Debate on Covid Vaccination using cells from aborted baby.

[Yekcidmij]

This is a debate in Britian between Prof. John Wyatt(Neonatal Pediatrics) from UCL and Dave Brennan from the Pro-life group Brethos. Both are committed believers and have a different take on the ethics of the issue.
It is very informative regarding the role played by cells recovered from a deceased baby in 1972 - it is unclear if the baby was aborted or naturally miscarried.

I don't think the abortions were conducted in order to provide a covid vaccine. The abortions would have been conducted regardless (from my understanding). Would that make a difference? It seems there should at least be some sort of distinction between an abortion conducted for the purposes of the medical benefit of others vs a medical benefit of others that came independently after an abortion was conducted. It seems those two situations may not be morally equivalent.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I don't think the abortions were conducted in order to provide a covid vaccine.

Undoubtedly there were no abortions specifically to derive a cell line specifically to develop a Covid vaccine. That does not excuse the use of previously derived cell lines from aborted tissue.

The abortions would have been conducted regardless (from my understanding). Would that make a difference?

It might. Yet imagine a mother going over the pros and cons of killing her child. Imagine if the idea that she could benefit biomedical research pushed this mom over the fence to go ahead with an abortion. Now imagine this isn't some wild theory I cooked up but that real moms weigh that in some decisions to abort their child.

It seems there should at least be some sort of distinction between an abortion conducted for the purposes of the medical benefit of others vs a medical benefit of others that came independently after an abortion was conducted. It seems those two situations may not be morally equivalent.

They may not be morally equivalent but they are both morally reprehensible, with perhaps a slightly different level of reprehensibility.

There is a case in California where a guy, David Daleiden, tried to expose the buying and selling of baby parts. He has been arrested and is facing decades in prison if found guilty of his under-cover activities to expose such illegal commerce. Meanwhile his documentation has been legally suppressed. And the last two Attorneys General of California, Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra, now the VP and HHS secretary for the USA were involved in his prosecution. Point being that human body parts obtained in abortions are bought and sold, which on paper is illegal, and yet powerful people make sure to cover that up. The connection between abortion and medical research is apparent, and pretending it is an innocent connection is hard to maintain. It is not a 'independent' relationship. And if there is indeed a profit motive in selling baby parts, who is to say the procurers of such baby parts have not influenced moms to abort. Unless this can be shown never to be the case for a particular cell line one should have serious reservations about the use of that cell line.

And of course using abortion to start up a cell line just isn't necessary. Cell lines can be derived from umbilical cords. And from miscarried babies. There are plenty of moral ways to start up a cell line. We do not need abortion to save us.

 

[stevevw]

This is a debate in Britian between Prof. John Wyatt(Neonatal Pediatrics) from UCL and Dave Brennan from the Pro-life group Brethos. Both are committed believers and have a different take on the ethics of the issue.
It is very informative regarding the role played by cells recovered from a deceased baby in 1972 - it is unclear if the baby was aborted or naturally miscarried.

It’s a difficult dilemma to be in. The speed at which the vaccine was developed was aided by the use of fetal cell lines and they were developed from an aborted fetus in the 70's and 80's. Some say it was a long time ago so its ok now as time has passed and they are no longer directly associated with that aborted fetus. Some say saving millions of lives justifies things.

I think most people including myself did not know this and it makes you wonder if fetal cell lines from aborted fetuses have been used in other testing. The video mentioned that China has used fetal cells from 9 recently aborted fetuses. So it seems some are willing to use this method to advance the development of vaccines quickly. The concern would be if this sets a trend for further use.

I agree with David in the video when he said that most countries don't see abortion as an evil so this can create a situation where the use of fetal material is seen as justified as its no issue either and if it does good then it will be justified even more so. Even if some had a small ethical reservation the good it will do far outweighs any ethical problems.

But the worry is can be that this just hardens people’s hearts to abortion being an evil in the first place. David mentioned how the method of how a fetus is killed is changing due to labs wanting live fetus cells so this shows how much the tech companies can influence things possibly not just for saving lives but profits. He also mentioned that fetuses are treated worse than animals where animals are given pain killers when being killed in labs but a fetus isn't.

As we have learnt more about the fetus we are realizing that they do feel pain so this is a big concern as well. This shows how little regard some have for the fetus because they don’t think it is life in the first place and therefore treat it as a bit of tissue even up to full term which I think is shocking.