FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: the charitable vaccination
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
How do you interpret this? From NCROnline:

Quote:"Receiving the COVID-19 vaccine ought to be understood as an act of charity toward the other members of our community," they said. "In this way, being vaccinated safely against COVID-19 should be considered an act of love of our neighbor and part of our moral responsibility for the common good."
https://www.ncronline.org/news/coronavir...ommon-good

Do you see it as a way to reduce the stress felt by Catholic virus-believers?
Do you see it as actual belief in the idea that the virus is an extreme danger? (The dangers and the public response are exaggerated. Libertarian Tom Woods is a good source for perspective on this. For example see https://mises.org/profile/thomas-e-woods-jr )

Many groups are expressing doubts about these vaccines and are proposing that their organizations need not think it obligatory. For example Facebook, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and the Trump White House will not be making the vaccine mandatory for employees.
I’ll leave it to someone else here to provide a more in-depth analysis, but, unless I’m seriously missing something here, this seems like a rather obvious case of trying to make the ends justify the means. The end: prevention against an infectious disease. The means: using a vaccine that contains aborted children. Therefore, it seems fairly clear that this is an attempt to make an evil, disordered act (viz. putting fetal tissue in a vaccine) justifiable. Correct me if I’m missing something, but this seems quite obviously disordered and evil.
(12-15-2020, 02:24 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]The end: prevention against an infectious disease. The means: using a vaccine that contains aborted children.

To clarify, the two main companies who are producing these vaccines, namely Moderna and Pfizer, do not use aborted children in the production of their vaccines.

They have tested the vaccines with fetal cell lines, i.e. cloned and reproduced fetal cells from abortions performed decades ago.

I'm still trying to decide if the remote nature of the evil is relevant.  Our hierarchy tells us that it's OK because the evil is so remote.  I'm skeptical.
(12-15-2020, 02:38 PM)jack89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-15-2020, 02:24 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]The end: prevention against an infectious disease. The means: using a vaccine that contains aborted children.

To clarify, the two main companies who are producing these vaccines, namely Moderna and Pfizer, do not use aborted children in the production of their vaccines.

They have tested the vaccines with fetal cell lines, i.e. cloned and reproduced fetal cells from abortions performed decades ago.

I'm still trying to decide if the remote nature of the evil is relevant.  Our hierarchy tells us that it's OK because the evil is so remote.  I'm skeptical.

Here is a good analysis from a priest I know who is an expert on ethical matters pertaining to this topic: https://www.hprweb.com/2020/12/should-ca...-vaccine/?
(12-15-2020, 02:38 PM)jack89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-15-2020, 02:24 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]The end: prevention against an infectious disease. The means: using a vaccine that contains aborted children.

To clarify, the two main companies who are producing these vaccines, namely Moderna and Pfizer, do not use aborted children in the production of their vaccines.

They have tested the vaccines with fetal cell lines, i.e. cloned and reproduced fetal cells from abortions performed decades ago.

I'm still trying to decide if the remote nature of the evil is relevant.  Our hierarchy tells us that it's OK because the evil is so remote.  I'm skeptical.

I think your instinct is right, even remote evil is still evil.

Why not test on cultured adult cells or animals?  I don’t pretend to know the answers to those questions, but calculated murder of innocents cannot be made good.
(12-15-2020, 02:38 PM)jack89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-15-2020, 02:24 PM)FultonFan Wrote: [ -> ]The end: prevention against an infectious disease. The means: using a vaccine that contains aborted children.

To clarify, the two main companies who are producing these vaccines, namely Moderna and Pfizer, do not use aborted children in the production of their vaccines.

They have tested the vaccines with fetal cell lines, i.e. cloned and reproduced fetal cells from abortions performed decades ago.

I'm still trying to decide if the remote nature of the evil is relevant.  Our hierarchy tells us that it's OK because the evil is so remote.  I'm skeptical.

To make it even more remote, in our favor even, apparently no one is really certain whether the fetal cell lines came from an aborted fetus or from a miscarriage.  I don't know if it would have made it moral to use them if they came from a naturally-occurring miscarriage.  But it certainly removes the guilt from proximate association with an abortion.

I've also read that the use of those cell lines in modern medical research is so ubiquitous that it is not possible to receive any medical treatment devised in the past 40 years that was not developed in some part from their use.
(12-15-2020, 03:19 PM)Pandora Wrote: [ -> ]I think your instinct is right, even remote evil is still evil.

Why not test on cultured adult cells or animals?  I don’t pretend to know the answers to those questions, but calculated murder of innocents cannot be made good.
When you make a choice between the 'lesser' of two evils, you are still choosing evil.
(12-15-2020, 03:22 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]To make it even more remote, in our favor even, apparently no one is really certain whether the fetal cell lines came from an aborted fetus or from a miscarriage.  I don't know if it would have made it moral to use them if they came from a naturally-occurring miscarriage.  But it certainly removes the guilt from proximate association with an abortion.

I've also read that the use of those cell lines in modern medical research is so ubiquitous that it is not possible to receive any medical treatment devised in the past 40 years that was not developed in some part from their use.
As I pointed out in an earlier post. When these cell lines are obtained, they must be from a LIVE baby to be usable 'specimens'. The baby has a beating heart when they are literally, torn apart for their organs and cells. Ghastly and Ghoulish!
There are a lot of other reasons not to take it also. Everyone please research so you can be fully informed before taking it. I won’t be.
I've asked my parish priest about this. He's traditional and orthodox, but has stated that if someone is in serious need of vaccination, namely healthcare workers and the elderly, these vaccines may be justified. He was referring to vaccines that are remotely associated with aborted fetal cell lines. He seems well informed on the issue.

I very much admire my priest, and trust his opinion, but I'm not convinced. This is quite the dilemma for me. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4