Lets set aside the effectiveness/safety debate for a moment and ask a different question. Is it ethical to benefit from the unethical? What I am asking is... do the ends justify the means? Ever?
If your answer is "sometimes" then its quite likely that you have no moral center at all.
The truth is... in the 60s children were killed in a controlled abortion environment by Merck to develope their MMR vaccine. Merck does not deny this.
The Physicians Desk Reference lists the source cells for MMR as RA 27/3 and WI-38.
RA 27/3 was a little boy... Where does the designation come from? R is for Rubella, A for Abortus, 27 for 27th fetus tested, 3 for 3rd tissue explant. There were 26 abortions before number 27 "worked".
Once that "worked", it was implanted on the lung tissue extracted from another murdered child... this one a little girl. Her designation is WI-38 (Wistar Institute 38). She was killed at 3 months gestation.
She was aborted for "psychological reasons".
In the 70's MRC-5... a boy at 7 weeks gestation was killed... and used to cultivate weakened virus strains. To this day MRC-5 is sourced commonly in childhood vaccines.
These three older lines are not enough though... new lines are always being sought. So... when you hear about the new AIDS vaccine from Merck... take a moment and remember its source. This cell line was taken from the retinal tissue of an 18 week gestation baby, aborted because, according to Dr. Van Der Eb at recent FDA hearings, "the father was unknown and the woman wanted to get rid of the fetus". Dr. Van Der Eb went on to say, "PER C6 was made just for the pharmaceutical manufacturing of adenovirus vectors." He added, "I realize that this sounds a bit commercial, but PER C6 were made for that particular purpose."
My friends we have a word for this: