Why My Conscience Will Not Allow Me To Take a Covid Vaccine: Part 1
The Use of Cell Lines Derived from Aborted Fetuses.
Much has been written in recent weeks about covid vaccines and covid vaccine mandates. Many people have strongly and passionately defended their views on these issues and have sought to persuade others of their positions. I also have shared my own reflections and have linked to articles and other resources that I hope will help others make truly informed decisions when it comes to the vaccines. Similarly, I have sought to make clear what I see as significant dangers posed by vaccine mandates and growing government power in the hope that others understand both the short and long-term consequences of such policies. To this point, though, I have not yet publicly outlined the reasons why I cannot personally take any of the covid vaccines. I have had private conversations with multiple people, but I have not been able to respond to many others who have reached out to ask why I cannot in good conscience take any of the vaccines. As a result, I decided to write a series of articles to offer what I hope is a helpful, charitable, and gracious explanation of why my conscience prohibits me from taking the shot.
Before laying out my personal reasons for not taking the vaccine, I want to make clear that I am in no way seeking to bind the consciences of others. These are my own deeply held convictions, and while I hope these thoughts are helpful to some in understanding why I cannot in good conscience take the vaccine (and perhaps give voice to concerns that others may share), I sincerely believe that people can come to different conclusions. I explained in much greater depth in a previous article how the decision to wear a mask is a genuine issue of conscience, and I argued there that believers should respect the convictions of others on such issues that are not directly addressed in Scripture.
I believe the biblical reasoning outlined in that article also applies to the decision to take a vaccine.
As to why my own conscience will not allow me to take a covid vaccine, here are five primary reasons:
(1) The use of cell lines derived from aborted fetuses.
(2) The ethical implications of mRNA and DNA technology.
(3) Evidence that the vaccines are contributing to the spread of covid-19.
(4) Personal obligations to my family and others.
(5) A sense of duty to stand up for the rights of others, especially those who are being discriminated against because they have declined the vaccine.
I will address the first reason in the remainder of this article, and I will address each of the other reasons in subsequent articles in the coming days.
(1) The Use of Cell Lines Derived from Aborted Fetuses
Perhaps the most common conscientious objection to receiving any of the existing covid vaccines is that they all have at least some remote connection to abortion. Specifically, cell lines derived from aborted fetuses are used at some point in the development of all the vaccines that are currently available for covid-19. For the vaccine produced by Johnson & Johnson, these cell lines were used in the actual production of the vaccine; for those produced by Pfizer and Moderna, the cell lines were used in testing but not in production. To be clear, no fetal tissue from recent abortions has been used in the development of any of these vaccines, but the cell lines that were used—and the vaccines that relied on them—would not be in existence were it not for abortions that took place several decades ago.
Because of the time that has elapsed since these abortions, many religious leaders have argued that the connection to abortion is so remote that the use of vaccines developed from such cell lines is ethically permissible. In contrast, others contend that any connection to abortion renders the vaccines ethically tainted no matter how remote the connection. Still others distinguish between vaccines that use these cell lines in the testing phase of development from those that use them in the production phase. And even among this range of views, additional factors can influence one’s decision on whether taking a vaccine derived from aborted fetal cell lines is ethically permissible. Such factors include the availability of alternative treatments, the severity of the illness, and the ability and responsibility to protect others.
Before We Continue . . . What Are We Really Talking About?
Before addressing each of these positions, I want to reiterate my belief that people may come to different conclusions on whether the use of such vaccines is ethically permissible (or even ethically praiseworthy). But whatever conclusion one comes to regarding the ethics of taking a vaccine developed using these fetal cell lines, I want to pause to reflect on what we are really talking about when it comes to the origins of these cell lines.
As a Christian, I believe that every human being is created in the image of God, meaning that we are all intrinsically valuable simply because God created us. This is true regardless of a person’s skin color, ethnicity, sex, ability, age, size, or position inside or outside the womb. ALL humans are people who should be treated with dignity and whose lives and liberty should be protected and respected. To have an abortion (or to “terminate a pregnancy”) is to end the life of the unborn human being in the womb. That a separate, genetically distinct human life has been ended as a result of abortion is beyond scientific and medical dispute. Nevertheless, I am fully aware that people disagree on when an unborn human being becomes a “person” who is worthy of life and protection, and I know that some will disagree with my belief that all human beings are “persons” from the moment of conception. There’s not enough space in an article on vaccines to discuss this issue in depth, but I welcome emails and comments from readers who disagree and would count it a privilege to dialogue further on that topic.
For those who do have conscientious objections to the covid vaccines because of the link to aborted fetal cell lines, we must take care that we do not talk about “fetal cell lines” in some abstract sense. Instead, we must remember—and reflect upon—the origins of these cell lines. First, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the PER.C6 cell line, which was created because the life of an unborn image bearer—a tiny, growing child—was ended by abortion in 1985. Second, Pfizer and Moderna used the HEK293 cell line, which was created following the death of another unborn image bearer in 1973. The death of this little one was most likely caused by an elective abortion, but the origins are not as certain. It’s remotely possible the child died as a result of a miscarriage, but further investigation has shown that elective abortion was extremely likely. Again, regardless one’s position on the ethical use of the covid vaccines, when we talk about the ethics of using these fetal cell lines, we should at least pause to remember these little ones who lost their lives before these lines could be created.
Back to the Issue . . . Reviewing the Ethical Positions
As noted above, some believe that the use of vaccines developed with the use of aborted fetal cell lines is morally permissible (and even morally advisable), some believe it is morally prohibited, and others believe its morality depends on a variety of other factors. Instead of outlining all of these positions in depth, I will provide links below to several of the strongest articles I have read for each position and highlight a few important sections. I will then briefly respond to a few points in these articles before explaining my own objections to the use of these vaccines.
Morally Permissible
Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines (the Vatican)
The fundamental reason for considering the use of these vaccines morally licit is that the kind of cooperation in evil (passive material cooperation) in the procured abortion from which these cell lines originate is, on the part of those making use of the resulting vaccines, remote. The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent.
Explainer: COVID-19 raises concern about abortive fetal cells in medicine (SBC ERLC)
The donation of fetal tissue may be morally tainted, though, when the tissue is derived from a fetus that has been killed in the womb. Allowing and condoning such donations of tissue derived from abortion to continue would make us indirectly morally complicit in the act of abortion, conveying a sense of approval for an ongoing regime that sanctions the killing of the unborn.
That raises the question of whether the use of cells from HEK293T would promote abortion in just such a way. While pro-life Christians may disagree on how to answer that question, it is unlikely that the use of the HEK293T cell line will lead to additional children being murdered in the womb in order to expand the number of fetal tissue cell lines. The reason is that it is completely unnecessary, and medically inexpedient, to create new cell lines from aborted children. . . .
Currently, the use of the HEK293T cells in biomedical research is not increasing the number of abortions that are being carried out every year. If we were to see evidence of that happening, however, it would change the moral calculation.
The remaining question is whether accepting the use of HEK293T cells would potentially be cooperating with the killing of the child in the 1970s. For a number of reasons, many if not most Christian bioethicists would argue that it is not (assuming an abortion even occurred). The primary reason being that this situation is morally analogical to the case of the murder victim/organ donor. No one would say the Christian who received the organ was morally responsible in any way for the murder.
Morally Prohibited
John Piper, Can I Take a Vaccine Made from Aborted Babies?
[I]f a scientist avoids using tissue and organs harvested from babies killed in abortion, or if an ordinary citizen avoids using a medication that they know has been developed specifically through such harvesting and research, the aim is that the Christian conscience is preserved and Christ is made much of as more valuable than any security or safety or health we might get through sin. . . .
The observation is that acting on principle — in this case, the principle that we do not want to be complicit in the desecration of dismembered human beings — acting on principle often does not look like the most obvious way to be a blessing to the greatest number people.
For example, if you try to act on the principle of not participating in the desecration of these children by avoiding medicines developed from their dead bodies, someone will say, “But look, look at all the good that is coming through the medication.” And they will say that they can’t see the good that may be coming from your principled action. So, what I’m saying here is this: God has ways of honoring and blessing and multiplying the effectiveness of principled action in his name, which, to the human calculation, may appear futile. . . .
So, I’m saying, let’s not act as researchers or as ordinary consumers in a way that desecrates the bodies of unborn victims and treats those children as though they can be killed and their tissue harvested for our benefit.
Douglas Wilson, The Challenge of Unethical Vaccines
If these same vaccines had been grown in cell lines donated by the deceased person himself, it would be the same kind of thing as an organ donation. But because it was a murder victim, the situation is significantly altered. If you were visiting China and had a medical crisis there, one that required a kidney transplant, would you agree to receive one if you knew that the donated kidney was taken from a political prisoner who was executed for the sake of the kidney? The murder has already happened, and you can’t undo that. Water under the bridge. All you can do is say yes or no to the offered kidney. What do you say?
What kind of material cause would you be contributing in that instance? So perhaps the issue is not so much material causation as it is material participation. You didn’t cause anything. But are you participating? And is there any culpability in that participation? It seems to me there is.
Evaluating the Arguments
I find the arguments of Piper and Wilson most persuasive, but I can sympathize with the positions set forth in the other articles. Nevertheless, a few claims must be addressed.
First, the Vatican article asserts that “[t]he moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent.” The argument here seems to rely on a balancing of benefits and harms, which is certainly necessary when performing ethical evaluation in a fallen world. But there is no articulated standard for what constitutes a “grave danger,” nor is there any moral justification provided for why avoiding “passive material cooperation” is not required when the threat is perceived as “grave.” I want to understand this position, and there’s a strong part of me that desires to agree, but I’m not certain that the severity of the threat automatically makes morally permissible something that we would otherwise have a moral duty to avoid. I believe Wilson’s illustration (see above) of the medical crisis in China provides a helpful counterexample.
Second, the ERLC’s position that “the use of the HEK293T cells in biomedical research is not increasing the number of abortions that are being carried out every year” must be evaluated. I believe they rightly state that “[i]f we were to see evidence of [abortions increasing], it would change the moral calculation.” But even if we cannot trace a direct link between the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the development of these vaccines (or any other biomedical research) to an increase in abortions, does our lack of protest against the use of existing cell lines not in some way condone their continued use? Serious question: If we accept the ongoing use of cell lines derived from abortion, why would pharmaceutical companies or other researchers ever feel the need to design cell lines not connected to abortion? And if another cell line is later produced from another image bearer whose life was violently ended in the womb, on what basis would we object to its use so long as we believe another cell line is unlikely to be created or that future abortions will not be encouraged? It seems to me the ERLC argument gives away too much, especially when we know that the HEK293T cell line created in 1973 was apparently insufficient (PER.C6 was created more than a decade later in 1985— after the murder of another unborn child).
Third, the ERLC’s contention that the use of fetal cell lines derived from abortion “is morally analogical to the case of the murder victim/organ donor” is problematic for several reasons. Wilson’s China example is especially helpful, as it forces us to consider whether we are contributing to the ongoing demand for unethically sourced medical treatments. But even beyond this consideration, the ERLC’s analogy fails both as a matter of practice and as a matter of law. As a matter of practice, the organs of very few murder victims are ever actually donated, both because the organs are usually unfit following the murder and because obtaining timely consent from victims (via ID or from a family member) is often very difficult. This second issue—the matter of consent—is why the ERLC’s analogy fails as a matter of law. In the United States (and in all countries that require expressed consent for organ donation), human organs cannot be donated, and individuals cannot receive organ transplants, without the expressed consent of the donor or the donor’s parents. In the case of fetal cell lines developed following abortion, these tiny image bearers were murdered before they even had the capacity to consent. And even if the mother gave her consent, the authors of the ERLC would most certainly acknowledge that such consent is invalid. Thus, Wilson’s example of receiving harvested organs in China seems quite relevant:
[P]erhaps the issue is not so much material causation as it is material participation. You didn’t cause anything. But are you participating? And is there any culpability in that participation? It seems to me there is.
What about Other Medications?
Discussions of aborted fetal cell lines and covid vaccines has brought into public view that many other medications and treatments have also been developed with the use of these cell lines at some point in bringing these drugs or treatments to market. I was personally aware of their use in some other vaccines prior to covid, and our family made decisions not to take any of these vaccines in part for this reason. As to other medications, I’ve gone down the rabbit hole of researching a lot of modern medicine, and I am reconsidering my use of many medications. And while I truly believe people can come to different conclusions about whether or not they use any medications or treatments that have a connection to the use of these cell lines, I think their widespread use becoming known should cause all believers to lament—to grieve the reality that much of modern medicine may have begun with the murder of two or more small image bearers.
In contrast to a response of mourning and lament over the widespread use of aborted fetal cell lines, I’ve personally heard some argue that taking the covid vaccine should not be problematic for Christians because so many other medicines also used aborted fetal cell lines at some point in their development. I know the intent of these friends and acquaintances is to try to convince others that it’s “no big deal since we’ve always been using these cell lines,” but these arguments actually have the opposite effect on me. I am grieved at the reality that so many drugs were developed (at least in the testing phase) with the use of aborted fetal cell lines. Speaking from a Christian worldview, this means that much of modern medicine has been developed in absolute defiance of the first rule of medicine: “do no harm.” Tiny image bearers were brutally murdered, and we all stand to benefit from their deaths. Again, please understand that I am not seeking to bind others’ consciences to say that they must never use any drug that has a link to these cell lines. But I do think we should all humbly reflect on what this means and then ask for God’s grace to consistently follow our conscience and convictions.
But are the Covid Vaccines Different?
Even though many other drugs and treatments have been developed with the use of aborted fetal cell lines, I think it is possible for some individuals to continue using these medications yet still object to the use of these cell lines in the covid vaccines. Said differently, I believe it is possible to be a conscientious objector to the covid vaccines on this basis and not be ethically inconsistent in using other medications that were developed using these cell lines. Here’s why:
(1) If an individual began using a medication or treatment developed in the past and had no knowledge of the use of aborted fetal cell lines in the creation of these products, that person could not be held morally responsible in any way. Knowledge of the use of these cell lines is a prerequisite for moral responsibility (discussed more below).1
(2) If an individual continues to use a medication developed with aborted fetal cell lines after becoming aware of their use, can that person object to the use of these cell lines in the development of the covid vaccines? I believe the answer is “yes.” Having become aware of the ongoing use of aborted fetal cell lines in the creation of new treatments (and not just the covid vaccines), I think it is possible that an individual can say “NO MORE.”
(3) More specifically, I think a believer could in good conscience continue to use treatments that were developed in the past with these cell lines if that person believes that most people were not aware of the link and that God can and does redeem past sins for good (which is also a valid argument that many who choose to take the covid vaccine could make). Moreover, I think it is possible for some believers to continue to use past medications that were developed using aborted fetal cell lines but also refuse to receive any additional medications or treatments that are derived from fetal cell lines from this point forward. I don’t think this would necessarily be inconsistent as a matter of conscience, as some individuals could genuinely argue that they are convicted about receiving new treatments that they now know have required the ongoing and willful use of aborted fetal cell lines. Instead of supporting the ongoing use of these cell lines at any point in the development of a new drug, I think an individual could rightly say for the sake of conscience that enough is enough.
The Consciences of Others
In addition to those whose consciences are convicted to say “enough is enough” to the ongoing use of aborted fetal cell lines, we must also consider the consciences of unbelievers that could potentially be affected if believers do not protest the ongoing use of these cell lines. This is especially true now that the use of these cell lines has become much more widely known over the past year. Before the development of the covid vaccines, not many people were aware of the use of aborted fetal cell lines, and even fewer openly talked about their use. But today, it is not only believers who are much more aware of their use but many unbelievers as well. In light of this knowledge, we must consider how using new vaccines that were knowingly created with aborted fetal cell lines could be perceived by those who have no objections to abortion. Specifically, is it possible that a willingness to use a medication clearly connected to abortion could cause others to believe that we do not take abortion seriously?
Even if this connection is said to be very remote because of the time that has elapsed and because we are talking about fetal cell lines and not tissue derived directly from an aborted baby, we should ask whether the remoteness of the connection is truly a meaningful distinction when it comes to the perception of those who do not follow Christ. The more I think about the issue of “remoteness,” I seriously wonder: If the fetal cell lines used in the covid vaccines had been developed in 2015 instead of 1985 and 1973, would many Christians feel that connection was too remote? Or would more feel that they are in some way complicit in the murder of these image bearers? What if it were in 2019 that the cell lines were created? What makes 30 or 40 years removed from the abortion different from 15 years? Or five years? Or one year? Is there not an element of arbitrariness involved when we say that the use of aborted fetal cell lines is permissible because of the “remote” connection? At what point is such a connection no longer considered remote?
I ask these questions because I am genuinely concerned that viewing this connection to abortion as remote will appear as an attempt to justify receiving the covid vaccines despite their link to abortion (especially when the use of aborted fetal cell lines has become so widely known). To be clear, I am not saying that those who take the vaccines are deliberately trying to justify something they believe to be wrong; to the contrary, I believe most everyone who would find the connection to be very remote genuinely believe that taking the vaccine is morally permissible and even morally praiseworthy. That said, we need to seriously consider the consciences of others and reflect on whether our freedom to take the vaccine should in any way be constrained by the perception of unbelievers. Why do the consciences of others matter so much? Consider what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:
23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? 31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:23-31 ESV).
A full explanation of this passage is beyond the scope of this article, but two points must be made:
(1) Paul makes clear that Christians have the freedom to eat meat that is sold in the meat market even though there was a very good chance that the meat sold there was at some point offered in sacrifice. While this passage specifically addresses meat that has been sacrificed to idols, I believe we can extend this reasoning to many other issues of conscience, including the use of vaccines—including those that have a connection to abortion at some point in their history. Just as believers in Paul’s day would not have been expected to thoroughly investigate the history of the meat they consumed (“Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience”), neither are Christians today required to thoroughly investigate the history of foods they consume, medications they take, or products they use. “But if someone says to you, ‘This has been offered in sacrifice,’ then do not eat it.” If the sinful, idolatrous origin of the food is explicitly made known, believers are instructed not to eat it. In a similar way, I think believers could conclude that when sinful, idolatrous connections to a product or medication are made known—and not just made known but even boasted about—believers should seriously consider whether they should abstain from partaking of such food, medication, or anything else.
(2) But why are believers told to abstain? “[F]or the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his.” Paul makes clear that believers could still in good conscience receive food that had been sacrificed to idols so long as they ate with thankfulness (see verse 30). But Paul is not primarily concerned for the believer’s conscience in this context but for the conscience of the unbeliever. While the situations are not directly parallel, I think Paul’s reasoning here could account for how believers can genuinely come to different conclusions of whether they can, for the sake of their own consciences, take a vaccine that is in some way connected to abortion. But we cannot be thinking only of our own consciences; instead, we must consider the consciences of others, and this is especially true when an explicit link to idolatry has been made known.
I am not saying here that the connection between aborted fetal cell lines and the covid vaccines automatically means that all believers must refrain from taking them. I am also not saying that the link to abortion being made widely known necessarily means that believers must abstain. But I am saying that believers should at least consider what our decisions regarding the covid vaccines communicate to those who do not share our convictions that the life of the unborn is sacred.
My Own Conscience
In the coming weeks and months, I believe more and more Christians may draw a line in the sand and demand that aborted fetal cell lines no longer be used in the development of vaccines and other treatments. In fact, a friend sent me this just the other day (from a Christian healthcare organization):
It is long overdue for researchers to abandon the use of abortion-derived cells. When all approved vaccines are fully ethical, from development to production, our physician-led organizations and like-minded Americans will no longer question their use. . . . Health care professionals and hospital systems should make the source of their vaccines known to the public, with specific information regarding those that are ethically produced. Providing this transparency to those who rely on them is a foundation of good medical care.
This is my own conviction regarding the use of fetal cell lines in the ongoing development of covid vaccines and treatments. From this day forward, I urge pharmaceutical companies and researchers to only develop treatments and vaccines that have no connection to abortion at any stage. And because all of the currently available covid vaccines have relied on aborted fetal cell lines at some stage in their development, I personally cannot take any of these vaccines for the sake of my own conscience. I also am seriously concerned that taking a vaccine could cause others to believe that we are not consistently concerned about the plight of the unborn, adding another reason for me to abstain from these vaccines. But even if these personal convictions are not viewed as sound enough to grant a religious or conscience exemption were it mandated that I take a vaccine, there are several other reasons my conscience will not allow me to receive any of these shots. I will address these reasons in greater depth in the coming days.
Such knowledge does not automatically mean the consciences of all individuals will be equally convinced that the use of such treatments is ethically wrong. Some individuals may still in good conscience believe that the connection to abortion is so far removed from the development of these medications that their use is ethically permissible. This is the same line of reasoning set forth in the Vatican and ERLC articles arguing that the use of the covid vaccines is ethically permissible. As stated previously, I believe this is a legitimate position even if I personally disagree.