I share these things not to alarm or foster fear. I want to be very careful not to play the part of Chicken Little. But we need to be aware of the attacks on the family bubbling up around us. I know everyone has a "cause" and there is so much to be gained through the marketing of fear, but if, like me, you have a growing uneasiness about the state of the family in American, you may find these items worth some time to consider.
Pharmaceutical companies manufacture vaccines using fetal cell lines from aborted babies.
I didn't know this, maybe you did. But I can't in all consciousness go on with these vaccines now that I know. Right now the most common ones are Hep-A, chicken pox, Rubella, and some versions of the polio vaccine. In most situations alternatives are available, but the consumer is not informed. There is money to be made here and a market for aborted babies, maybe not for the babies themselves but in collection fees, etc. Not to mention the fact that these vaccines contain residual DNA from the aborted baby used to manufacture the vaccine. I'm going to do some more reading and inquire about alternatives for the remaining vaccines we have left.
I won't leave you with a bunch of links on this one, but there is a women, Debi Vinnedge, that has legislation she is wanting to introduce into congress. This legislation simply asks that the consumer be given informed consent regarding the origin of aborted baby vaccines. That is all, just informed consent so that the consumer is aware the vaccine s/he is about to receive was manufactured from a fetal cell line. That is all. No guilt, no manipulation, just information. You can read more about it here.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
Have you heard of this? Do you know what it means if we ratify an international treaty (Supremacy Clause)? I'm not a legal expert by any means, maybe I need more information on the subject, but even a hint of this concerns me.
This in not a homeschooling issue: this is a parenting issue, this is a family issue. Do some reading and see what you think. There is a lot of information at parentalrights.org, particularly here and here.
4 comments:
What are your exact problems with the UNCRC? And/or what don't you get?
I understood the cell lines were taken from 1964, before there were real alternatives for obtaining living cells. Those are the "cell lines", or the offspring of that single source of cells for the vaccine. Companies are not going out there and obtaining aborted baby parts to make vaccines in mass production. They used 2 or 3 fetuses over thirty years ago. Those fetuses that would have been incinerated anyway, have saved how many people since then?
Ugh, I hate it when media sources try to cause mass panic to push their own agenda.
Here's a link to the NNii. Other supporting links can be found when searched...
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/immunization_issues_detail.cfv?id=32
Here's a snippet. There is more detail concerning the use of the aborted fetuses and how they were obtained in the link.
"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. "
I am certainly glad to hear that vaccine production does not require cell cultures from on-going abortions. Thank you for posting that.
However, the question in my mind is still moral complicity. The destruction of nascent human life is immoral, even if it benefits others. Does it matter to me if the abortion was over 40 years ago or yesterday?—that’s a question I have to answer for myself. While making vaccines that require the continued destruction of human life is morally unacceptable, I would prefer using technology and vaccines that are developed without any intentional destruction of human life. Where there is an alternative, I will seek it out. The problem then also becomes the multitude of drugs and research tested on embryonic stem cells. IMHO, technology and research must not involve the abuse or destruction of human life.
I also have questions regarding the human tissue in the vaccines. The problem is like the animal tissues used, we don't know the effect they have on human DNA. Has there been any independent, long-term research? Are our children being experimented on when it comes to vaccine safety? I’m not one to run out and not vaccinate my children, but I feel these are questions that I need to answer for myself.
I'm not sure that I said I didn't "get" something... only pointed out the obvious that I'm not a legal expert.
Briefly, this is what concerns me:
You can read more about it here: http://www.parentalrights.org/learn/the-attack-on-parental-rights/international-law. All of these excerpts below are from parental rights.org.
“If this treaty is made binding upon our country, the government would have the power to intervene in any child's life to advance its definition of "the best interests of the child." The scenarios that could occur—and are occurring—as a result of this dangerous notion are both manifold and frightening.
Under the UNCRC, instead of following due process, government agencies would have the power to override your parental choices at their whim because they determine what is in "the best interest of the child."
In essence, the UNCRC applies the legal status of abusive parents to all parents. This means that the burden of proof falls on the parent to prove to the State that they are good parents—when it should fall upon the State to prove that their investigation is not without cause.”
The UNCRC is a departure from American Law: “But the Convention's emphasis on the ‘best interests’ principle is a sharp break from American law. In the 1993 case of Reno v. Flores, the U.S. Supreme Court held that ‘the 'best interests of the child' is not the legal standard that governs parents' or guardians' exercise of their custody.’
In the 2000 case of Troxel v. Granville, “the U.S. Supreme Court thoroughly rejected the notion that government officers were more qualified than parents in determining the needs of their children. As Justice Souter noted in Troxel, the choices of parents cannot be overridden ‘merely because the judge might think himself more enlightened than the child's parent.’
Post a Comment