How Can Christians Reconcile Vaccines Made with Aborted Fetuses?

1 30
Avatar for MarielB22
3 years ago

It's past time for some self-reflection and soul searching. Do you or do you not agree that abortion is a polite euphemism for the deliberate murder of the innocent child in the womb?

Today I seek to query readers not only about abortion, but whether it is ethical to take a vaccine made in part with the fetal cell line HEK-293. The aforementioned cell line is taken from aborted (I say murdered) fetuses. My intention is surely not to prohibit anybody from executing their free will, but rather to make known to you certain truths and long established ethical standards. Please, do read on.

Abortion (the Biblical perspective)

Yes, by humanity's law, abortion is legal almost everywhere, but that does not make it right. This is not my mere personal opinion but rather it is the Creator God's everlasting word that speaks:

"There are six things the Lord hates,
    seven that are detestable to him:
17         haughty eyes,
        a lying tongue,
        hands that shed innocent blood,
18         a heart that devises wicked schemes,
        feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19         a false witness who pours out lies
        and a person who stirs up conflict in the community" Proverbs 6:16-19, NIV).

And again: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations"(Jeremiah 1:5, ESV).

This is not limited to Jeremiah, but all whom God created.

Many more verses proclaim that the Creator forms all life and that all life is valued.

Ah, but there are those who shout from the rooftops about the need for abortion. Some feminists even go so far as to brag about their abortions. Still others make reference to abortion being acceptable in the case of incest or rape. However, in light of religion and ethics, these arguments fall short of a convincing, logical argument.

Finally, if societies had legal abortion more than 100 years ago, we would never of had the evils of Adolph Hitler or the genius of Leonardo DaVinci. Both of these men's mothers were going to abort their sons, but chose another path, namely: life.

Ethics and abortion

Famed philosopher Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative consists of a trio of noteworthy formulations one should consider:

  1. "…act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

    a. Let's examine this closer. What Kant was saying is that ethically speaking, we should allow nothing by our actions unless it would become a universal law by acting on our desired actions. Firstly, abortion is not a universal law. Second, even if it were, and governments mandated all fetuses be aborted for the next two decades to "stop the spread of Covid-19",(much like the "two weeks to flatten the curve" mantra) what would our world look like with an entirely missed generation? Would you resist such a governmental decree? I'll leave that for you to ponder.

  2. "So act that you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means."

    b. Did you catch the last five words? To put it another way, Kant is saying that we should never use others as a means to our personal end. Why? Well, for one it is selfish to use others. Would you agree? For example, if I befriended you and you loaned me $5,000, then made $40,000 by investing it and never paid you back, would that be ethical? No. We know within our conscience that we should not use people.

  3. "…every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a lawmaking member in the universal kingdom of ends."

    c. Say what?! Rational? Very few rational people exist in the grand scheme of things, for humanity has by and large lost its course and eagerly moves swiftly to destruction. What would you do vis-a-vis abortion if you, yes you, were the universal lawmaker?

  4. Having said all these things, let's move quickly to the vaccine narratives that are prevalent in our contemporary world. One may observe that we went from "two weeks to flatten the curve" to actual mandated vaccines, lest people lose their respective privileges to travel, enter stores to buy necessities or in some cases, be imprisoned.

Vaccines

Personally, I am of the opinion that everyone is free to make their own choices when it comes to taking any of the vaccines, just as they are free to make choices about aborting their unborn child, all without any restraint from the governments of the world, no matter how much they entice you (or compel you by laws or decrees).

Additionally, since you and I have free will, we are able to choose any path we desire to take, but we should also be aware that there are consequences for our actions, either good or evil, beneficial or adverse.

Now then, were you aware that Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Sputnik V, AstraZeneca, Vaxart, and all other vaccine makers alleged to be fighting Covid-19 and its multiple variants, contain the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293 or the abortion-derived cell line PER.C6? All vaccines. All vaccines.

A question thus arises, namely: How do Christians ethically reconcile using a vaccine that contains cell lines from aborted fetuses? We have already briefly considered both God's words and a highly respected philosopher.

The argument put forth is that, while abortion is legal in most countries, we should never allow a human to use another human as a means to a end. But this is precisely what is being done with vaccine manufacturers!

It thus follows that if abortion is country to God's law and many philosophers, then so is the use of a vaccine that includes the cell lines of the aborted as a means to an end. I would add that the means to an end, in this instance, the vaccines, have no proven benefits of even a sufficient means to an end, hence double the trouble.

When all is said and done, we have choices to make, and some self-reflecting and should searching to do. What will your choice be? I'll leave that to you to consider once again.

References

Kant, I. (1883). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (T.K. Abbott, Trans.). (Original work published 1785).

https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/the-categorical-imperative/

4
$ 8.25
$ 5.59 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 1.81 from @Scotty17
$ 0.85 from @RazorFist
Sponsors of MarielB22
empty
empty
empty
Avatar for MarielB22
3 years ago

Comments

I researched what you said about the cell lines and sure enough, in seconds I found out it is true. I did not know that. Shameful practice I would say.

$ 0.00
3 years ago