# Abortion, Vaccines, and Stem Cell Research...



## MyBabiesCome1st (Jul 14, 2003)

(Please move this if it's not in the right forum)

Could someone please explain something to me as I am trying to learn more in this area.

I do not vaccinate my children. I am for stem cell research and I am Pro-choice. That's my history.

Now when I research vaccines I have read some are "stored in" or contain aborted fetal tissue. (Not my reason for chosing to not vax, BTW) So my concern is how can someone be for vaccines (being vaxed themselves or vax their children, or launch a nationwide vax campaign) and yet be "Pro-life" or against stem cell research (and from what I understand, stem cell research does not necessarily = aborted babies).

I'm sorry if this has been discussed, I missed it if it was. If it has, please forgive me and point me in the direction of that thread.


----------



## Mavournin (Jul 9, 2002)

Correct me if I am wrong, please.

I thought that the human diploid cells (aborted fetuses) were very old lines - dating back to the 60s or such. Or at least that's what I thought I heard Dr. Sherri Tenpenny say in a vax video.

I guess that like the "allowed" stem cell research that is going on now, these cell lines are considered to be "usable" because they are pre-existing. ?







(and probably cancerous as cell lines that old tend to be)

I don't really get it either. I have a friend who is extremely anti-choice. That's fine. I don't have a problem with her opinion, even if I don't share it. But she is rabidly pro-vax. She knows that vaxxes contain human cells and she says it doesn't matter. I guess it's a case of the convenient argument?


----------



## kblue (Jan 26, 2004)

I don't vax, and pro-life and do not agree with stem cell research (well, I need to do more research on the subject before I make a solid decision).

But, aren't ther vax out there that do not contain fetal cells? Isn't it possible to use animal cells of some sort (thought I read that somewhere). I am still doing A LOT of vax research and DO NOT claim to be totally educated on the subject, so I will be watching this thread.


----------



## MyBabiesCome1st (Jul 14, 2003)

Thanks both of you for replying.

I am not well educated either







(in vaccines or stem cell research, or abortion for that matter) thus the reason I'm asking this.

I read as much as I can, although I don't always retain details well. I just thought I read that some vaccines do use aborted babies, fetuses, in some way shape or form. Not all though.

I'm not thinking of any Mama on here when I question this. I'm thinking just in general. Just for example, a friend of mine is anti-choice, anti-stem cell research (because she thinks it will promote abortion







), but fully vaccinates her child without researching to see if "x" vaccine used an aborted baby at all. Do you know what I mean?

I'm really trying to understand this and become more educated myself too. Can you really be "for" one and "another" I guess is really my question.


----------



## meowee (Jul 8, 2004)

there are some vax's that were made with aborted fetal cells. I can't remember what they are off the top of my head... for some reason I am thinking ch pox?

Anyway it is a hush hush thing so I don't think many pro lifers know. I know a very active pro lifer who refused to believe this (a Catholic hospital had given her a statement that the vax's were not from aborted fetuses) and then she discovered they were from aborted fetuses. She was very upset about it.

You could do a google search or ask on the vax board. But to answer your initial question: my bet is that the prolifers don't know or don't believe it.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

The cell lines are old. There are no babies being currently sacrificed for vaccines.

Animal cells are one choice, but sometime the disease won't infect an animal cell. Also, the animal cells can be a source of infection. The vaccine growth system is a fantastic way to transmit a monkey virus to humans. It has happened in the past.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:

there are some vax's that were made with aborted fetal cells. I can't remember what they are off the top of my head... for some reason I am thinking ch pox?
Chicken Pox and Ruebella (there may be others)


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

This might help.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vacc...tail.cfv?id=32


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Not all vaccinations use the cells from aborted fetuses, and those that do had an original line that was many years ago--no, they're not killing babies to make vaccines. It is actually a big debate among the pro-lifers who know about it. We aren't ignoring it. I do believe the Catholic church has recommended not using the vaccines that use those lines, for the ethical problems attached.

*Embryonic* stem cell research does equal abortion to those who believe human life begins at conception. That is why the idea of creating new embryos for the sake of destrying them and "harvesting" thier stem cells is abhorrant to us. I haven't heard *anyone* complaining about the other types of stem-cell research (adult, and cord, neither of which involves ending a life to get the cells), in fact, the pro-life movement has been very much singing the praises of adult stem cell research. Bush hasn't banned it. Just decided the federal government won't fund the "farming" of embryos.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Apricot*
The cell lines are old. There are no babies being currently sacrificed for vaccines.

The cell lines may be old, and yes, no new babies are being sacrificed for vaccines, but we still don't get the vaccines that were cultured in aborted fetal cells.
Annette


----------



## MyBabiesCome1st (Jul 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
The cell lines may be old, and yes, no new babies are being sacrificed for vaccines, but we still don't get the vaccines that were cultured in aborted fetal cells.
Annette

I'm sorry I don't understand your message fully. Could you clarify what you mean "we still don't get the vaccines that were cultured in aborted fetal cells." It's been a long day (already) and I'm not sure I understand. Thanks!


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Hi, maybe I can help, I know quite a bit about all of these issues.

IME- most people are not terrible educated on these issues regardless of which sides of the debates they are on.

I have been pro-life for a long time now, but it was less then 2 years ago that I learned about the vaccines made from aborted fetal tissue, I was sick. It was the whole reason I started to question vaccines in the first place. There is no way I will ever use on of those vaccines again (unfortunately, before finding out about this, I had my older 2 children injected with said vaccines).

Here is a good site for you to reference:
www.cogforlife.org

I have told a number of pro-lifers about the vaccines and they have all been as shocked and disgusted as I am, most have come to question vaccines altogether as a result ("if they never told us THIS, what ELSE have they kept from us?").

I think the vaccine issue wrt to abortion is one of the best hidden aspects, but- we are working to make it known.

LMK if you have any other questions.


----------



## kblue (Jan 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
Hi, maybe I can help, I know quite a bit about all of these issues.

IME- most people are not terrible educated on these issues regardless of which sides of the debates they are on.

I have been pro-life for a long time now, but it was less then 2 years ago that I learned about the vaccines made from aborted fetal tissue, I was sick. It was the whole reason I started to question vaccines in the first place. There is no way I will ever use on of those vaccines again (unfortunately, before finding out about this, I had my older 2 children injected with said vaccines).

Here is a good site for you to reference:
www.cogforlife.org

I have told a number of pro-lifers about the vaccines and they have all been as shocked and disgusted as I am, most have come to question vaccines altogether as a result ("if they never told us THIS, what ELSE have they kept from us?").

I think the vaccine issue wrt to abortion is one of the best hidden aspects, but- we are working to make it known.

LMK if you have any other questions.

THANK YOU! I was quite close to starting Ella on a few shots this winter. I am most definitely going to rethink that.

BTW, love your sig.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kellieblue*
BTW, love your sig.









Right back at you mama!









Please do thoroughly research the vaccines, read the link I gave, then start surfing the vax forum here. I like to think that one should look for good reasons *to* vax, instead of seeking out reasons *not to*, yk? Since it is clearly an unnatural thing, one should have researched it fully, have good reason to do it, and know all of the risks upfront. The burden of proof for vaccine necessity should lie (lay?) with proving it is needed, instead of proving it is not.

Good luck with your research- it's a very hefty subject to wade through.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyBabiesCome1st*
I'm sorry I don't understand your message fully. Could you clarify what you mean "we still don't get the vaccines that were cultured in aborted fetal cells." It's been a long day (already) and I'm not sure I understand. Thanks!

I just meant that we, my family, as a matter of personal conviction, does not get vaccines cultured on the cells of aborted babies.
Annette


----------



## MyBabiesCome1st (Jul 14, 2003)

Thank you Peppermint for that link!

annettemarie: I feel soo stupid. Once you replied and I re-read what you said it made perfect sense. I was dazed the first several times I read it I guess! LOL. Sorry bout that!

Thanks to everyone who responded. Like I said, I don't vax, but it's not because of the abortion link. I just wondered how so many people, not on the board, but IRL can be for one but not the other.

You all have clarified a lot...and I think the general answer to my question is "they don't know". Sad.


----------



## hcsl (Jan 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
*Embryonic* stem cell research does equal abortion to those who believe human life begins at conception. That is why the idea of creating new embryos for the sake of destrying them and "harvesting" thier stem cells is abhorrant to us.

Sorry, but







T from the original question: No one who advocates embryonic stem cell research advocates creating new embryos so they can be destroyed, to my knowledge. The sad fact is that there are thousands of fertilized eggs in many different stages of development that are destroyed each year. Embryonic stem cell research is something positive that could come from these negative situations. Right now, although many don't like it, women do still have control over their reproductive rights and people do have abortions, and fertility clinics do destroy frozen embryos when couples have conceived the number of children they want. Why should all this potential be flushed down the toilet?

Adult stem cells do not have the same properties as embryonic cells. They are not the same and cannot be treated the same.


----------



## jennay (Mar 20, 2003)

I selectively vax my two sons and this is one of the reasons why. I agree that it is inconsistant to be ardently pro-life and ardently pro-vax (at least where aborted fetal cells were used to produce the vaccines).


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MyBabiesCome1st*
Thank you Peppermint for that link!

annettemarie: I feel soo stupid. Once you replied and I re-read what you said it made perfect sense. I was dazed the first several times I read it I guess! LOL. Sorry bout that!

Oh gosh, no proble- I would certainly rather someone made sure they understood what I was saying than just go on confused, or assume I was saying something I wasn't

Annette


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hcsl*
Sorry, but







T from the original question: No one who advocates embryonic stem cell research advocates creating new embryos so they can be destroyed, to my knowledge. Adult stem cells do not have the same properties as embryonic cells. They are not the same and cannot be treated the same.

I have heard different about adult stem cells.

However, about your first point, then why is everyone saying Bush is "anti-science" for not funding *new* stem cell research? He is never said people shouldn't use what is already there.


----------



## hcsl (Jan 11, 2004)

The difference between adult and embryonic stem cells:

Quote:

What are the similarities and differences between embryonic and adult stem cells?
Human embryonic and adult stem cells each have advantages and disadvantages regarding potential use for cell-based regenerative therapies. Of course, adult and embryonic stem cells differ in the number and type of differentiated cells types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are generally limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.

Large numbers of embryonic stem cells can be relatively easily grown in culture, while adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues and methods for expanding their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp

Quote:

Bush is against it beyond the limits he imposed in 2001. In that year, Bush allowed federal money to be spent on studying approximately 78 lines which already existed in privately funded laboratories for stem cell research. Bush limited the federal funding to those existing lines, citing ethical and moral reasons. It has been reported that less than a third of those initial lines remain available to researchers because of problems with growth of the lines or their ownership.
http://arthritis.about.com/od/stemcell/i/stemcells.htm

I can't provide a link right now, but apparently as stem cells 'age', the lines become degraded and cancerous, eventually rendering them useless.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Thank you for the quotes and links. Learning is always good.

But I still don't understand (and because of my beliefs can't condone) the push for embryonic research when adult stem cells have potential, but take a little more work. Why not fund and promote something that does not destroy life?


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Right-o, here's *my* links.









This one has commentary, but also a list of articles from news orgs that are hardly bastions of right-wing conservatism, BBC and Canadian Press included.

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/

I rather doubt anyone will even read the one from Focus on the Family, but it's worth a try.









http://www.family.org/fofmag/sl/a0024064.cfm


----------



## hcsl (Jan 11, 2004)

Adult stem cells can not do all the things embryonic cells can. Think of it in the way that bone marrow is good but cord blood is awesome.

I fully understand and respect your beliefs about not destroying life, but what about the fact that fertility clinics _do_ destroy embryos and people _do_ have abortions? Neither of those things is in any way related to stem cell research. Rather than the embryos just being discarded why not make them available for federally funded research? Federally funding research on ESC would not increase the number of discarded embryos. It would, however, signify that our government is serious about trying to help citizens of our country and the world. Of course if they did fund the research and help arrived for all the patients currently on expensive meds the pharmaceutical companies would lose a TON of business... Very interesting when you look at W's refusal the fund it from a business perspective rather than a moral one... And stocks _are_ up now that he's been elected... But I digress. My conspiracy theory belongs elsewhere.

I realize you might think I'm completely heartless for the way I'm talking about embryos, but I'm not. My position is simply that if they are going to be discarded anyway, why not have something good come from it?

Many would say that the rubella vaccine is a good thing that came from an aborted fetus: The mother found out that she had been exposed and terminated her pregnancy. That fetus has provided the rubella that is in the vaccines.

You asked about just using adult stem cells. Aside from the fact that they can't do as many things, why should people with Parkinson's or the myriad other degenerative diseases have to wait any longer for help when ESCs are available for research? I think if someone you know and love could potentially benefit from this research you may feel differently.


----------



## hcsl (Jan 11, 2004)

I read your Focus on the Family link, and it's basically an editorial on why ESC research is bad. Dr. Dobson is not a scientist. (An aside- I can't believe he compared it to the absolutely horrid Tuskeegee experiment or Nazi concentration camps!) The science he uses is pretty much common knowledge- ASCs have been used for many years and we're just beginning to see the potential of ESCs. Heck- ESCs were only 'discovered' in 1998. Think of the possibilities another 6 years of research will give us! I read the whole article adn can't disagree with anything in it other than his opinions.

Regarding your other link: Yes, there is a ton of work being done with ASCs. It has been going on for quite a long time- since the 1960s. That's 40 years! With the malleability of ESCs to become any type of cell in the body just think of where science could be in 40 years. It is truly fascinating!


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hcsl*
I think if someone you know and love could potentially benefit from this research you may feel differently.

I do not believe this is true, except maybe for people who are on the fence about it so to speak. I know a number of people who could *possibly* benefit from embryonic stem cell research, but are still adamently opposed to it. This quoted statement reminds me of people who tell me that I would be for the death penalty if someone I love had been murdered- 2 people I loved have been murdered and I am against the death penalty.

Surely- if my child was gravely ill with something that could *possibly* be cured by embryonic stem cell research, it might be even harder to hold this position, but I know that these pro-life truths are not relative for me, or for most pro-lifers I know.

Here is an interesting thread to read in relation to this topic:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ghlight=cervix


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

I'm interested to hear if those who are opposed to ESC research support IVF. And, if so, how they reconcile the two apparently contradictory opinions?

My opinion on George Bush's limitations is that he made a decision that would make him look good in the face of his right-wing anti-choice constituents. If he were really concerned about embryos being terminated, he would take measures to end IVF as this would, in turn, get rid of a large source of the ESCs that would be used for research. What he's actually done is limit scientific progress without actually "saving" embryos - they're still being disposed of, just uselessy now.


----------



## hcsl (Jan 11, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Peppermint*
This quoted statement reminds me of people who tell me that I would be for the death penalty if someone I love had been murdered- 2 people I loved have been murdered and I am against the death penalty.

The two situations are not congruous for me. One involves anger and vengeance, the other, if talking about left over IVF embryos, likely involves no emotion as the parents would know the fate of unused embryos. One involves an adult human who although accused may or may not be guilty and the other involves a microscopic mass of cells that has the _potential_ to develop into a human. Where the line is drawn I'm not exactly sure, but in my mind there is a difference between an embryo at 8 weeks gestation and a fetus at 30 weeks.

I wish someone would address my statement that these embryos are not stored forever- they are destroyed. Why not have some good come from them?


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hcsl*

I wish someone would address my statement that these embryos are not stored forever- they are destroyed. Why not have some good come from them?

I am by no means an expert here, but I thought that embryos were stored indefinitely until/unless the parents gave permission for them to be destroyed? FWIW, I would be against anything that created life knowing that life would inevitable be destroyed...
Annette


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Woa! Oh my goodness!

Quote:

Scientists may have complicated the "hot ethical battle" over embryonic stem cell research by maintaining the viability of mouse embryos with otherwise fatal genetic heart defects by injecting them with embryonic stem cells --
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=14675


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

It just gets more and more complicated, doesn't it?
Annette


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

I can't believe it. Oh my GOD!!!!!!

This study may really have an impact on this issue in the US.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

One thing that I try to keep reminding myself is that this is NOT a cut-and-dried-everybody-can-agree-on-it issue. I know what my beliefs are, and I believe in them strongly. But someone who has a loved one dying from a disease that stem cells might have a chance of curing also has very strong beliefs. Personally, I think IVF is unacceptable because you are bound to have embryos that will eventually be destroyed. On the other hand, one of my dear friends has a beautiful little baby girl who, after years of trying, was born only after IVF. She has what her mama calls "siblings on ice". I would never wish that the sweet baby wasn't born. I guess my point is that having strong feelings on issues is one thing, but issues usually have real live people with feelings behind them, and that makes everything so much more complex...
Annette


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Just for the record--my pro-life beliefs are not relative. One of my grandfather's had Alzheimers', and the other Parkinsons, and while it would be more emotional and difficult, I could not change my opinion.

I am also opposed to IVF and the creating of human embryos, and the subsequent freezing or discarding of "extras". There is now an adoption agency for those babies in limbo though. I'd rather see them adopted by couples who can't have babies on their own than see them destroyed in any way.

I am also opposed to hormonal birth control, and IUD's.

Hoping I'm consistent.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

The article about the mice is really frightening. Using human beings without consent to save other human beings used to be science fiction. Now it's possible reality.







:

Destroying embryos to cure other embryos...this is not even a case of "potential life" vs. a born human being. It is "potential life" vs. "potential life", if you want to use pro-choice terms. The only difference is in desireability.
I see that as a first step in using people in all stages of development as spare parts. Have some excess humans dredging out life in hellish poverty? We could use them! Maybe that's the next idea for ZPG.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
Just for the record--my pro-life beliefs are not relative. One of my grandfather's had Alzheimers', and the other Parkinsons, and while it would be more emotional and difficult, I could not change my opinion.

I'm not sure if this was directed to my post, but I was not saying that my prolife beliefs were relative. I was just saying that when you are dealing with real people and real situations rather than vague abstractions, it's best to be gentle... I don't know what I was trying to say, I guess...
Annette


----------



## hcsl (Jan 11, 2004)

Cappuccinosmom- yes, I think you are consistent, and I can't argue with that. Disagree, yes, but not argue.









While it's great that people want to adopt frozen embryos, it is cost prohibitive for many. The process can cost in excess of $20,000.

And what about the 500,000 actual children wasting away in the foster care system in the US right now? Should we not be more concerned about finding loving and permanent homes for them before we worry about homes for masses of discarded cells?


----------



## hotmamacita (Sep 25, 2002)

hcsl--i agree that we should care for the children on this earth. the children in the current foster care system have homes. we should be concerned about seeing them returned to their birth families in most cases. but, imho, the current foster care system is a tad bit racist and it is not as easy as just finding NEW homes for these children who desperately need their mothers and fathers to care for them. foster care and the current system is tremendously complicated.

i agree with capp. in her positions. i am compassionate towards those who believe differently than i do. i do not take it upon myself to judge those who choose abortion or IVF but personally i am not comfortable that we have made these options for people. but don't get me started on the AMA and the direction i think it has been going in during the last 30 years....

stem cell research makes me extremely uncomfortable and upset. when given a chance, i will vote against it. i believe God gave us plenty of herbs and energy to discover cures through those mediums not via fetal cells. but then, i tend to lean towards nature and away from science overall.

and i am not for vaccines as they are currently being marketed and prescribed for the masses. but then, y'all already know that about me.

Peace mamas.


----------

