Log In Sign Up

Anti abortion = anti certain vaccinations?


Abortion Debate

This forum is for Abortion debate only. If you are highly sensitive about this topic, read at your own discretion.

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Abortion Debate LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
March 11th, 2008, 10:10 AM
Lilah's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 14,078
I am personally pro-choice but was curious is everyone who was anti-abortion for religious reasons was anti certain vaccines that contain aborted fetal cells (like the MMR vaccine among others) too? I haven't heard the religious community take a stance on this issue and was curious where you all stood.

More info on this:
http://www.justmommies.com/boards/in...owtopic=362290
(link contains other links for verification purposes)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
March 12th, 2008, 06:47 AM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
Still doing some research on this. Found these last night.
This one from the national network for immunization information with the details on fetus use.

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccine_co...etail.cfv?id=32

and this one with a response from the National Catholic Bioethics Center
http://www.ncbcenter.org/vaticanresponseNCBC.asp
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #3  
March 12th, 2008, 07:46 AM
LaLa's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,576
Ooh, I've wondered this many many times. Being a non vaxing mom in general this has always been a burning question in my mind especially when people who are very very religious, anti-abortion (pro life), anti-stem cell research, etc are really hung up on the "importance" of vaccines.

Lala...
__________________




My BBT Chart





DEBT PAY DOWN!!!
Baby Step #1 DONE ($1k in ER savings!)

<a href="http://www.TickerFactory.com/debt/wRzFQue/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">

</a>
Reply With Quote
  #4  
March 12th, 2008, 09:04 AM
MissTorrieIfYou'reNasty's Avatar Co-Host of Heated Debates
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Green-Vegas South Carolina!
Posts: 4,805
I'm Pro-Choice and am not anti-vaccines. So no conflict there. I do wonder how anti-choice people are not up in arms about this though.
__________________

"I love mankind, it's people I can't stand."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
March 12th, 2008, 09:22 AM
Tofu Bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've read the statements from the Vatican and Focus on the Family...both feel that its "okay" because "vaccines saves lives." Personally, I don't see how one can anti-abortion but be comfortable with personally benefitting from abortion; either you're pro-life or you aren't. Besides, look at the vaccines that are made with the fetal cell lines: rubella, chicken pox, hepatitis A... these are not life-threatening diseases, except for maybe the immunocompromised.

BTW: I gravitate somewhere between pro-life and pro-choice and do not vaccinate (but for more reasons than just the fetal tissue)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
March 16th, 2008, 09:51 PM
(.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
I am personally pro-choice but was curious is everyone who was anti-abortion for religious reasons was anti certain vaccines that contain aborted fetal cells (like the MMR vaccine among others) too? I haven't heard the religious community take a stance on this issue and was curious where you all stood.

More info on this:
http://www.justmommies.com/boards/in...owtopic=362290
(link contains other links for verification purposes)[/b]
I'm a stanch pro-choice person.. but I think even with the issue of injecting foreign human DNA into my body, well, I don't think it's ethical. (I don't align myself with any religion, more agnostic.)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
March 17th, 2008, 09:45 PM
ahixon
Guest
Posts: n/a
I had no idea. I am sick over this, and can not wait to call my doctors office. I am pro-life, but it would make no difference on this issue, I would be sick either way. I knew nothing about vaccines until this year, which was to late, had I known sooner I am not sure that we would have been vaccinating at all.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
March 17th, 2008, 10:08 PM
MissTorrieIfYou'reNasty's Avatar Co-Host of Heated Debates
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Green-Vegas South Carolina!
Posts: 4,805
Quote:
I've read the statements from the Vatican and Focus on the Family...both feel that its "okay" because "vaccines saves lives."[/b]
Wait, is somehow, someone figured out that shooting me in the face would save some kid with cancer and then proceeded to do so, that would not be acceptable at all.

The simple fact is that most anti-choice-ers also do not view a 12 week old fetus as a full life, with all the rights and privileges that it entails. THAT'S why many anti-choicers are not up in arms about this. Abortion for most of them (not all) is a thing to oppose when it is convenient.
__________________

"I love mankind, it's people I can't stand."
Reply With Quote
  #9  
March 18th, 2008, 05:33 AM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
From what I read in the one article above, the 2 fetus's (sp), were not aborted for the purpose of making the vaccine. The third fetus was aborted because the mom and baby were infected with Rubella. I'm "guessing" their remains were donated for the purpose of medical research. If thats the case, I don't know as I view that much different than organ donation.
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #10  
March 18th, 2008, 05:53 AM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
Quote:
I've read the statements from the Vatican and Focus on the Family...both feel that its "okay" because "vaccines saves lives." Personally, I don't see how one can anti-abortion but be comfortable with personally benefitting from abortion; either you're pro-life or you aren't. Besides, look at the vaccines that are made with the fetal cell lines: rubella, chicken pox, hepatitis A... these are not life-threatening diseases, except for maybe the immunocompromised.

BTW: I gravitate somewhere between pro-life and pro-choice and do not vaccinate (but for more reasons than just the fetal tissue)[/b]
Rubella is life threatening.
In 1964/65 (in the US) rubella was responsible for 11,250 "fetal deaths" and 2,100 "neonatal deaths"
blindness in 3,580 babies
mental retardation in 1,800
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002493.html
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #11  
March 18th, 2008, 06:48 AM
Tofu Bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
From what I read in the one article above, the 2 fetus's (sp), were not aborted for the purpose of making the vaccine. The third fetus was aborted because the mom and baby were infected with Rubella. I'm "guessing" their remains were donated for the purpose of medical research. If thats the case, I don't know as I view that much different than organ donation.[/b]
It was actually 27 fetuses that were aborted, which is why the strain used in the vaccine is names RA 27/3 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant); 26 of the aborted fetuses were not infected, but the 27th fetus tested was. Also, this was done completely in vain because the Japanese had already isolated a strain from a throat culture taken from a young boy with rubella.

Quote:
Rubella is life threatening.
In 1964/65 (in the US) rubella was responsible for 11,250 "fetal deaths" and 2,100 "neonatal deaths"
blindness in 3,580 babies
mental retardation in 1,800
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002493.html[/b]
Rubella is nothing more than a low-grade fever and a 3 day rash; better to let children (especially girls) contract rubella naturally, so girls will have the antibodies to protect their unborn babies when they reach their childbearing years, and contribute to NATUAL herd immunity by being immune for the rest of their lives. The way we approach preventing CRS is totally backward and in the long run, perpetuates the cycle of lack of immunity in adults. What makes sense is for adults to have their titers checked to see if their immunity has wanned (not at all uncommon) and get boosters themselves if they are no longer immune. Instead, we vaccinate children with a vaccine that frequently wears off right around their childbearing years. Woman gets pregnant, has her prenatal bloodwork done and discovers she is no longer immune to rubella (howany times have me seen this in our DDCs?), which puts her unborn baby in danger. The kicker is that, by the time she discovers this (at around 6-8 weeks), the risk of CRS has already dwindled considerably. It makes NO SENSE to vaccinate children to protect adults when adults can protect themselves. Also, the figures you sited were from one isolated outbreak; before that neither CRS nor rubella were even reportable diseases because they were not considered major health threats.

And FWIW, any virus a woman contracts while pregnant can cause birth defects.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
March 18th, 2008, 10:16 AM
Tammyjh's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North
Posts: 7,824
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
From what I read in the one article above, the 2 fetus's (sp), were not aborted for the purpose of making the vaccine. The third fetus was aborted because the mom and baby were infected with Rubella. I'm "guessing" their remains were donated for the purpose of medical research. If thats the case, I don't know as I view that much different than organ donation.[/b]
It was actually 27 fetuses that were aborted, which is why the strain used in the vaccine is names RA 27/3 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant); 26 of the aborted fetuses were not infected, but the 27th fetus tested was. Also, this was done completely in vain because the Japanese had already isolated a strain from a throat culture taken from a young boy with rubella.

Quote:
Rubella is life threatening.
In 1964/65 (in the US) rubella was responsible for 11,250 "fetal deaths" and 2,100 "neonatal deaths"
blindness in 3,580 babies
mental retardation in 1,800
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002493.html[/b]
Rubella is nothing more than a low-grade fever and a 3 day rash; better to let children (especially girls) contract rubella naturally, so girls will have the antibodies to protect their unborn babies when they reach their childbearing years, and contribute to NATUAL herd immunity by being immune for the rest of their lives. The way we approach preventing CRS is totally backward and in the long run, perpetuates the cycle of lack of immunity in adults. What makes sense is for adults to have their titers checked to see if their immunity has wanned (not at all uncommon) and get boosters themselves if they are no longer immune. Instead, we vaccinate children with a vaccine that frequently wears off right around their childbearing years. Woman gets pregnant, has her prenatal bloodwork done and discovers she is no longer immune to rubella (howany times have me seen this in our DDCs?), which puts her unborn baby in danger. The kicker is that, by the time she discovers this (at around 6-8 weeks), the risk of CRS has already dwindled considerably. It makes NO SENSE to vaccinate children to protect adults when adults can protect themselves. Also, the figures you sited were from one isolated outbreak; before that neither CRS nor rubella were even reportable diseases because they were not considered major health threats.

And FWIW, any virus a woman contracts while pregnant can cause birth defects.
[/b][/quote]
As to the top part, I'll go by your stats until I either have the time or energry to do some reading. I don't know as I believe the fetus's were aborted with the intent to grow vaccines. Wondering if it would make a difference to some if the fetus's were miscarried instead of aborted though. I'm not anti vaccine nor anti abortion so I'm not really qualified to answer the OP anyway I guess

I had Rubella when I was in K and no, I wasn't that sick. I probably wasnt' vax'd(I'm old ) But the fact remains that it did and can cause fetal death so it can be life threatening. And yes, I know other virus's can have the same results on the unborn. Does that mean I think everyone should be required to have their children vax'd? No, but thats a whole other debate entirely
__________________
Tammy, Mom to
Abby (19), Kacie (13), Chase (11), & Jacob (7)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"...They're supposed to make you miserable! That's why they're family!" ~ Bobby ~ Supernatural
Reply With Quote
  #13  
March 18th, 2008, 12:14 PM
Tofu Bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
I doubt that the fetuses were miscarried because the fetuses would need to have been collected and preserved within minutes, in order to harvest the cells to find a live rubella virus.

FWIW, the MMR was licenced in 1971, so you probably were vaxed at some point. My son got the MMR and still caught rubella a year later anyway (when I was a few weeks pregnant).
Reply With Quote
  #14  
March 18th, 2008, 12:40 PM
ahixon
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not that it matters to this debate, but I had the MMR and got the mumps. It was painful and unpleasant but not the end of the world by any means.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
March 18th, 2008, 04:49 PM
Tofu Bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
And before anyone posts that mumps causes sterility; there is ZERO risk of sterility in pre-pubescent boys. After that the risk testicular inflammation is about 20-50%, and about 50% of those who experience testicular inflammation may have sterility in one testicle; sterility in both testicles is virtually unheard of. This has been a public service announcement, brought to you by a woman a with way too much interest in testicles.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
March 18th, 2008, 07:54 PM
(.Y.)mom2dd(.Y.)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
And before anyone posts that mumps causes sterility; there is ZERO risk of sterility in pre-pubescent boys. After that the risk testicular inflammation is about 20-50%, and about 50% of those who experience testicular inflammation may have sterility in one testicle; sterility in both testicles is virtually unheard of. This has been a public service announcement, brought to you by a woman a with way too much interest in testicles.[/b]
Reply With Quote
  #17  
March 19th, 2008, 10:45 AM
mommyKathyX3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hey Cori, Its all that "worshiping" we do over at the "sunny candy store"
Reply With Quote
  #18  
March 19th, 2008, 11:24 AM
Tofu Bacon
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reply With Quote
  #19  
March 19th, 2008, 01:52 PM
irishxrose
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Hey Cori, Its all that "worshiping" we do over at the "sunny candy store" [/b]
Reply With Quote
  #20  
March 19th, 2008, 06:00 PM
AMDG's Avatar Margaret
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Denver metro area
Posts: 2,988
Quote:
Quote:
I've read the statements from the Vatican and Focus on the Family...both feel that its "okay" because "vaccines saves lives."[/b]
Wait, is somehow, someone figured out that shooting me in the face would save some kid with cancer and then proceeded to do so, that would not be acceptable at all.

The simple fact is that most anti-choice-ers also do not view a 12 week old fetus as a full life, with all the rights and privileges that it entails. THAT'S why many anti-choicers are not up in arms about this. Abortion for most of them (not all) is a thing to oppose when it is convenient.
[/b]

Wow! Seems like you are making comments based on complete ignorance. The Catholic Church DOES NOT teach that vaccinations are okay because "vaccines save lives." And I don't know what pro-life people you associate with but I can tell you I don't know of any pro-life person who does not value the life of 6 week fetus just as much as any other life.
It is an issue of formal vs. materal cooperation in evil. Catholics do not believe in the ends justifing the means - EVER!
__________________


"Authentic love is not a vague sentiment or a blind passion. It is an inner attitude that involves the whole human person. It is looking to the other, not to use but to serve. It is rejoicing when the other rejoices and suffers when the other suffers. Love is the gift of self." JPII
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:42 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0