Katy Anne #fundie

Katy Anne #fundie fstdt.com

It is sad to see how mislead some of you people are. Abortions don't turn a profit? Not true! Aborted babies are used in vaccines and the medical establishment is trying to get more women to have abortions because the demand for vaccinations have gone up in recent years!
You can find the article I wrote about it at KJBchurch.com

49 comments

old comment by Andy

C&P from the comment thread so that it's not missed by others.

So I finally decided to track down this "zomg vaccines are made from aborted fetuses" crap. I didn't find much at first, but dug a little and found this blog entry, a review of a book. I'm not linking directly due to the borken URL filter. You'll need to copy and paste.

booksarepretty.blogspot.com/2007/07/vaccinated-do-you-know-who-invented.html

Apparently there was indeed one vacciene made with the assistance of ... one aborted fetus. One. Just one. Nearly 50 years ago.

The vaccine is for rubella. For the uninformed, rubella strikes adults and children as, well, not a harsh disease at all, but it completely screws up fetuses.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_rubella_syndrome

So, lemme see here... one aborted fetus, donated to science, resulted in a vaccine that saved countless children from suffering.

So while their delusion is based in fact, it's been blown entirely out of proportion by anti-abortion advocates.

old comment by Matt

There are some vaccinations grown from fetal tissue: Meruvax (rubella), Varivax (chickenpox), and Havrix (Hep. A). There was apparently a flu vaccine in testing that also used human cultures, but I think that has been abandoned.

Even with this information, it is safe to assume that these vaccinations pose no threat to your moral system, as these abortions happened in the 60's, and since these cultures have a solid history of accurately curing disease, there is no further need for abortions to have any effect on the production of these vaccines. Once again, these cultures are already established, and no further fetal material is needed to make them.

Now, according to your belief system, martyrs have a backdoor to heaven, and I'm sure even the staunchest Christian doesn't believe that unborn children are doomed to hell. These 3 specific fetuses that contributed to these vaccinations have in turn saved COUNTLESS lives. If there is an afterlife, and these fetuses can actually be considered people, they are surely pleased with their contribution to human life.

Have you no logic? Even worse yet, have you no compassion?

old comment by John

Some vaccines are produced using cell cultures that were originally obtained from two human fetuses that had been aborted. The abortions were not done to obtain cell cultures. They were done at the choice of the mothers for their own personal reasons. They would have been done regardless of whether or not the cells were later used for medical research. One abortion was done in 1961 and the other in 1966. The fetuses were already dead when the cultures were taken. The scientists who produced the cultures had nothing to do with the abortions.

In the 1960's, a number of women underwent abortions because they had contracted rubella at the onset of their pregnancy and feared birth defects. A group of fetuses from these abortions, which otherwise would have been destroyed, were scanned for the virus. When the virus was found, it was isolated from the fetal tissue and grown on the 1961 fetal cell culture to produce the vaccine.

No abortions have been done for vaccines. The same two cell cultures (called WI-38 and MRC-5) have been propagated ever since the 1960's. There is no need for any additional fetal tissue.

The main argument by anti-abortion advocates is a "slippery slope" argument: if we allow vaccines to be produced using aborted tissue, even if the abortions happened 40 years ago and the fetuses would otherwise have been destroyed anyway, we start down the slippery slope of using fetal tissue for other purposes. This makes about as much sense as any other slippery slope argument (i.e., none).

It is sad to see how misleading Katy Anne is trying to be.

old comment by flipper

Folks if you can stomach reading the original article, you find quotes from all kinds of anti-abortion groups, the thoroughly loathesome woman-hater and domestic abuse apologist so-oft quoted over here, David L. Stewart, and some less-than-scientific creationist groups. There is not a single valid newssource, unbiased commentary, or checkable fact in the whole durn article. Unless Katy-Anne can come up with some credible, unbiased sources, I'm going to have to assume that she is sadly(and willingly) mislead. Katy-Anne, this isn't Brother Randy's naive sheep or the KJB fundie league, you have to bring real facts and real neutral sources backing up your stories. NO SALE!!!

old comment by The Missus

Yeah, I majored in public relations in college too, Katy-Anne. Unlike you, I went to a good journalism school and actually finished my degree. I learned how to distinguish credible sources from non-credible ones. Apparently you didn't have those classes-- y'know, research principles, news writing, editing, principles of PR, just to name a few. I don't know which pathetic j-school let you in, but you don't deserve to claim PR experience. You're just another deluded fundie so wrapped up in your beliefs that you can't see how warped your sources really are.
I weep for your unborn child. They've got a life of ignorance and oppression ahead of them.

old comment by MarylandBear

I posted this when Katy-Anne made the original post, and I'm going to say it again.

I had several thoughts about this, some of which were quite vulgar and insulting to Katy-Anne.

But I thought better of it, because I've read some of Katy-Anne's stuff, at kjbonly and t-4-c, and I think she seems pretty intelligent. And that breaks my heart.

Bear with me here for a minute -- I think her views are utterly asinine, to be sure. But she can put together a well-thought out paragraph or three, seems to be well-versed in religion, and otherwise seems to have a pretty good mind.

And what's she using it for? A near cult-like devotion to one version of the Bible and parroting bizarre conspiracy theories about one of the great life-saving miracles of the modern world. I see for her a future life where the only intellectual stimulation she'll get, or is even allowed to get, in home-schooling her kids.

As they say at the United Negro College Fund, "a mind is a terrible thing to waste." And Katy-Anne, that's what you're doing. God gave you a mind that appears to have a lot of potential, and you're frittering it away. Who knows, you might be the person God intended to cure cancer. Or lead a movement to end poverty. Or maybe start a ministry that inspires thousands of people.

I'm a Christian, just like you. Yeah, our theological viewpoints are pretty far removed, but I go to church pretty much every Sunday, and I pray to God, too. And I'll be blunt -- I think you're breaking God's heart.

We get plenty of quotes from drooling idiots on here -- those I find amusing. But when you see someone with obvious potential like Katy-Anne -- I weep for the human race.

old comment by Alicia

Okay, maybe I'm going to get flamed for this, and I don't care. But maybe someone can answer me, too, whether it be someone like Katy Ann or one of the other people who fregquent this site. My question is, why argue? Why fight Fundamentalists? Or, for Fundamentalists, why fight everyone who fights you? No side will ever, ever change the mind of the other. And honestly, you've lowered yourselves to the other's level. If you have to hate each other, fine, but perhaps you'd all be happier if you'd put hate aside and ignore each other. Live and let live, as I saw someone comment earlier. There are other things to life than fighting each other. Find something that makes you happy, not angry. You'll improve your life, trust me. For a while, I was just like every fundie-hater on this site. I came to places like this to fight and be angry and to scoff and scorn. Then, I talked to a friend of mine and realized that laughing was just another form of hating. i'm not Christian and I'm not athiest, so don't either one attack me by calling me the other. I just don't want to hate and it makes me sad that so many other people feel the desire to, just because you believe different things. But oh well. I don't really expect to change too many of your minds with this post either. Just putting it out there.

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

My question is, why argue? Why fight Fundamentalists? Or, for Fundamentalists, why fight everyone who fights you? No side will ever, ever change the mind of the other.

True, but we've got a good chance of influencing anyone who doesn't yet support either side. That's the benefit; by ensuring that idiot fundie assertions don't stand unchallenged and uncorrected, we increase the odds that the undecided (and voting) masses are made aware of both sides of an issue and can make better informed decisions. That's always been the primary purpose of debate, to try and get the support of the observing masses - persuading your opponent to take your position is really a secondary goal, and one that is very rarely reached in public discourse.

And since fundies are an extremely vocal, obsessively proseletysing bunch and remarkably good at leaving a permanent influence on any susceptible mind when given exclusive access to it, it's particularly important that we add our voice to the matter to counterbalance them.

Katy Anne #fundie fstdt.com

49 comments

Confused?