Let’s just watch the world burn today on my channel, because this week hasn’t been crazy enough.
QUESTION: What is the greatest way Satan has taken out God’s people before their time, after the fall?
ANSWER: Infirmity. Illness. Sickness. Disease.
God has worked through Christians, like Edward Jenner, who created the smallpox vaccine in 1796, Louis Pasteur, who co-invented the rabies vaccine in 1885. Almroth Wright, who co-invented the typhoid vaccine in 1896, just to name a few. (These vaccines do not contain human fetal tissue.)
Maui Smallpox Vaccination
In February 2020, I went to Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii, to visit the home of Harvard educated doctor and Christian missionary Dwight Baldwin, who vaccinated the inhabitants of Maui. When a smallpox epidemic broke out in 1853, thousands on other islands died, while only a few hundred in Maui succumbed. (This vaccine does not contain human fetal tissue.)
God Works Through Vaccines
I am so thankful to God for vaccines to prevent many of Satan’s physical attacks on our bodies.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INGREDIENTS
I already know what 99.9% of you will ask, so I’m just going to copy and paste this excerpt from Creation Ministries International here:
Creation Ministries International on Fetal Tissue in Vaccines
“Vaccines contain parts of aborted babies”
“As it stands, this claim is false. There are no baby parts in vaccines. There are not even fetal cells. 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,62 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 (‘RabAvert’), 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. There is no question that these original 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?). But note cell lines. This means descendants of descendants of descendants of ‧ one cell from each of these babies. So there are neither fetal cells nor fetal body parts.63
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. Any cultures from these original lines are likely to be now removed by tens of thousands of generations. That deed was unfortunately done, and cannot be undone. There is also no evidence of any ‘moral hazard’64—that it would lead to more abortions. It would be a different matter when it comes to proposals to abort babies now, specifically to make vaccines, then my colleagues and I agree that we should refuse such vaccines and insist on ethical manufacture, such as the new recombinant technology.
Again, as bacteria don’t need to be cultured on live cells, this objection cannot be used to oppose any vaccines against bacterial diseases! Also, although influenza is a viral disease, none of the influenza vaccines have any connection with these babies.
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.65 Another example: it would be totally immoral to murder someone to harvest his organs, even if it would save another person’s life. 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?66
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’). Actually the biblical ethical principles were deduced centuries ago. 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. 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).67
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. Since then, some promising measles and rubella vaccines have been made by recombinant technology, but it might take a while for the bureaucrats to approve them. But until these alternatives exist, the statement states that it is permissible to use these vaccines. 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.68 (Note in original: “This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles, because of the danger of Congenital Rubella Syndrome. This could occur, causing grave congenital malformations in the foetus, when a pregnant woman enters into contact, even if it is brief, with children who have not been immunized and are carriers of the virus. In this case, the parents who did not accept the vaccination of their own children become responsible for the malformations in question, and for the subsequent abortion of foetuses, when they have been discovered to be malformed.”)
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.69
An example of an alternative that does exist is the newer and more effective shingles vaccine Shingrix, made by recombinant technology, which is superseding Zostavax, which has residual components of the cell line MRC-5 cells.
And governments require a multitude of tests before any vaccination is released to the public. Of course, conspiracy theorists might argue that the government is somehow complicit, but what for? So, that it can cost the very same government millions of dollars in dealing with increased pandemics like swine flu, for example—a disease that the very same government officials would be likely to catch if they did not take the same flu shots they were advocating.”
Share This Post
- Originally posted to the YouTube Community Tab on April 25, 2020.