that every time you have an internal exam, you are

increasing your risk for infection--all the vag. exams they do to pregnant

women are a good example, many pregnant women develop infections during their

pregnancy--connection here??? i think so--sheesh!! i guess it's not a bad

idea to have one every so often, i personally, only have one every 3 years or

so--maybe i will more as i get older (i'm 35), maybe not.

brigit

[Guest guest]

Being unethical and thinking it would help maintain a certain amount of

criminal control are two different things.

[Guest guest]

Tom and Muckerheide wrote:

> I think this is a very sensitive subject aborted fetal tissue/abortion. I am

> pro-life. But it is easy for me to say that. I never had to go through this

> because my mother was smart and made me get on the pill, but a lot of others

> I knew did. I was never the subject of a rape pregnancy or incest where I

> got pregnant either. But I will say I do not think it should be against the

> law that is a very personal choice. I think the laws need to change in so

> many ways with partial birth and it would be nice if the pill were free to

> people. But in rare circumstances and notice I said rare it is my opinion

> that it is the choice of the woman.

>

> I said to my sister in law who is so Christian and so pro life that the

> rubella vaccine contained aborted fetus in it, do you think she cared. Maybe

> a little but not enough not to get it. People have there own agendas and

> ideas until it happens to them. I remember her and I got on this hot topic

> and I said to her. So if you were dating Jim in college the two of you were

> engaged to be married and you got raped on campus and pregnant you would

> still have the child, she said I do not know.

>

> I know that are a lot of people myself included that are passionate about

> the subject this is a life but I am certain these vaccines are not the only

> thing with aborted fetal tissue in them. But we also do plenty of testing on

> hopeless animals, these things have to be grown and tested on something.I

> believe animals have feelings and feel pain as much as we do. But I still

> eat chicken and meat. Myself I think it should be prisoners, I bet crime

> would go down significantly if they new there were going in to be gun pigs.

Lots of experients are carried out on prisoners and it is just as unethical as

doing them on anyone else who doesn't give their full consent.

>

>

> I have know people who are survivors of incest and have been date raped or

> taken advantage of by someone they trusted, and to continue to be

> embarrassed and ashamed and revictimized for 10 mos. This Is a personal

> choice one I never had to make and I hope no ones daughter has to make. But

> I try not to pass judgement unless it is being used as birth control which

> it mostly commonly is.

>

> I see this topic a lot and I felt the need to voice my opinion, I hope I did

> not offend anyone, it is easy to cast the stone.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

When I was pregnant with my son, I was seeeing the military hospital for

care. Each time I went in, the doctor would tell me that I had a yeast

infection. She would test me but also that same day give me my prescription

so I could " get a head start on it without having to wait for the test

results " . I never did use it, but one time, " accidentally " got the doctors

insert with the medication. The two pages of warnings along with the stats

that ONLY 1 out of 10 babies born to a mother who used this drug during

pregnancy showed adverse affects was enough to relieve me from any guilt of

not following my doctors orders. When I changed doctors and picked up my

file, I looked inside and discovered that every single test she had given me

had come out negative. Funny she never told me that on any of my visits but

kept insisting I get checked again. Perhaps she had a quota to meet with

prescriptions for that brand.

Katirna

>From: beebemcel@...

>Reply-Vaccinationsegroups

>Vaccinationsegroups

>Subject: Re: aborted fetus in vaxs

>Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:47:45 EDT

>

>selahdream@... wrote:

>

> > Okay, I have a question that many of you on this list will be able to

>answer

> > for me. I know it's probably another " duh, " but you have to understand

>how

> > new I am to this. What are the drawbacks, if any at all, for seeing a

> > gynecologist for pap smears/exams? (Other than the fact that they are

> > horribly embarrassing and humiliating.) Anything I should know that

>you

>can

> > share with me? >>

>

>one other drawback is that every time you have an internal exam, you are

>increasing your risk for infection--all the vag. exams they do to pregnant

>women are a good example, many pregnant women develop infections during

>their

>pregnancy--connection here??? i think so--sheesh!! i guess it's not a bad

>idea to have one every so often, i personally, only have one every 3 years

>or

>so--maybe i will more as i get older (i'm 35), maybe not.

>brigit

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com