Home - List All Discussions

Before getting a vaccine, you should know what's in it.

You would be very surprised. Read this.

by: AshMarie88

http://www.advancedhealthplan.com/bhvaccineingredients.html
You have a right to know what is in the shot.
And what's surprising is, the people that give these shots don't inform people of what's in them BEFORE they give them the shot.

reply from: xLoki

"You would be very surprised. Read this."
I don't get it. What's surprising?

reply from: pookiy1980

What is surprising about it? We have discussed this before right? Remember people being a hypocrit about using aborted fetal tissue and research?? Then turning around and using the "products" of the research.
Again what is surprising?

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you two arguing people have no right to know what they put in these vaccines?
They put more than dead babies in them, as well!

reply from: pookiy1980

No I think we should be educated on what is being administered. You are right when you go to the MD they do not tell you your injection contains formaldehide....
( I can not get the other forum we talked about this in to load...)
They are not putting dead babies in vaccines they contain Human diploid cells.
"Human diploid cells are batches of human cells that are grown in a laboratory. Unlike cancer cells, they have the same number of chromosomes as normal human cells."
So yes the origional cells were dirived from an aborted fetus.
"Two different strains of human diploid cell cultures made from fetuses have been used extensively for vaccine production for decades. One was developed in the United States in 1961 (called WI-38) and the other in the United Kingdom in 1966 (called MRC-5). "
"These two cell strains have been growing under laboratory conditions for more than 35 years. The cells are merely the biological system in which the viruses are grown. These cell strains do not and cannot form a complete organism and do not constitute a potential human being. The cells reproduce themselves, so there is no need to abort additional fetuses to sustain the culture supply. Viruses are collected from the diploid cell cultures and then processed further to produce the vaccine itself."
I guess they look at the benefit to risk ratio. The number of people who have died d/t taking the vaccine ~vs~ the number who die from the disease it (vaccine) is trying to prevent.
Rubella for instance is very bad for preg. woman and back in the day many babies were very sick from the disease if not dying. So they created the vaccine (yes with aborted fetal tissue) to prevent these illness. Can you imagine how many people would be sick? blind? MR? heart disease?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's probably what they do. It's just a statistical calculation, no doubt.
Like you say, they're already dead, so why not get some good out of their bodies, right? I've read, for example, that some cosmetic companies use the "products of abortion" both as test material and as actual ingredients in their cosmetics..... but what the hey... they're already dead, right? And there was that one abortionist in Kansas who had fetus soup.... but what they hey... they're already dead, right?

reply from: AshMarie88

So, they're the stolen cells from dead babies. Same thing. Dead baby parts are in the vaccines.

reply from: Carifairy

Ashley- Being that I am knowledgeable in the medical field, I also should add a few things about vaccines.
NOT all vaccines use diploid cells. Have you ever been asked if you were allergic to 'eggs' before you had a vaccine?
They also use chicken eggs to make vaccines, so they would not use human diploid cells in this instance.
Today's flu vaccines are prepared in fertilized chicken eggs, a method developed more than 50 years ago. The eggshell is cracked, and the influenza virus is injected into the fluid surrounding the embryo. The egg is resealed, the embryo becomes infected, and the resulting virus is then harvested, purified and used to produce the vaccine. (From ScientificAmerica.com)
Using 'Cells', whether from Monkeys, Dog's, or human diploid cells, creates a faster vaccine process, which is why it is used...
Here is another Excerpt from Scientificamerica.com
Aventis, for example, currently produces polio vaccines in the same monkey kidney cells that Baxter is gearing up to use to produce flu injections. And Baxter used the monkey cell line to replenish the U.S. supply of smallpox vaccine.
Animal cells are also used..
Using cell lines creates a more effective vaccine, and it is much easier to produce very quickly, which would be needed in times of epidemic.

reply from: pookiy1980

So, they're the stolen cells from dead babies. Same thing. Dead baby parts are in the vaccines.
Well like I said before do not use the vaccines then you your kids (future kids)...
You may want to research the human dipliod cells not from religious sites or Pl sites just medical sites, JAMA, NEJM, NIH......

reply from: pookiy1980

Yeah, that's probably what they do. It's just a statistical calculation, no doubt.
Benefit of someone getting a vaccine and being protected vs the illness/disease (possible) death of not being protected. ( I was talking more about the other ingredients here )
See this is where I disagree. One does not have to have cosmetics in order to prevent disease and illness. this is why I feel using fetal tissue for anything other then halping mankind is wrong. We NEED vaccines, CA treatments, AIDS, Parkensons, exc. Sorry I can live without my lipstick

reply from: yoda

But wait...... if it's moral to use baby parts for research, why isn't it moral to use baby parts for anything else?
Why does the "need" change the morality of the act of using baby parts from a baby that's already dead? Didn't you say that the reason it's moral is because the baby is already dead?
What's the difference in the dead baby whose parts are used for research, and the dead baby whose parts are used for cosmetics?

reply from: faithman

But wait...... if it's moral to use baby parts for research, why isn't it moral to use baby parts for anything else?
Why does the "need" change the morality of the act of using baby parts from a baby that's already dead? Didn't you say that the reason it's moral is because the baby is already dead?
What's the difference in the dead baby whose parts are used for research, and the dead baby whose parts are used for cosmetics?
Because when a lying scum bag pro death skank looks in the mirror, they don't want to be reminded how evil they are, with the blood of womb children on their lips.

reply from: yoda

Well, yeah, that's one reason........

reply from: pookiy1980

But wait...... if it's moral to use baby parts for research, why isn't it moral to use baby parts for anything else?
Why does the "need" change the morality of the act of using baby parts from a baby that's already dead? Didn't you say that the reason it's moral is because the baby is already dead?
What's the difference in the dead baby whose parts are used for research, and the dead baby whose parts are used for cosmetics?
Because research inturn saves lifes, cosmetics does not. Simple as that. I do not like the use of animals for "cosmetic reasons" yet I can agree with (will not participate in) the research using animals (dead and living). I do not know how else to explain it.

reply from: pookiy1980

Yeah, so do the parents who vaccinated their kids look at themselves as "lying pro death skanks"?? When she looks in the mirror are they reminded of how evil they are?? with the "blood of womb children" in their kids immune systems???
Shame shame on vaccinating your kids (sarcasm) you may be preventing them from morbid illnesses.....

reply from: AshMarie88

Dead babies do not save lives!

reply from: pookiy1980

Dead babies do not save lives!
My goodness I know you are not that naive do a bit of research on the topic!! When women contracted rubella during pregnancy it caused miscarriage or serious medical problems for the child.....so yeah vaccinating with fetal tissue does save lives.....yes a few babies who were aborted (not related to research) died in the process of saving thousands of others.
I am not trying to convince you of if that was "right" or not, but trying to help you to understand these tissues do save lives....

reply from: yoda

You need to find a better way.
The baby is NOT killed for the research, the baby is already dead BEFORE the research takes place, so their is no connection between the death of the baby and the research. There is only dead baby flesh.
So, if there is nothing "sacred" about dead baby flesh, then why oppose it's use for cosmetic purposes?

reply from: yoda

I know I wouldn't want to know I'd allowed my kids to be injected with such a medication.

reply from: pookiy1980

You need to find a better way.
The baby is NOT killed for the research, the baby is already dead BEFORE the research takes place, so their is no connection between the death of the baby and the research. There is only dead baby flesh.
So, if there is nothing "sacred" about dead baby flesh, then why oppose it's use for cosmetic purposes?
I guess for the same reason I would allow my body to be used for research that could save others -vs- not donating my body to a makeup company.
So what about all the woman(and babies) who would be dying if there was not a vaccine for rubella.
So why is it the PL are focusing on the elective abortions and not the "illness" induced miscarrages? What I mean by this is the diseases that cause the unborn womb child to die. I am not by any means saying not to care for the abortion babies as they can not speak for themselvs but we also had(could have if not for vaccine) thousands dying and being born perminatly ill due to diseases. Who is going to speak for those kids??

reply from: AshMarie88

So far, no people have been saved from aborted children's parts. I wonder why.

reply from: AshMarie88

I also refuse to get any kind of shot right now because of the stuff that's put in them.
I'd rather have the flu than have dead baby parts inside of me.

reply from: MoonLady

"So far, no people have been saved from aborted children's parts. I wonder why."
No people have been saved from aborted children's parts because the "baby parts" mentioned here are not parts of babies, they are embryonic stem cells from existing stem cell lines. Those lines came from IVF procedures in which the embryos were artificially made in a petri dish. The embryos would have been DISCARDED (meaning never used for implantation) so they were donated for this particular use.
Wouldn't you rather see laboratory-created embryos used for lifesaving research than to have them be thrown out as medical waste? They do reach a certain age when they are no longer usable for implantation, so why not make use of the life that has already been created?
Stem cell research has already made amazing breakthroughs and is being used to find cures and treatments for many horrible diseases. If you have a problem with this, don't use the vaccines on yourself or your kids. Then, when smallpox or whooping cough hits your family, you can go through the agony of watching your children suffer needlessly.

reply from: AshMarie88

Wrong. Embryos have cured 0 diseases. I'll get the link for you later.

reply from: AshMarie88

EDIT: Nevermind, I can't edit this correctly. ^_^

reply from: yoda

That's YOUR body, and YOUR choice...... you have no right to impose your choice on dead babies you don't even know.
I don't know anything about that particular vaccine, how many would you say have been saved due to the use of aborted baby parts that would've died of rubella? How many have died from abortion? (answer: 47 million in this country since '73) Anything we do to "legitimize" the slaughter and prolong the practice of killing unborn babies HAS contributed to the deaths of those 47 million.
I don't follow you. Are you claiming a large number of fetal deaths due to preventable diseases in their mothers, or what?

reply from: pookiy1980

So far, no people have been saved from aborted children's parts. I wonder why.
How do you come to that conclusion?? Are you implying that a fetus is not a person?? Cause the research shows that "people" (unborn babies) were being miscarried and born with defects.....1964=20,000 and btwn 1995-2000 1 per year.....yeah looks to me some "people" what I call babies are being saved.....Now let me in, tell me how people are are not being saved....
"....the greatest danger from rubella is not to children or adults, but to unborn babies. If a woman gets rubella in the early months of her pregnancy, her chance of giving birth to a deformed baby may be as high as 80%. These babies may be born deaf or blind. They may have damaged hearts or unusually small brains. Many are mentally retarded. Miscarriages are also common among women who get rubella while they are pregnant. The last big rubella epidemic was in 1964. As a result of that epidemic about 20,000 babies were born with severe birth defects."
" The 1964 epidemic resulted in an estimated 12.5 million
cases of rubella infection and 20,000 infants born with congenital rubella syndrome (CRS)."
CRS="Common manifestations of congenital rubella include: deafness, which is the most common of the defects; eye problems including cataracts, and glaucoma; congenital heart disease; mental retardation; and many other defects. Some manifestations of CRS may not be apparent for up to 2-4 years after birth."
"Following vaccine licensure in 1969, rubella incidence declined rapidly. Each year from 1992 through 2000, fewer than 500 cases were reported; each year since 2001, fewer than 100 cases have been reported -- this is a 99 percent decline compared with the pre-vaccine era."
"From 1995-2000, an average of 5 cases of CRS were reported annually;since 2001, an average of one CRS case had been reported annually"
http://www.deafblind.com/measles.html

reply from: AshMarie88

First off, I can't trust a site like that. Unless it's a medical site of some sort, no thanks.
Second of all, what does that disease have to do with killing for research?

reply from: pookiy1980

I don't know anything about that particular vaccine, how many would you say have been saved due to the use of aborted baby parts that would've died of rubella? How many have died from abortion? (answer: 47 million in this country since '73) Anything we do to "legitimize" the slaughter and prolong the practice of killing unborn babies HAS contributed to the deaths of those 47 million.
See my post to Ash. regarding rubella stats.
Let us speak about vaccines alone not on going research. There were how many aborted fetuses used to created the rubella vaccine? 3 (WI-38, MRC-5 and WI-38).
The rubella vaccine has already been created what does it have to do with the babies being aborted to date?
I don't follow you. Are you claiming a large number of fetal deaths due to preventable diseases in their mothers, or what?
Not just fetal deaths but illnesses too. They are preventable because of the rubella vaccine (*only speaking of this sickness).
I guess it is easy enough to be like Ash and say "I would rather get the flue then..."
Babies routinely get the MMR vaccine so more then likely Ash is protected which then makes her children be protected against CRS no worries...but would you also (Ash) vaccine your baby(daughter) from rubella inturn also protecting her future daughter and so on?

reply from: pookiy1980

So now we are talking about embroyos from IVF clinics?? How can we give them funerals?? I thought when you do IVF you sign a paper as to where the "remainers" go. You have a choice for research or discarded...(down the drain??) yep that is humane. You think that all couple who go to a clinic want to have 10 funerals or something? I mean there could be a lot f left overs man I thought IVF was pricey enough then add a funeral???
I mean I am not against it but I think when reality hits that will not happen. Sincethe couple has say in what happends to the remainders don;t you thnk if they wanted a funeral they would??
that is where serrogate consent comes in place and the mother is the surrogate.
yes if the serrogate signs then there is no need to steal parts they will have permission. If a mother does not agree to using the fetus/embroyo for research there is no serrogate there for other ways of disposal will hapen just like the dead people you are talking about.
I agree and ya know there is not any reason a person can not be used for reasearch and be given a proper funeral. But think of this..a woman goes in to have an abortion cause she does not want kids....she agree to donate the fetus....why would she turn around and want to pay for a funeral?? I mean she did not want the baby in the first place....who would pay for these funerals??
Wrong. Embryos have cured 0 diseases. I'll get the link for you later.
I can not say "cured diseases" but fetal cells have created a unborn baby saving vaccine does that count?? They have also provided much data on certain diseases/illnesses....I think the proper thing is they have potential of curing diseases/illness

reply from: pookiy1980

You said "So far, no people have been saved from aborted children's parts. I wonder why."
I am showing you where yes they are....
You do not trust my site, ok I will provide much more....and where is your info to support your comment?
http://www.emedicine.com/PED/topic2025.htm
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v43nS3/39410/39410.html
http://www.nud.dk/AC830B16-FBDB-4E7C-B9BB-18E493CD94F4

reply from: AshMarie88

http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/treatments.htm one link...

reply from: yoda

That's a good question. Why is that even a part of this discussion?
Another poster spoke of some vaccines being made using egg yokes, rather than human tissue. I could see using that type of vaccine, but not one made from human tissue, unless it was tissue from someone who donated their body to science.

reply from: yoda

Same way you give someone a funeral who has been cremated?

reply from: pookiy1980

That's a good question. Why is that even a part of this discussion?
BECAUSE Ash said that "no people have been saved from aborted children's parts."
Wrong look at rubella vaccine. The only thing I can figure is Ash does not think the unborn are not "people", if that is the case I apologize to all.
Correct some are, not all are used with fetal cells. I think they did have one for rubella but it was not as effective as the current used to date with the fetal cells. I would assume there is still ongiong research on the rubella vaccine and others wich use fetal cells where they can get the same result by using animal fetus and what not.

reply from: Carifairy

Ashley- The INfluenza vaccine is cxreated using CHICKEN embryos, not human diploid cells...
Just an FYI, as it was in an earlier post I created.
Polio killed many americans YEARS ago, and thanks to the vaccine, most people will never know the torture of poliomelitus.

reply from: pookiy1980

Same way you give someone a funeral who has been cremated?
and who is paying for this?
and for those from the abortion clinics who is going to pay for these funerals? I mean the mom did not want the baby to begin with right? you think she is going to dish out more $$ for a funeral?

reply from: yoda

Didn't we have that vaccine before 1973?

reply from: pookiy1980

thank you.
Dang and mumps too....152,209 cases reported in 1968 compared to 840 in 1995...
Mumps=common childhood diesease, caused by mumps virus that may be associated with serious complacations and/or death.
Again we are not discussing the moral issues here....I just wonder if anyone can aknowledge that yes the results of fetal tissues have produced results that inturn save lifes......???

reply from: pookiy1980

Didn't we have that vaccine before 1973?
1969 is when it was licensed
I guess I am not following you...

reply from: pookiy1980

Ash this is a biased site!! I at least posted different sites....
As per the american diabetes association: "Currently, severe restrictions on federal funding of this research have created an environment where states have taken the lead in setting new policies and establishing funding mechanisms for stem cell research. "
Money is not being provided so no there probably is not many results...
Per the Juvenile diabetes research foundation:
"Stem cells are "blank" cells with the ability to grow into any other type of cell - such as insulin-producing islets. These islets could then be transplanted into someone with juvenile (type 1) diabetes and potentially cure the disease."
So you do not think that the vaccines are important? I know I have not said that there have been cures to disease and no a vaccine is not a cure, but you said no people are being saved from aborted baby parts....and yes lives are being saved.
I think there is potential to cure disease by using stem cells.

Here is a couple studies where new treatments are being used with aborted fetal tissues...no not cures but advancements well worth noting
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00345917?order=1
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00346060?order=2

reply from: yoda

So if we already had the vaccine before 1973, how did they make it then?

reply from: pookiy1980

I do not understand your question...?

reply from: yoda

Well, let me put it another way..... I seem to recall that we had a German Measles vaccine back in the 40's and 50's..... what did those vaccines have to do with aborted baby parts?

reply from: AshMarie88

I give up, it's impossible for you to understand this.

reply from: pookiy1980

I know there was an "inactivated-measles-virus vaccine in the early 1960s, but was discontinued due to the development of atypical measles which required hospitalization.
That vaccine did not have anything to do with aborted babies.

reply from: pookiy1980

No please explain to me how before a vaccine was given there were thousands of miscarrages and defects and then when the vaccine is administered the number rapidly decreases. I really want to know what I am missing. I understand your stand on using fetus for reasearch and that is not what I am debating you told me that no dead baby parts saved a person...yes they saved babies from miscarrage does that not count???

reply from: AshMarie88

So you admit that embryonic stem cell research takes the parts of dead babies and uses them for research?

reply from: yoda

I'm almost certain that we had a German Measles (rubella) vaccine back in the 50's..... and of course it had nothing to do with aborted babies either.
I still say, if there's nothing "sacrosanct" about the body of an aborted baby, then there's no reason to object to it's use in cosmetics.
It's the same flesh, whether you're using it for scientific research or for cosmetics.

reply from: faithman

AAAAAWWW HHHAAAA!!! You finally had that moment when you realize there is nothing reasonable about a pro-death skank. Their heart is sold out evil, and their conscience is numb beyond reason by trying to justify that which has no justification. They need to be defeated, not reasoned with.

reply from: pookiy1980

Yes, cells are part of a dead baby and yes the cells are being used for research. I have never denied this. The only thing we have to remember is the human diploid cells (used in vaccines) have no potential of becoming human beings even if they were not used in the vaccines, where as the embroyos (if implanted) do have potential life.
Now, do you agree that "dead baby parts have saved people"?

reply from: pookiy1980

do you agree that "dead baby parts" have saved people?
do you care about the babies that were dying and being born with serious medical problems that were preventable???
Hey you said someone has to speak for the unborn correct??
3 simple questions fboy can you answer them???

reply from: AshMarie88

Yes, cells are part of a dead baby and yes the cells are being used for research. I have never denied this. The only thing we have to remember is the human diploid cells (used in vaccines) have no potential of becoming human beings even if they were not used in the vaccines, where as the embroyos (if implanted) do have potential life.
Now, do you agree that "dead baby parts have saved people"?
No.

reply from: pookiy1980

Yes, cells are part of a dead baby and yes the cells are being used for research. I have never denied this. The only thing we have to remember is the human diploid cells (used in vaccines) have no potential of becoming human beings even if they were not used in the vaccines, where as the embroyos (if implanted) do have potential life.
Now, do you agree that "dead baby parts have saved people"?
No.
"NO" cause you don't want to believe it?? Please I soooo don't understand where you are coming from.
How can you explain the number of miscarriages and serious medical problems suddenly decline when the rubella vaccine is administered?? Is it magic? Seriously this has nothing to do with abortion or the use of aborted fetus in research, the facts are there how do you not see them???or how are you interpreting them??

reply from: yoda

You yourself said "The only thing we have to remember is the human diploid cells (used in vaccines) have no potential of becoming human beings even if they were not used in the vaccines, where as the embroyos (if implanted) do have potential life. "
Therefore what is being used, according to YOU, is NOT "dead baby parts".

reply from: pookiy1980

You yourself said "The only thing we have to remember is the human diploid cells (used in vaccines) have no potential of becoming human beings even if they were not used in the vaccines, where as the embroyos (if implanted) do have potential life. "
Therefore what is being used, according to YOU, is NOT "dead baby parts".
They are the cells from dead babies;
Originally posted by: AshMarie88
So you admit that embryonic stem cell research takes the parts of dead babies and uses them for research?
Yes, cells are part of a dead baby and yes the cells are being used for research. I have never denied this. The only thing we have to remember is the human diploid cells (used in vaccines) have no potential of becoming human beings even if they were not used in the vaccines, where as the embroyos (if implanted) do have potential life.
And yes the cells inturn have no potential of becoming human beings.
So do you all think human diploid cells are "dead baby parts"?

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm sure if someone murdered me and took all my cells and tissues, those cells and tissues wouldn't turn into human beings either.
Give me a break!
Babies are still killed, and their cells are stolen from them!

reply from: pookiy1980

can you please explain why you answered "no" to "do you agree that "dead baby parts have saved people"?
This is direct reference to the aborted fetus and rubella.

reply from: pookiy1980

No, but some people do argue this about using stem cells they say that they have potential of becoming humans, where as the human diploid cells (cells from a dead baby) are not potential humans yet their cells reproduce and are used for research and vaccine production.

reply from: yoda

What is the source of these cells?

reply from: pookiy1980

What is the source of these cells?
I answered this 4 lines above.
"cells are part of a dead baby " I am not the one arguing this do you yoda and ash agree the HDC are from a dead baby? AKA dead baby parts?

reply from: yoda

"HDC"? I can't remember that particular acronym being used today, but it's immaterial as far as I'm concerned. No matter how many "advances" result from the use of dead baby body parts, I will not knowingly use them.
You know, lots of people's lives could be saved by killing the outcasts of society and transplanting their organs, but at what price to society? Suppose we took prisoners off death row and killed them whenever someone needed a new heart or liver, would that be "justifiable"? Absolutely not! There must be limits to what a society approves of, even for such a noble purpose as "saving lives".

reply from: nwicoco

It would be great if they would be able to eradicate certain diseases without such "contrivrsial" ingrediants. But until then those items must be used to save MILLIONS of lives.

reply from: yoda

No, they don't have to be used........ people do have the right to refuse such medications. Abortion has taken 47 million lives, do you consider that a "fair exchange" for the "millions of lives" these medications might save?

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you in favor of killing born people for research?
No?
....
Then why are you in favor of killing unborn people for research?

reply from: AshMarie88

We can find cures for diseases without killing anyone.
It's been done, it will always be done.
Babies don't have to die for your research.

reply from: pookiy1980

Are you in favor of killing born people for research?
No?
....
Then why are you in favor of killing unborn people for research?
Unborn people are not being killed for research they are going to be killed regardless of the research.

reply from: pookiy1980

HDC human diploid cells.
So do you all agree that human diploid cells are from a dead baby? AKA dead baby parts?

reply from: faithman

Nothing good at all has come from embrionic stem cells. But many benafisial treatment have come from adult stem cells. Not only is it a horrible crime against preborn life, but embrionic stem cells are a huge bust, and waiste of time and money, that could be used for things that really work. Take away the politics, and this "research" would disapear.

reply from: AshMarie88

Are you in favor of killing born people for research?
No?
....
Then why are you in favor of killing unborn people for research?
Unborn people are not being killed for research they are going to be killed regardless of the research.
Of course they are being killed for research. They have been killed, they are being killed, they will be killed. Past, present, and future tenses. It happens!

reply from: pookiy1980

Are you in favor of killing born people for research?
No?
....
Then why are you in favor of killing unborn people for research?
Unborn people are not being killed for research they are going to be killed regardless of the research.
Of course they are being killed for research. They have been killed, they are being killed, they will be killed. Past, present, and future tenses. It happens!
(speaking for the fetus not embryonic research) they are not being killed for research, they are being killed cause the mother is aborting them then after the fact they donate their baby to research. Regardless of the research part of this whole thing abortion is goign to happen, just like people die yet they are not being killed for research.
Ash you never answered my question you answered NO to.....I feel like I am getting the run around no explanations kinda like the proaborts do....like when they can not back up an answer or can not explain themselfs....oh well just an observation...

reply from: Carifairy

Where do human diploid cells come from?
here is some info:
Here is a great article.. I will post it from the site, and offer a citation =)
Some vaccines are grown in cell cultures that were originally obtained from two human fetuses. In addition, the rubella virus used to make rubella vaccine was isolated from a third human fetus. This article describes the origins of these vaccines.
Manufacturing Viral Vaccines
It is far more complex to manufacture biological medications (for example, vaccines, antibodies) than it is to produce chemical medications (for example, penicillin or aspirin). In addition, certain vaccines are more complex to make than others. The bacteria that go into bacterial vaccines can be grown in simple laboratory cultures. In contrast, the growth of viruses requires living cells.
Viruses cannot reproduce on their own. They require a living host in which to grow, such as chicken embryos, and cells from animals that are grown in culture. Vaccine manufacturers currently have few options for viral culture, because of valid pharmaceutical reasons and because of human safety concerns. For example, varicella (chickenpox) virus does not grow well in most cells derived from species other than humans. Also, human cells are preferred because cells derived from animal organs sometimes may carry animal viruses that could harm people.
In the future it may be possible to prepare virus vaccines using molecular tools that do not require growing the virus in living cells. For example, today's hepatitis B vaccines are made using molecular tools that do not require animal cells at all. It is not possible to prepare most virus vaccines using these methods now, however.
Human Fetal Diploid Cells
Human diploid cells are batches of human cells that are grown in a laboratory. Unlike cancer cells, they have the same number of chromosomes as normal human cells.
Certain diploid cell strains are valuable in vaccine manufacture because these cells can be used for a very long period of time in the laboratory and are a reliable means by which many viruses that infect humans can be successfully and easily grown. Vaccines prepared in human diploid cells have proven to be very safe over the past several decades.
Two different strains of human diploid cell cultures made from fetuses have been used extensively for vaccine production for decades. One was developed in the United States in 1961 (called WI-38) and the other in the United Kingdom in 1966 (called MRC-5).
WI-38 came from lung cells from a female fetus of 3-months gestation and MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a 14-week-old male fetus. Both fetuses were intentionally aborted, but neither was aborted for the purpose of obtaining diploid cells. (6-8). The fetal tissues that eventually became WI-38 and the MRC-5 cell cultures were removed from fetuses that were dead. The cellular biologists who made the cell cultures did not induce the abortions.
These two cell strains have been growing under laboratory conditions for more than 35 years. The cells are merely the biological system in which the viruses are grown. These cell strains do not and cannot form a complete organism and do not constitute a potential human being. The cells reproduce themselves, so there is no need to abort additional fetuses to sustain the culture supply. Viruses are collected from the diploid cell cultures and then processed further to produce the vaccine itself.
The WI-38 and MRC-5 cell cultures have been used to prepare hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines, preventing millions of cases of rubella, hepatitis A, varicella and rabies. . In the United States, only one of these diseases can be prevented with an FDA-licensed vaccine not grown in human diploid cells. This is the RabAvert brand of rabies vaccine manufactured by Chiron Corporation. (9)
Some of the vaccines that are produced in human diploid cells might now be able to be prepared in alternative types of cell cultures. Some of these cell cultures were not available or were not considered suitable for use in vaccines when the original vaccines were developed. However, there is no guarantee that vaccines grown in these alternative cell lines would be as safe and effective as currently licensed vaccines and development is likely to be extremely costly. Thus, there is little incentive for vaccine manufacturers to develop and test new vaccines when an existing licensed vaccine is known to be both safe and effective.
Summary
Some vaccine components have been derived from human fetuses. The abortions were not conducted for the purpose of vaccine discovery or vaccine production. Additional abortions are not needed for the production of these vaccines. In the case of rubella vaccine, abortions are prevented by the use of the vaccine.
Citations :http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccine_components_detail.cfv?id=32

References
1. Perkins FT (1985). Licensed vaccines. Review of Infectious Diseases 7(Supplement 1):S73-6.
2. Plotkin SA, Farquhar JD, Katz M, Buser F (1968). Attenuation of RA27/3 rubella virus in WI 38 human diploid cells. American Journal of Diseases of Children 118:178-85.
3. Hayflick L, Plotkin S, Stevenson RE (1987). History of the acceptance of human diploid cell strains as substrates for human virus vaccine manufacture. Developmental Biology Standards 68:9-17.
4. CDC. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Impact of vaccines universally recommended for children - United States, 1900-1998. MMWR 1999; 48:243-248.
5. CDC. Summary of notifiable diseases - United States, 2001. MMWR 2003; 50(53): 3.
6. Hayflick L, Moorhead PS (1961). The serial cultivation of human diploid cell strains. Experimental Cell Research 25:585-621.
7. Hayflick L (1965). The limited in vitro lifetime of human diploid cell strains. Experimental Cell Research 37:614-36.
8. Jacobs JP, Jones CM, Baille JP (1970). Characteristics of a human diploid cell designated MRC-5. Nature 227:168-70.
9. Grabenstein JD. Moral Considerations with Certain Viral Vaccines. Christianity & Pharmacy 1999; 2(2):3-6
10. Plotkin SA, Reef S. Rubella Vaccine [Chapter 26]. In: Plotkin SA, Orenstein WA (Eds). Vaccines (4th Edition). Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders Company, 2004.
11. Pontificial Academy of Life. Moral Reflections On Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Aborted Human Foetuses. Vatican City: 2005 (English translation from the Italian). See also the response from the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

reply from: AshMarie88

You completely missed the entire point... ^_^
The mom is aborting them and then the dead child is being "donated" (without own permission) for something called "mad science".
How nice of a mommy to just kill her baby and then willingly donate her dead baby to people who have no respect for the dead (or living, for that matter).
Erg!!

reply from: yoda

"Two different strains of human diploid cell cultures made from fetuses have been used extensively for vaccine production for decades. One was developed in the United States in 1961 (called WI-38) and the other in the United Kingdom in 1966 (called MRC-5).
WI-38 came from lung cells from a female fetus of 3-months gestation and MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a 14-week-old male fetus. Both fetuses were intentionally aborted, but neither was aborted for the purpose of obtaining diploid cells. (6-8). The fetal tissues that eventually became WI-38 and the MRC-5 cell cultures were removed from fetuses that were dead. The cellular biologists who made the cell cultures did not induce the abortions. "
They are all the descendants of the original cells taken from the aborted babies. Thus, they are not technically "dead baby parts", no. Neither the original cells nor the descendant cells were capable of forming a complete human being. However, it is correct to say that they are cells that "came from a dead baby originally".
Whatever you wish to call them, if it is ethical to use them for making vaccine, then it's also ethical to use them for cosmetic research. Their end use does not justify the method of obtaining them.

reply from: Alexandra

We refuse to vaccinate our son any further--another reason is mercury poisoning. We think that our five-year-old son is a late-talker because of that. The pediatrician tried to talk us into it but I had a list of ingredients that I had printed off the CDC web site with the objectionable stuff highlighted!
I have been giving my son food that is supposed to help flush out mercury and he's been improving. Chlorella is great for that. Perfectly safe.
His vocabulary has been coming along from virtually nothing 6 months ago to several dozen words today. Last week, out of the blue, he started counting to ten! He can name ten colors now, and he's learning more and more new words.

reply from: pookiy1980

They are all the descendants of the original cells taken from the aborted babies. Thus, they are not technically "dead baby parts", no. Neither the original cells nor the descendant cells were capable of forming a complete human being. However, it is correct to say that they are cells that "came from a dead baby originally".
Ok so if they are "technically" "dead baby parts" then we should have no reason not to give the injection for this reason correct?
So Ash's post "I'd rather have the flu than have dead baby parts inside of me." would be inaccurate then, I mean if they are not "technically".....
And you say, "it is correct to say they are cells that came from a dead baby" then it would be accurate to say "dead baby's" DO save lives......(rubella??)
I do not agree that is your opinion and if you feel it is the same then fine. I feel using them for vaccines and helping others LIVE is important but cosmetics are not life saving....
I know we are not going to agree in this area but my whole point is not rather or not research is the moral thing to do or anything r/t cosmetic research we can agree to disagree in that area.
The point I am trying to understand is how this past research has not saved lifes.

reply from: yoda

The ENDS do NOT justify the MEANS. IF the means of obtaining the cells is immoral (as I believe it was), then NO end justifies that.
If the means are not immoral, then you should be willing to support their use as cosmetic research material. To say otherwise is to say there is something "immoral" about the MEANS of obtaining those cells. OTHERWISE.......... WHAT objection could you have????
So, either support putting tissue (descended) from dead babies on your face, or oppose using it in vaccines, IF you want to be CONSISTENT.

reply from: pookiy1980

WOW.. I am glad he is coming along and so sad this happened. What did the doctor say when you showed him the print out?? Have you looked into "alternative" vaccines? I was thinking there was a web page about this for people who do not want to use the "standard" vaccines used.

reply from: Alexandra

He didn't have that much to say...he found the standard "anyone can post anything on the Internet" argument pretty groundless there, it being from the CDC and all. I said that I cannot, in good conscience, allow anyone to inject my son with something that can potentially harm him, and my husband told him that he suspected that vaccines were why our son is a late-talker.
Besides, I've read that vaccinations can actually depress the immune system. So I object based on those grounds, and ethical grounds. You can throw in "religious" and "philosophical" for aborted babies being used. Here in Ohio you can object on religious, medical, and philosophical grounds, and our reasons for objecting cover all three.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics