[B from A]

But could they keep the baby alive?  That's the question.  If a child can survive the taking of these cells, then murder/abortion is not a result of cell harvesting, but a separate immoral act.

You did not answer my first question:

.
Pax, have you listened to the explanation by Marcella Piper-Terry, posted many times on these boards?  Or the one by Pam Acker, also posted & recommended here?
.
...
.
Listen to and read the copious information folks have provided here in these threads, please.

If you haven't, please explain why you have not.   If, as you claim, you wish you knew more about this vaccine process, why have you not taken advantage of these resources?  

[Pax Vobis]

I started this thread a few days ago.  I've not yet had time to listen to hours and hours of videos of people talking about vaccines, which may or may not address the questions I have.  If anyone can point to an article, which I can read much quicker than hours of videos, then I'll get to it.  In the meantime, I'll debate and maybe someone who has done all this research can give me a summary.

[Carissima]

I started this thread a few days ago.  I've not yet had time to listen to hours and hours of videos of people talking about vaccines, which may or may not address the questions I have.  If anyone can point to an article, which I can read much quicker than hours of videos, then I'll get to it.  In the meantime, I'll debate and maybe someone who has done all this research can give me a summary.

From the Walvax-2 article I posted a couple of weeks ago:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-chazal-on-sspxcovid19-vaccinations-article/270/

“Human diploid cell vaccines (HDCVs) have been licensed all over the world. Many studies have demonstrated superior immunogenicity and safety of HDCVs relative to those using any other tissue culture, such as hamster kidney cells or vero cell vaccines.9 The WHO recommends HDCS as the safest cell culture substrate for the production of viral vaccines10 and consequently they have become the preferred cell substrate for vaccine production worldwide.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526020/


If you want to know more about how vaccines are made today then read this article. The most disturbing fact here is that babies are born alive and then experimented on to obtain fresh specimens. 
Sadly this is normal to these Science worshipping monsters. 

[Yeti]

We probably shouldn't be placing too much importance on keeping our jobs either.  More than 25% of the work force was unemployed in the great depression and they had much less infrastructure to fall back on.

Just curious, what do you do for a living? Or are you retired?

[Yeti]

[From the article by Fr. Copenhagen]
Although the vast majority if not all of the cells currently used did not physically constitute part of the child’s original body, these cells still belong to the child.

.
This is so bizarre. Cells that were never part of a human body now belong to someone who is dead? How can a dead person own anything? How do you restore property to a dead person?
.

They are a living remnant of the child’s life in this world. If they are not the child’s cells then whose cell’s are they? Is it possible to stretch jargon so far as to say that these are no one’s cells?

.
Huh? I suppose they belong to the lab, but I don't see what this has to do with anything, certainly not with someone who gets an injection against a flu virus.
.

No person donating their tissue for cell culture and knowingly encountering the resultant cells in a lab would identify them as anything other than “my DNA, my cells.”

.
Speak for yourself. I would certainly never say anything so sentimental and bizarre. I would definitely not consider such cells to be my property, or part of my body, which they obviously are not. I would not consider it immoral for anyone to use them for experimental purposes, nor would I care particularly what became of them, since they have no human soul and are not, and never had been, part of my body, and what happens to them has not the slightest effect on me. This entire example is truly weird.
.

The child has been silenced, the parents have forfeited by abortion any right of consent to respectful scientific use of the body, the scientists and patent holders have no right to possess or use the cells: these human remains belong to God, must be respectfully reposed, and it is not for Caesar to say otherwise.

.
Says who? If people want to make claims like this, they need to provide some sort of argument. Otherwise, what is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.

[Incredulous]

Ok, even if the cooperation is formal, it means you are cooperating with stealing cells, not abortion.  If some mad scientist drugged me and stole my kidney, that's not murder.  If he stole my kidney and THEN killed me, then murder is a second sin, on top of stealing my kidney.
.
If the fetal cells have to be taken from a live baby, then how is murder part of this discussion?  Does the taking of cells kill the child?  Or is it survivable?  If it's survivable, then one could argue that the taking of cells is separate from the abortion.  Even if it's done by the same doctor, these are 2 different acts.
.
Example:  A thief goes into a bank and shoots the teller in the foot, so that she'll open the vault and let him take $.  The thief gets the money and before he leaves, he decides to shoot her dead, just for fun.  The thief's buddies that take part in the stolen $ are (arguably) not guilty for the murder because it wasn't essential to the robbery.  His buddies are only guilty for taking part in the theft.

 The murder was the sole decision of the thief.

Please back up a minute and explain to us what is the technical function of fetal cells in a vaccine?

How does the medical industry explain their purpose?

What do they do?

[andy]

But could they keep the baby alive?  That's the question.  If a child can survive the taking of these cells, then murder/abortion is not a result of cell harvesting, but a separate immoral act.

Maybe, but extracting fetal cell from undeveloped person is recipe for a disaster. Hight risk at least. 

[PAT317]

Although the vast majority if not all of the cells currently used did not physically constitute part of the child’s original body, these cells still belong to the child.

This is so bizarre. Cells that were never part of a human body now belong to someone who is dead? 

.
Dr. Joseph Mercola:

The Nonsensical ‘Clone’ Defense

The claim that fetal cells are not used in vaccine development because they are clones of the original is perhaps the most ludicrous justification used by fact checkers.25 That’s like saying your 20-year-old or 40-year-old body is no longer your body because all the cells are mere copies of the cells found in the original fetus that grew inside your mother.

If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still that of the original fetus that was aborted.
Cells grow and multiply naturally. The cells in your adult body are no longer the original individual cells of you as a fetus. They are in essence “clones” of the originals. They’ve been growing and multiplying, dying and being replaced, with each passing moment from the time of your conception when a sperm entered an egg.

There’s virtually no difference between cells growing and multiplying indefinitely in a petri dish and cells growing and multiplying in your body during your lifetime. If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still that of the original fetus that was aborted.

[andy]

The purpose is to debate the GRAVITY of immorality.

This is an excellent point. I still maintain, that those fetal cell lines, are in fact artificially kept alive body pieces of specific individuals. Almost as same as frozen embryos. They are ALIVE. The cooperation with the abortion is very remote if in fact at all present (be definition, cooperate - means to be part of a cause). The cooperation with dishonoring that human body, which happens constantly is probably closer than we think.

[Yeti]

The Nonsensical ‘Clone’ Defense

The claim that fetal cells are not used in vaccine development because they are clones of the original is perhaps the most ludicrous justification used by fact checkers.25 That’s like saying your 20-year-old or 40-year-old body is no longer your body because all the cells are mere copies of the cells found in the original fetus that grew inside your mother.

If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still that of the original fetus that was aborted.
Cells grow and multiply naturally. The cells in your adult body are no longer the original individual cells of you as a fetus. They are in essence “clones” of the originals. They’ve been growing and multiplying, dying and being replaced, with each passing moment from the time of your conception when a sperm entered an egg.

There’s virtually no difference between cells growing and multiplying indefinitely in a petri dish and cells growing and multiplying in your body during your lifetime. If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still that of the original fetus that was aborted.

 .
I think this guy's reality check has bounced. He's a medical doctor??! And he can speak this kind of nonsense? Wow, I'm not letting him cut into me.
.
Um, the difference between cells growing in a petri dish and cells in a living human being is that one is part of a human being and the other is not. One is informed by a human soul and the other is not. Yes, your cells at the age of 40 are different cells from the ones you had when you were born, but they are all part of your body. Cells multiplying in a petri dish are not part of a human body. They have no human soul. They are not a human being. Yes, they are part of the building blocks of a human being, but that does not make them a human being. You don't even need to be a doctor to understand that cells from a human being living in a petri dish are not a human being. All you need is common sense. Bbut this guy thinks there's "virtually no difference" between that and a live human body.
.

If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still that of the original fetus that was aborted.

.
Please tell me this is some sort of weird joke? Cells that have been removed from a human body are no long part of a human body.
.

The cells in your adult body are no longer the original individual cells of you as a fetus. They are in essence “clones” of the originals. They’ve been growing and multiplying, dying and being replaced, with each passing moment from the time of your conception when a sperm entered an egg.

There’s virtually no difference between cells growing and multiplying indefinitely in a petri dish and cells growing and multiplying in your body during your lifetime. If the cells in your body are still you, then the cells in the petri dish are still that of the original fetus that was aborted.

.
Virtually no difference?! So there's virtually no difference between cutting a finger off an arm that has been severed, but which is being kept alive artificially, and cutting off a person's finger? That's what his argument leads to. What a wild ride this one was.

[josefamenendez]

When these fetal tissue vaccines are taken, they cause a great auto-immune response. That is why the incidence of diseases such as Crohn's, IBS , scleroderma, eczema, severe allergies (peanuts), certain types of arthritis, many neurological diseases such as MS, guilliane barre, hypothyroidism ( Hashimoto) probable autism and sterility. Many more of these chronic conditions have skyrocketed in the age of fetal cell injection. Of course linkage to vaccines is denied ,but the direct relationship of it is in our faces.

Why? Because fetal cell transfer in the vaccines is a literal transplant, transferring cells from one human to another, without the benefit of anti-rejection drugs to combat the side effects. In truth the reactions may be significantly less acute than a large organ rejection, with chronic low level auto-immunity that is the cause for a lifetime of illness.  The baby cell DNA is NOT supposed to be in your body and will manifest rejection in some way at some point. 

In truth, it is objectively the baby's cells, not some neutral far distanced occurrence that has shed it's connection to it's rightful owner- the child ( living when harvested; murdered soon after) . Otherwise why would these living cells cause such a rejection/reaction?

[Incredulous]

The “sorcerers” have tricked us into accepting the “mainlining” of dead foreign bodies into our bloodstreams that will naturally be rejected, like an organ transplant.

When you inject dead foreign tissue, recombinant DNA and other toxic substances straight into your bloodstream, you’ve bypassed your body’s natural defenses.  

Vaccine poisoning is a huge medical issue that has been covered-up by the ʝʊdɛօ-masonic media.

They create new diseases, names and treatments from the illnesses erupting from vaccines.  The goy are none the wiser.

SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) is an example of judaic marketing.  It’s much more probable that these infants died from fatal reactions to foreign matter in vaccines.

[PAT317]

I have purchased this book VACCINATION: A Catholic Perspective - Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation and in it Pam refers to two article and one video that discuses the "PRESENT and ONGOING" aspect of it. My work computer does not allow my to get the articles but you should be able to find them here https://cogforlife.org Once there, look for the article by Fr. Wolfe and one from Fr. Copenhagen, also a video by Fr. Ripperger.

.
The unborn babies used for ναccιnє development were alive at tissue extraction
.