Vaccines and Fetal Cells
There are references to medical research and events in this article that may disturb some readers. Some who reviewed this article pre-publication found it unsettling.
To be clear, the intention of this post is not meant to compel readers towards one position on the permissibility of vaccines that have involved the use of fetal cells. This was not written to point fingers. This post engages with both arguments and counter-arguments. Part one of this series was on Christian liberty, and I do recognize that many Christians use vaccines in good conscience. They recognize degrees of separation from some of these issues. If you can use vaccines that are ethically grey in their development, I would hope that Romans 14:22 applies to you, “Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves.”
Part of the embrace of some vaccines by Christians, however, may be due to a lack of awareness. This article is intended to raise questions and provoke deeper thought about a critical issue. This is challenging, but necessary.
The point of writing is to prove that there are Christians that make a good conscience decision not to take certain vaccines over the fetal cell issue, and that their consciences must be respected. Some of them are losing their jobs, and they need your support. In the last week, the media narrative in Canada has shifted towards it being “unchristian” to refuse a vaccine. This needs to be addressed. There are indeed Christians who do not to take vaccines over this issue, and I believe that their ethical concerns are weighty. I personally share many of their concerns, and I am thankful that they raise them. Some of them are traditional Roman Catholics who are admirable in their respect for life. These conscientious dissenters are some of the most valuable and necessary members of a free society.
We also need to be aware that the Christians that take this position are not necessarily COVID deniers. They also may not primarily appeal to conspiracy theories about the vaccines. They do not appeal to the popular slogan: “my body, my choice.” Much the opposite, these Christians confess that they belong to God, body and soul. Some of them may even believe that they are personally taking a greater short-term health risk at this point by not taking a vaccine. They are standing on principle, and willing to take personal risks and losses to do so.
The significant issue that they raise is that the research, development, and production of many vaccines is morally corrupt. They hold that the use of vaccines which utilize fetal cells, whether in development or production, is participation in a culture of death. They are concerned that this encourages, and even endorses, the abortion industry.
A. Death, Corpses, and Burial in the Bible
This conscientious objection does find its roots in the Bible. The Word of God cautions us about trifling with our bodies, or those of others. It also teaches us to have a deep respect for burial, and even for blood. Especially the blood of people, but even the blood of animals. These principles, properly understood, preserved the Creator-creature distinction, and they preserved respect for life. Our culture ignores these principles, or treads on them, at its own peril.
First, consider the basic principle of burial. It is normative in scripture that human bodies are to be returned to the earth. This was from the beginning, see Genesis 3:19: “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” Returning to the dust is a result of the fall, but it is also a “proper” consequence of the fall. It is God’s will that bodies return to the ground. Throughout the Bible, unburied corpses are a sign of “a peak of judgement” under the wrath of God. (2 Kings 9:37, Isaiah 14:19, Jeremiah 19:7, Ezekiel 39:14)
Following the flood, God gave Noah solemn instructions regarding death, capital punishment, and blood. (Genesis 9:4) These instructions, by the way, predate the national and ceremonial laws of Moses. It is also important to note that there were no pagan neighbors at the time of Noah, so the argument that these laws were merely cultural does not hold much water. It might be argued that God was acting preemptively, and steering Noah’s family away from sinful idolatry which would inevitably arise in due time. God certainly has the ability to do that. It would seem, however, that something much deeper was going on. God was steering Noah, and all of us, away from the horrific violence that existed before the flood. He was giving an abiding principle that inculcated respect for life. The application of the symbolism is right in the next verse. Take a minute to read the whole section, and think about what Noah and his sons were learning:
“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
Bring forth abundantly in the earth
And multiply in it.” - Genesis 9:3–7
Even respect for animal blood is tied to respect for human blood. There is no doubt that an ancient believer of the scriptures would treat all blood with respect. A believer would bleed out every animal they killed, and they would be reminded in that act that life is sacred. It is a gift of God. It is not to be trifled with. It demands a reckoning. Hunters, by the way, still bleed out a kill first thing. There are meat-spoilage reasons for that, but those that hunt usually see that as a significant moment. Hunters from all around the world have been doing this for millennia.
Most Christians could eat blood sausage with a clear conscience. There is no intent here to point fingers at them. The point is, the material substance of our flesh and blood has a deep significance in the scriptures. It is more than mere molecules and atoms. How we treat dead bodies says something about our ethos. If those principles are forgotten, we can expect a return to pre-flood ethics. To the time when all flesh was corrupt on the earth. Our routines and practices can either inculcate respect for life, or cause us to drift into destruction.
The law given through Moses reinforced these principles. It taught that neither the womb nor the grave were to be trifled with. If violence led to an abortion, the law called for the “life for life” formula. (Exodus 21:23) Abortion is murder. Anyone who touched a dead body was put outside the camp (Numbers 5:2) and unclean for seven days. (Numbers 19:11-16) Perhaps these laws regarding corpses were merely ceremonial, or even sanitary in purpose, but a historically Reformed approach would suggest that should they still inform our ethics today. (WCF 19.4) Even the New Testament church did not waste time when it came to burial. (Acts 5:6) Life is sacred, the body is holy, and burial is a normative way to observe this.
There are also historical events in the Bible that inform us about these weighty matters. One of the darkest chapters in the Bible is Judges 19 and what follows. The repeated refrain of the last chapters of Judges is that “there was no king in Israel” (17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25) and “…every man did what was right in his own eyes.” (17:6, 21:25) It is clear by the end of Judges that God’s law was forgotten, and pragmatism ruled. They did what worked. Terrible things happen in Judges 19; a woman was raped to death. Her Levite husband took her body, cut it in pieces, and sent it throughout the territory of Israel. As a result, the entire tribe of Benjamin was almost wiped out because of the sins of one village. Everything in this event was extremely repulsive. It was a picture of the amplification of sin that happens when God’s law, and his Lordship, is abandoned.
Now, some might think that cutting up a woman’s body and sending it around Israel was some kind of distasteful-but-necessary act to stir up Israel. It was, however, a horrific response in a chain of increasingly horrific reactions. It was an action that defiled the entire land, making all of Israel unclean. (Numbers 19:11) It was judgement upon judgement, and it provoked genocide in the next chapter. Cutting up her body was an action that was supposed to evoke disgust, both in Israel and in readers. Morbid, macabre dismemberment led to the dismemberment of the nation. God punishes sin with more sin. One way that His wrath is exercised is in the loosing of flesh, the loss of reason, and resulting perversions and violence of all kinds. (Romans 1:28-32) God’s wrath is sometimes revealed through earthquakes, diseases, or hurricanes. It is often more vividly revealed through allowing people to have their own way.
It is notable that in the very early church, in Acts 15, a related command is given after the death and resurrection of Christ. The apostles and elders together agree with the following message, “…it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.” (Acts 15:28–29). Since Noah’s command was pre-Sinai, and Acts is post-resurrection, do we do well to dismiss these principles as merely ceremonial or cultural?
At this point we do have to raise a caution. It is quite easy to prove that there was a cultural aspect to the “things offered to idols” in Acts 15. This instruction was given to the very early church, in a time of tension between Jew and Gentile Christians. In later times, mature and strong urban Christians in gentile cities were given the Christian liberty to eat meat offered to idols. (Romans 14) An idol, after all, is nothing in this world. It does not exist, and meat is simply meat. We will need to be very careful about the the practical application of this passage directly to Christian ethics. Progressive revelation was still happening after the coming of Christ. The contrast of Acts 15 with Romans 14 does teach us something about the transition from ceremonial and cultural laws of Israel, to Christian liberty in different contexts. It would be a serious error to drift towards Judaism. It would also, however, be a serious error to ignore the Biblical ethic of life that continues from Genesis to Revelation.
The reality of Acts 15 is that it was steering Christians towards the “best possible expression” of godly ethics. In a simple way for new converts, there was a hedge against false worship, a continued respect for life, and a warning against adultery. It was practical application of the ten commandments in a nutshell. There is clear evidence before and after Acts 15 that the fundamentally same set of boundaries is still necessary when it comes to life and death issues, and those of sexual immorality. Though the precept regarding blood and strangling is debatable, the principles behind it are not. Christians are to reject idolatry, semblances of false religion, and to inculcate deep respect for life. This means that there will be practices that Christians need to reject, and if they do not, this will have consequences for their testimony in regard to respect for life. If they do not read their context carefully and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they will be perceived as having little respect for life, and each generation will tend to push boundaries further. Be careful not to throw out the babies with the bathwater as you consider passages like Genesis 9 and Acts 15.
In the midst of all of this challenging material, we should not forget the Christian hope that is related to burial. The Apostle Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55, “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” “O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?” In Christ, the burial of the body is not a portent of doom, but an anticipation of better things. This is why burial ought to be a robustly Christian testimony. When we deny burial, and embrace the many modern ways in which bodies are treated, it affects our view of the sufficiency of Christ. Failure to bury may be yet another way that our civilization is railing against Christ, and is grasping at superficial immortality. Burial is not only dignified, it is realistically hopeful. It is Christian.
Finally, the relevance of the book of Revelation cannot be ignored. There are many references to idolatry, blood, death, and bodies in Revelation. The church in Pergamos is warned about a prophetess who is teaching people to eat "...meat offered to idols." (Rev. 2:20) Perhaps it is not a good idea to push other Christians to go against their conscience? The pouring out of blood is clearly a picture of judgement. (Rev. 8:7-8, 11:6, 14:20, 16:3-4) One way that evil forces denigrate God’s two witnesses is that they not only murder them, but will “…not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.” (Rev. 11:9) One of the commodities that Babylon traffics in is the “…bodies and souls of men.” (Rev. 18:13) Revelation is grim in this respect. It teaches us that a normative reading of the Bible, beginning to end, requires seeing blood and corpses as unclean pictures of judgement.
What is the conclusion from the Biblical testimony? The conclusion is that life is precious, and that life extends from the womb to death. How we treat corpses after death is tied to our respect for life. When dead bodies in the Bible are above the ground: they make unclean, they defile a land, and they are a sign of judgement.
B. Death, Corpses, and Burial in our “Civilization”
We are all steeped in the culture that is around us. The education system, entertainment, medical practices, and industries that surround us affect our way of thinking. There is a worldview that is seeping into homes and churches that is anything but Biblical in regards to life and sexuality. There are a number of threads woven through this that can twist our thinking.
First, our culture has a materialistic view of our bodies. If you were educated in the public system, or are well versed in science, this may have affected your view of your very core identity. We are taught that we are mere molecules and atoms, experiencing a complex set of processes. Our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions and electricity. It is in this context that over the past 50 years the church seems to have almost completely abandoned a historic Biblical and Christian theology of the body. Something has changed. Most Christians today think nothing of cremation, and have little concern about fetal cells in a lab. Many shy away from funerals or mourning, and prefer a celebration of life. Rather than seeing the body as a sacred creation of God, and respectful burial as an observance of that, we seem to have become materialists. It is just matter. So why does it matter?
Second, our culture teaches a modern version of gnosticism. Though the body is mere molecules, the mind is much more. In this evil view, the body is a mere vehicle for experience. Experience is king. Expressive individualism rules. I believe that a similar history of cultural shifts in philosophy and psychology which Carl Trueman outlines in relation to the sexual revolution in his book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self have played out in the arena of life and death. We think therefore we are. We are what we think. So what does the body matter? If it makes you feel good, modify it. Reshape your body to match your inner expectations. If you are done with it, destroy it. Invite a few friends, have a party, and just drift away into memories. We have extreme sports, and extreme drugs. Life is cheap. Death is a thrill. What is there to fear and respect? If an unborn child, disabled, or weak person is not having substantial experience, they are not seen as a person at all. Why does anything matter when our bodies are dixie cups or dust in the wind?
Third, this culture is in a state of flux on bodily autonomy. Two years ago, you would have thought that “my body, my choice” was a universal truth. The autonomy of the self was king. Today, however, new boundaries are quickly being scrawled out by a paranoid populace. In many countries, your body is now ruled by the mob. You must do with your body what is best for the community. You must teach about the body in accordance with the standards of the community. If this is going to be our new ethical framework, it is possible that my generation will die when the community decides it is our time to die. It is possible the community will determine who will or will not be allowed to have children. The bodies of aborted children, and now even your own, are considered communal property. You belong, in life and death, to your neighbors.
Fourth, our entertainment culture has been dancing with death. There is nothing new under the sun, plenty of historic cultures have embraced macabre imagery and themes. The modern West, however, has taken this to a new level. Horror movies and video games have been preaching for decades now about the cheap thrills of violence and even cannibalism. Many western movies portray guns or violence as the solution to relational problems, rather than portraying self-defense as a sobering necessity at times. Bookstore shelves are packed with dark covers. Tattoo parlors are filled with evil imagery. Heavy metal and gangster rap music delight in death. Halloween. The effect of all of this is that many people, even many Christians, experience death or related symbolism vicariously countless times, and each time there is a danger that death is cheapened a little bit more. Could it be that all of this exposure becomes a kind of false Christ to some, reassuring that we can take death into our own hands, control it, and make use of it? Death is no longer looked upon with solemnity and reverence. God is no longer seen as the sovereign guide over death. (Psalm 48:14)
These first four points are leading up to the main point relating to vaccines and medical research. The ideas and symbols that our culture has been dancing with have been rubbing off on us in less symbolic ways. Abortion, abuse, school shootings, and euthanasia are obvious fruits to some of us. Consider this: are the macabre pictures of blood and bodies in Judges and Revelation even shocking any more? What relevance would they have if we were just stardust? This research is happening in a context. Behind the closed doors of sterile laboratories and in hospitals, horror is unfolding.
Sadly, the medical research world is the place where we would find the most extreme literal examples of disrespect for life. The undercover video exposé of “Planned Parenthood” in the United States brought some of these sins to light, though the courts worked diligently to put things back in the dark again. Don’t worry, we are told, no one would actually sell baby body parts, even if they said they would on video. Then came the Biden administration, re-opening the market. Not only are dead baby parts actually sold all around the world, they are routinely used by researchers. The U.S. government allows, and is involved in the ongoing harvesting of babies and the use of their bodies for research. In some cases, by the way, researchers are actively pursuing the bodies of babies with certain racial characteristics.
Contemporary “science” gets even stranger, a quick google search on “grafting fetal scalps onto rats” will be sure to ruin your day. Well, some of us. I have no doubt that many have become so desensitized that they are fine with grafting pieces of babies heads onto rats. The University of Pittsburgh has been at that, it seems, for decades. How do we stand against such things consistently? Or do we stand at all?
With regard to vaccines more directly, researchers or producers can buy “cell lines” taken from aborted babies or other sources which have been replicated in labs and are sold around the world. It is fetal cell lines from aborted babies that were used to test the recent mRNA COVID vaccines, or are even being used in the ongoing production of the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine. These cells are even in the ingredients of some childhood vaccines, notably some Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccines. The same cell lines have reportedly been used in the production of some beauty products, and even in the food industry for flavor testing and development. Be careful not to point fingers, we all may be using other products with cloudy histories...
Now, can do you draw a line between microscopic replicated cell lines and grotesque experimentation using the parts of murdered babies? The answer: if you believe the the Bible is the Word of God, you can’t do so very easily. In the Biblical worldview, life is sacred and dead bodies are unclean. Bodies are to be laid to rest. When a baby dies, whether it is preterm or post, whether murdered or stillborn, we ought to lay it to rest. In a grave, where he or she will await the resurrection. This is part of respecting, and observing, the life of that child made in the image of God. When we believe in death, burial, and resurrection, it ought to affect how we view every corpse. When our civilization murders, butchers, distributes, and replicates “fetal cells” we are trafficking in human. Our civilization is covered in blood. We are actually beyond Judges 19, Jeremiah 19, and Revelation 18.
The use of fetal cells is not necessary to produce or test vaccines. There are Christian scientists that are convinced that medical advances could be made without these means. The Charlotte Lozier Institute records that quite a few COVID vaccine candidates around the world have not used fetal cells. It is notable that some of the vaccines in their table were also tested by third party researchers on fetal cells, and that that their research may not have been part of the development of the vaccine itself. Ethical vaccines are a possibility. It is notable that Asian vaccine development is generally more ethical in this respect than “western.”
We have to be honest about these realities. Human sacrifice is happening in our civilization. In an attempt to save from death, our nations have allowed laboratories to become altars. Many of these efforts, when we think about them, can be seen as “pseudo-saviors.” They involve the shedding of blood in attempts to avoid suffering or death. Though not every vaccine is directly related to such practices, many are to one degree or another. Perhaps it would show more respect for life if more Christians would be willing to die on this particular hill?
C. Counterarguments and Arguments.
Christians can, however, argue that by taking many vaccines, they are not participating in abortion, the use of fetal tissue, or the culture of death that is outlined above. They, after all, had nothing to do with the abortions that happened decades ago, which were to source of some of the cells. It is also true that when it comes to the mRNA vaccines, the cells are not used in current production. It seems that there are more degrees of separation with some vaccines than others.
We must give reasonable weight to these arguments. They are substantial enough that we should be careful not to tread upon each other’s consciences. The reality is, if we were to only use products that had no sins committed in their research, development, or production, we could have a very, very small marketplace. I suppose you could hypothetically separate from society, grow your own garden, and become an island to yourself. You would still, however, have to reject the labour of your own hands because surely it would still be tainted by your own sin.
Beyond this, other arguments can be used to rationalize the use of many vaccines. Aspects of God’s law were ceremonial or related to ancient cultural practices, and some of the statues regarding uncleanness are debatable. It could be argued that some laws in scripture were a hedge against ancient paganism or literal uncleanness. Undoubtedly, other substantial arguments can be made.
This is also a challenging area because it also touches on deep human suffering. It is not only vaccine development that is tainted, it is an increasing number of therapies, medications and even everyday products. What about the parent whose dying child needs a cutting edge therapy which is ethically grey? What about the COVID treatments which were developed in similar ways? These are hard questions. We should be careful not to condemn too quickly. You might, however, want to consider being subdued if you have the liberty to use such products. (1 Corinthians 8:10)
There is, however, more to think about. Those that reject all association with the fetal cells can make a few strong counter-points against those that have liberty. The reality is that the Christian liberty arguments in 1 Corinthians 8 are not directly parallel in every respect. The Apostle Paul’s argument stands on a strong foundation that is missing in regard to vaccines even developed with fetal cells. He states that “…we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.” (1 Corinthians 8:4). We can eat meat offered to idols because idols do not exist. The reality, however, is that a fetus is not in the same category. It is not “nothing” in the world. It is not even just “something” in this world, it is somebody. Some will argue that the cells used are many reproductions derived from the original fetus. But are they not human? They are even still respirating on the cellular level. They are being kept alive. They still have the DNA of that child. If we are consistent with scripture, those children should have been buried in anticipation of the resurrection. Their ongoing use testifies of a culture that is in double-defiance of God’s law. We have not only murdered unborn babies, there is a sense in which we never let them rest. Vaccines are not quite parallel to meat offered to idols, they do not merely go through some mumbo-jumbo process of a false priest’s blessing. They have, however, involved bloodshed and sacrifices. Many vaccines even actively use fetal cell lines in production. This, again, is alarmingly close to human sacrifice. More is at stake here. Most have gotten far too comfortable with such means of testing or production. Our civilization has taken God’s most precious gifts, tiny, beautiful babies made in His image. We have murdered them. Cut them up, multiplied them into a billion pieces, and shipped them all over the world. This is unclean. This is evil.
There is a second weakness to the degree of separation arguments. This is that our culture does not recognize the degree of separation that you might claim. The world wholeheartedly endorses abortion, the use of fetal cells in research, and even see these practices as keys to human flourishing. Their argument always was that you should abort babies if necessary so that you can live a better life. The advance of medical technology through the use of fetal cells is even seen as a rationalization for abortion, the end justifies the means. When you use a vaccine, they see that you are using a “fruit” of the abortion industry. Do we think about the possibility that the researchers who endorse these methods are being encouraged to go further and further with their ethical boundaries by the conversations of the past year? How can we curse the tree when we are benefitting from the fruit? Unbelievers are sensitive to hypocrisy. Is it not a danger that using vaccines in the current context will lead to a certain cognitive dissonance among Christians, and thus increasing silence on abortion? On a more personal level, will you retain a conscience that is repulsed by the planned parenthood videos or other abuses of babies bodies if you use some of these vaccines? Will you still speak out against abortion? Can you do so boldly? I hope so. It is actually possible to do so from the perspective of Christian liberty, but I fear that some are being hardened.
The third weakness of the degree-of-separation argument is that the current context in Canada encourages Christians to be public in their embrace of vaccines which involve some use of fetal cells. If you board a plane or a train, it seems that you are implicitly endorsing a vaccine with at the very least an ethically compromised development process. If you go to a restaurant, are you implicitly endorsing these vaccines, when other alternatives are not being offered? Issues relating to euthanasia and fetal harvesting have recently been in the forefront in the media and politics. Should this affect our willingness to endorse a product? As an example, consider the roads or railroads in Canadian history that were built under horrific labour conditions. Workers were treated as expendable slaves, and lives were lost. It would not be a very strong Christian testimony to drive down that road past currently abused laborers, while sipping a latte on the way to the mall. It would be another matter to use the road some years later when that history is largely buried or forgotten, and it is the only way through the mountains. It is yet another issue for some Christians to smite their own conscience by using the road. There are junctures in history where the association with a sin is so close, or even continuing, that some Christians take a noble stand and refuse to use the product. They feel bound to do so in order to call evil evil. This stand may be good and holy. There may even be a point where using the product effectively promotes the sins of development. Be careful what you publicly endorse! This is no light matter. It divides Christians against one another, and it presses Christians to contradict the boundaries of Christian liberty. Romans 14:21 says that "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.” Surely this is a much more serious issue than disputes over food. If you have the liberty to use a vaccine, that is one thing, but I do not believe that it is wise for Christians to encourage it. It is neither a good testimony to the broader culture, nor to some Christians around you.
Fourth, it is one thing to use an ethically grey product out of necessity, and another out of fear or avoidance of possible suffering. For example, to return to the illustration of the road, if your friend was having a heart attack, most conscientious Christians would drive them to the hospital down that road, even past the slaves. Sometimes God’s providence puts us in that kind of sobering position. Wars and pandemics tend to stretch our ethics. If you find you must walk a grey path, it may be wise to be sobered, at least. The reality, however, is that COVID vaccines are not in this category for many people. There are certainly elderly people, or people with a secondary condition, who may have a difficult life-and-death decision to make when it comes to taking a COVID vaccine. Some Christian medical professionals have taken vaccines out of love for those that they serve. Some have been coerced in order to keep a job. Other people, however, are in age brackets or conditions where taking these vaccines is not even coordinate to the risk of the vaccine itself. It seems likely that some COVID vaccines are more dangerous to some young people than COVID itself is, this can be deduced by comparing government data on COVID deaths by age and pharmaceutical product monographs. It is becoming increasingly evident that the vaccinated are still spreading the virus. Some young, healthy people are taking an ethically grey product merely for the purpose of recreation, travel, or social pressure. Children are being pressured to take a vaccine that they do not need. This is the way slippery slopes tend to lead, from one issue to the next. If you do not have weighty reasons to take a vaccine, are you making a wise decision? Would you consider standing for the unborn or children instead of for the freedom to go to a restaurant or a movie? I will be careful not to judge your decision or your freedom, each has to assess their own situation and pray for wisdom. Please do not, however, judge those who cannot take the vaccines as foolish or try to bind their consciences.
Finally, our culture is currently sliding down an unprecedented slippery slope when it comes to medical ethics. The increasing use of fetal tissue in research, to the point that babies bodies are being actively acquired and sold, is evidence of accelerating decline. Humanity has claimed sovereignty over human flesh, and there is no telling where this will lead. The scientific community that is developing these technologies has few boundaries when it comes to body modification, gender, and even murder. I suspect that the research on combining rats and fetuses is intended to lead somewhere, blurring the lines between human and beast. Where will we finally draw the line? Where will this end? How far can we go before we become something else all together? What is to stop this culture from some medical version of cannibalism? How does the Lord look upon this earth? (Genesis 6:11-12) Might it not be wise to jump off this train sooner rather than later? If we accept the ethically grey without thinking soberly, what will our children tend to endorse? Perhaps it is spiritually safest for more Christians to face the Lord’s providences and chastening directly, rather than try to evade them. The slippery slope argument, I am afraid, is not a fallacy. It is, in our time, a substantial ground on which to take a stand. I grant that this stand could come with risks, for some people COVID is not a minor issue. The point is: do not judge those who in good conscience take this stand for the unborn.
Conclusion
In summary, it can be argued that to take the COVID vaccine may be:
- An implicit endorsement of the abortion industry.
- An implicit endorsement of human flesh as marketable material.
- An implicit endorsement of increasingly evil medical research.
- An implicit endorsement of mRNA vaccines for young children.
- A hazardous step towards darker grey therapies in the future.
Christians who refuse to take vaccines due to the use of fetal cells should be valued as “canaries in the coal mine.” Miners used to take canaries down into the mines as they would pass out or die due to poor air quality before humans would. The death of the canary was a sign of the need to get out to get to air. These Christians are being affected by this situation before others are. I suspect those that hold this position will never take a vaccine, and will be willing to be persecuted severely. They are losing jobs, and may become impoverished. Their death, suffering, or persecution should be seen as a warning for the rest. Will you support them? What seeds will you sew in this age? Fear and division, or care and concern? “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” - Galatians 6:7.
First they came for the Communists,
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the trade unionists,
And I did not speak out,
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me.
- based on a 1946 speech by Martin Niemoller
Additional resource: Randy Alcorn's article at Eternal Perspectives Ministries gives more helpful information on this issue: https://www.epm.org/blog/2021/Jan/13/covid-vaccines-fetal-cells
