Re: aborted fetus in vaxs

[Guest guest]

That doesn't surprise me when you discuss military care. My father was

in the military and I could share some dozies. The one I find most

ironic is that in my record (medical) I have a sheet signed by me saying

I was not pregnant and consented and understood the info. so I could

receive the MMR vaccine when I was 16. Now, just lets add some common

sense. I wasn't old enough to vote, wasn't old enough to sign legal

documents or join the military but for the military...I could sign it.

And oh...there was squat for warnings.

Katrina Cloud wrote:

>

> 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

>

>

--

@...

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

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]

Personally I think the drawback to any diagnostic test is that sometimes they

find things that aren't reallty there (or that aren't a problem). I choose to

get a pap every now and then because I have cells growing on the outside of my

cervix. Although they are normal I have made the personal decision to keep tabs

on it. Fortunately I have a wonderful family doc who does not panic about such

things and would only send me for more tests if she really believed I needed

them (this is a dr whom you have to beg to get antibiotics - she's very good,

and, incidentally, totally supportive of my decision not to vax our kids, and

looking into the issue herself). In general, though, doctors are very good at

finding problems where there aren't any.

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?

>

>

[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

--- End forwarded message ---