Moral Objections to the Current Vaccines
I believe we are to honor authorities and obey the laws of the nation; so much so that if I were around during the American Revolution, like the Quakers, I wouldn’t have participated in the largely economically based rebellion against the Crown. However, the current situation concerning the vaccination mandates is something different on several levels.
First, and most important for the Christian, is that the processes for developing these vaccines incorporate products derived from aborted fetuses. Both the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines are developed, proved, and processed on cell lines derived from fetal cells; while the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is grown on these cells and contains human DNA and protein.
The general arguments provided to justify these processes are: 1) The original fetal cells were collected several decades ago; 2) The cells or cell lines used today are descendants of the original cells and have been made to multiply in the laboratory setting; 3) The mothers of the original aborted fetuses wanted to abort their babies; 4) Then there is the appeal to authority where some leaders in the pro-life movement and/or Christianity claim that the current usage is not offensive or immoral.
However, that the final product is formulated using material derived from the original fetal tissue is a moot issue that does not change the reality that these cells or cell lines are descendants of aborted fetal tissue. Anyone who truly holds to the sanctity of life (that mankind is created in the image of God) and yet is simultaneously able to overlook this reality is, in my view, willingly fooling themselves. Like me, someday they will have to answer to our Creator for their decision.
As for the argument that certain cherry-picked religious leaders approve of this use of such fetal material: This is a fallacy of logic called “appeal to authority,” and it never holds up to scrutiny, since other “authorities” will disagree with the cherry-picked authorities. For example, Professor Gifford Grobien points out that “Although advocates of these vaccines argue no more abortions are needed, new cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue continue to be developed. Researchers are concerned that cell reproduction in these strains will eventually become nonviable, or at least more difficult to access. Following the 2015 criticisms against Planned Parenthood for providing fetal tissue for research, researchers responded that such experimentation is necessary, has great benefits, and should continue, pointing specifically to the precedent of vaccine development.”
Tolerating the use of aborted fetal tissue or cell lines, at any stage in the process is an abhorrent process; certainly, it is something my conscience cannot dismiss. As if the murder of babies in the womb is not bad enough, then to use their tissues for personal gain is not far removed from various ancient cultures sacrificing their children to false gods. Today, under the guise of modern allopathy, we offer our offspring to Asklepios, the god of medicine. Thus, my primary objection to the current vaccinations for COVID-19 is based on my strong convictions concerning the sanctity of life; but there are other reasons as well.
Second, that mRNA technology is a type of gene therapy is disconcerting; for science admits; “Although gene editing has become extremely precise… it is not yet perfect. One of the biggest challenges in gene editing is anticipating and mitigating ‘off-target’ effects, which can lead to unknown, possibly serious side effects.” This raises concern on two levels: 1) On a moral basis, concerning the notion to modify God’s creation; 2) On a scientific basis, in that “it is not yet perfected” and “can lead to unknown, possibly serious side effects.”
Third, although the CDC admits to a laundry list of known or potential side effects (e.g. Bell’s Palsy, narcolepsy, acute myocardial infarction, autoimmune disease, thrombocytopenia, arthritis, death, etc.), we’ll never know the extent because the manufactures eliminated this possibility by vaccinating the placebo group after only a few short weeks.
Fourth, virologists tell us survivors of the virus have natural immunities far superior to anything the vaccine might provide. Furthermore, many scientists warn that survivors who take the vaccination are putting themselves “at higher risk of a serious adverse event including death.”
Fifth, the vaccines do not prevent the acquisition or transmission of the virus. Claiming that the vaccines might mitigate the symptoms is disingenuous when many physicians have demonstrated that early intervention with other therapies has nearly a 100% survival rate, even among the elderly.
Sixth, at the FDA’s Vaccine Advisory Committee meeting concerning the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shots, September 17, 2021, several dissenting physicians and researchers presented data showing how dangerous the vaccines really are. For example, Steve Kirsch, the Executive Director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, showed data analyses by four different experts that more than 150,000 people have died in the U.S. following the vaccination. He stated that even if the vaccines had 100% protection, they still kill two people for every one person they save.
Seventh, on May 16, 2018 (doubtless under pressure from BigPharma and government bureaucrats) seemingly because these “vaccines” do not prevent either the acquisition or transmission of the virus, the CDC redefined the definition of a vaccine by omitting the phrase “protecting the person from that disease.” Seeking Emergency Use Authorization to sidestep years of long-term testing is apparently also the reason the industry strongly opposes alternative therapies. If successful treatments exist, the “vaccine” could not EUA be approved; thus, the endless white papers and repetitive ridicule of physicians documenting their great success with alternative treatments.
But BigPharma has a history of such shenanigans. Despite Dr. Barry Marshall’s great success treating the peptic ulcer, it took nearly twenty years before the medical establishment stopped ridiculing the evidence and finally began implementing the cure -- an inexpensive antibiotic. So too with Dr. Kilmer McCall’s discovery that a blood-borne protein metabolite was a primary factor in the development of atherosclerosis. Although he was already a highly acclaimed research scientist, the medical community scorned him into obscurity. After nearly three decades of rejection, his research was finally accepted and published in 1997.
Eight, the constitution is the law of the land, which neither the president nor any government bureaucrat is above. Yet, as the president admitted, his mandatory vaccination edict is likely unconstitutional.
Ninth, refusal to follow the government’s immorality or ungodly edicts is not foreign to Scripture. Indeed, we are expected to follow both our conscience and God’s law even as the apostles and prophets of old: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Ac 5:29).
Beyond the ineffectiveness of the vaccine either to prevent the acquisition or transmission of the virus, beyond the governmental overreach; even beyond the side-effects and numerous deaths, my primary objection is one of morality. I simply cannot and will not knowingly use any product that was developed, proved, or processed on or by cells from aborted fetuses. My conscience will not allow it, no matter how much it is supposed to benefit me or others.
Image: U.S. Secretary of Defense
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.