Some vaccines are cultured in human cells, but understand they are not made from nor do they contain any human cells from aborted babies. The two cell lines in use today were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September, 1966 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 1962.
Here is a more in depth explanation and some facts from a pro-life Christian, BTW.
Vaccines DO NOT Contain Fetal Tissue
I understand the objection many have; I have my ethical concerns as well, but also understand that these two babies aborted in the 1960s were not aborted for the reason of harvesting their cells and sadly would have been aborted anyway. And whats been done cannot be undone some 30 years after the fact. Refusing to get a vaccination because it was cultured in one of those two self perpetuating cell lines, would not prevent those abortions from having already happened and, as the author points out, no cells from abortions since are used or necessary to culture vaccines and in fact such is now illegal.
That their cells were donated after the fact and that in their murder at least something good and life saving for so many has come from it and should perhaps be considered.
Ironically one of the two cell lines came from a mother who along with her unborn baby contracted Rubella. That didnt make the decision to abort the baby right, no matter how severely deformed, but with the Rubella vaccine, pregnant mothers and their unborn children are at much less risk of contracting that disease, at least if people get the vaccination.
I know/this, I said they are cultured from aborted cell lines. Instead of a medium. Like chicken embryos, yes, I get that. It’s still exploitation using an aborted baby’s material for the supposed benefit of others.