Biblical arguments for and against use of cell lines such as HEK293 in vaccine development and manufacture

Note that in each of these cell lines the whole DNA is NOT intact. Genetic modification is used to make the cells immortal and further genetic modification is used to cause them to manufacture proteins or entire viruses. The crucial point is that these cells could never be used to make a human baby. In fact in that sense they are less “human” than the skin cells we shed every day each of which at least in theory could be a source for a complete set of our DNA and a resultant clone of us which would have the same moral status as an identical twin.

3 Likes

Thanks everyone for sharing. Some of the ideas made it into the final article. This is a real issue for some Christians so I’d love it if you could pop over read, comment, and if you like it consider sharing it on Social Media. Some Christians are going to turn down these vaccines for this reason. here is the link: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrianwarnock/2021/01/are-covid-19-vaccines-made-from-aborted-babies-what-is-hek293/

1 Like

Thank you for your hard work putting it together. It is definitely something I will recommend my friends read who have questions on the issue.

2 Likes

Thanks for the encouragement Phil. I was surprised how little biblical discussion I could find on this subject. Am bracing for the possible deluge of comments from those who disagree if anyone on here can jump over to social media and/or my comments section so I don’t feel bombarded if that does happen that would be awesome!

It happens all the time. We still can’t exactly copy Damascus steel or early katanas. Greek fire, how they cut stones for the pyramids, etc. All it would have taken would be to hang the doctors and burn their papers. And put these babies to rest.

Relevant comment and conversation here:

@Patrick_S

1 Like

Well, all the cells that were ever part of a baby are long dead. I don’t believe you understand what you are talking about.

1 Like

And I don’t believe you have thought the matter through. Whether these embryos were killed 60 years ago or yesterday for stem cells, a child died to supply the material for these cell lines. They were not asked to contribute to science.

That’s not why the child died. The child was aborted by its mother, and in a separate decision, the tissue was donated to science instead of disposed of. The scientists never said, let’s find us a baby to kill so we can make vaccines.

2 Likes

Didn’t they? Maybe not vaccines specifically, but whatever they felt like ‘researching’. What if there weren’t frozen embryos handy, do you think that would have stopped them?

How else do you think Planned Parenthood makes money by selling baby parts today?

The preliminary hearing for undercover journalist David Daleiden began Tuesday in California with Planned Parenthood admitting that it harvested aborted babies’ body parts and supplied them to human tissue procurement companies, according to the Center for Medical Progress.

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/09/04/planned-parenthood-admits-in-court-that-it-sold-body-parts-from-aborted-babies/

After reading these contributions and the article, and letting it all sink in, my central take away is that the issue is analogous to the organ donor who was murdered that someone so aptly gave as an example. The donor suffered a terrible evil, but as a recipient of the donated organs, one is honoring the donor, not celebrating the evil. With the vaccines, receiving the vaccine should be seen as a way of honoring the life lost, and while it gives personal benefit, also is an act of service so as not to infect others and gives honor in that way also.

5 Likes

Why are you conflating embryonic stem cell research and fetal cell lines for vaccines? Could it be you aren’t familiar with any of the details of the discussion at hand, but once again, you feel entitled to tell us all how it is? You are not shedding any light on the topic because it’s pretty clear you aren’t all that familiar with the topic.

3 Likes

No, they didn’t. No scientist was involved in the mother’s decision to abort the fetus. If scientists didn’t take cells from the aborted fetus they would have been destroyed and the abortion would have happened anyway.

I think this is similar to organ donation. There are people who receive life saving transplants from victims of drunk driving or suicide. Should we throw away viable and life saving organs because of how the person died?

I fully agree that these are tough moral questions, but we should also be honest about the roles of each person in this process. Scientists are not asking women to have abortions so they can get cells.

5 Likes

There are three people involved in the abortion, and none are scientists.

There is the mother, the baby and the killer. In many states, that killer isn’t even a doctor. And they harvest these babies to sell to the scientists. I bet in most cases the mothers are not informed that their dead babies are being sold.

Remember the old Frankenstein movies or book? The Island of Dr. Moreau? Science must be bound by ethics or it can be monstrous.

Yes. Unless the fetus can agree to organ donation, their bodies should be buried as if they had some human value. The ends cannot justify the means. Try raising the age a little and ask what if children who disappear every year are being used to harvest their organs?

1 Like

Perhaps a valid point, but at what point does a guardian have the right to give permission to donate a child’s organs? Does that mean you should have no organ donors under age 18 or perhaps 21?

1 Like

They perform abortions at the request of the mother.

If scientists don’t receive tissue from those abortions, what happens to it? The tissue is destroyed. What happens if scientists do receive tissue from these abortions? Lives could be potentially saved.

I would fully agree that the mother does need to consent. However, I don’t see how it is immoral for something good to come out of something that is quite sad. No mother is incentivized to get an abortion because scientists are collecting tissue. None.

So if someone dies in an auto accident caused by a drunk driver we should not use their organs to save someone’s life? Do you consider that to be immoral?

2 Likes

When the person is killing a healthy child, never.

The point is, a child from the age of conception until adulthood cannot give consent.

But, unlike a child in the womb, there are laws against killing a child from birth to adulthood, and there are laws dealing with how their bodies and organs can be treated after death. There are few, if any, such protections for pre-born children.

There is no child for cells derived from its corpse to belong to.

1 Like