On the Fetal Testing Angle to the Vax?
#11
(07-11-2021, 06:57 AM)TexasJeep Wrote: If the Church's word isn't good enough for you, no sense in looking for other moral or philosophical arguments to support your decision.

Which Church? Today's Church? Or the Church in 2004? Because they say different things.

Saying "the Church's word" regarding an issue on which the faithful may have different opinions and still be called faithful is wrong.

Some teachings require your assent. Others do not require it. For instance, there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
[-] The following 3 users Like ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident's post:
  • Anon777, J Michael, karl
Reply
#12
(07-11-2021, 10:55 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(07-11-2021, 06:57 AM)TexasJeep Wrote: If the Church's word isn't good enough for you, no sense in looking for other moral or philosophical arguments to support your decision.

Which Church?  Today's Church?  Or the Church in 2004?  Because they say different things.

Saying "the Church's word" regarding an issue on which the faithful may have different opinions and still be called faithful is wrong.

Some teachings require your assent.  Others do not require it.  For instance, there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

There is only One Church.
Reply
#13
The Church acknowledges the compromised morality of the vaccines. Not a single Covid vaccine widely available today is without some taint. As it has declared in the past with other vaccines for which there is no alternative and the threat grave in nature, the use is morally licit. This is a far cry from what some continue to brand as the Church's position.

The J&J vaccine is a traditional vaccine which is produced using aborted cell lines. Unfortunately some of those cells and DNA survive in the vaccine and the presence is listed as part of the ingredients on these kind of vaccines.

The mRNA vaccine, or as it's inventor calls it the "genetic vaccine", is very experimental and aborted cell lines were used during testing of the vaccine but not production. Several Bishops have issues statements saying the Pfizer vaccine is preferable to the J&J as the cooperation is less.

I would consider reminding your sis that the Church has said we have an obligation to object to these kind of vaccines, even going as far as conscientiously objecting to them. She has been given a clear pass on using them by the Church but your position is supported as well.
[-] The following 1 user Likes DNJC.org's post:
  • J Michael
Reply
#14
(07-11-2021, 02:42 PM)TexasJeep Wrote:
(07-11-2021, 10:55 AM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(07-11-2021, 06:57 AM)TexasJeep Wrote: If the Church's word isn't good enough for you, no sense in looking for other moral or philosophical arguments to support your decision.

Which Church?  Today's Church?  Or the Church in 2004?  Because they say different things.

Saying "the Church's word" regarding an issue on which the faithful may have different opinions and still be called faithful is wrong.

Some teachings require your assent.  Others do not require it.  For instance, there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

There is only One Church.

And the Church does not say that we should take a vaccine.

Churchmen do, and they often are not speaking with anything more than a megaphone.

There is absolutely no aspect of our Faith that demands we undergo any medical procedure. There are plenty of aspects of our Faith that demands we do not undergo particular medical procedures.

The 2004 statement is one which is trying to teach the Church's moral stance on tainted vaccines and provide principles. Pope Francis and other clerics suggesting it is kind to get a jab to help and protect others may be good or bad, but it is not the "Church" speaking. It is a cadre of men speaking.
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident, DNJC.org, J Michael
Reply
#15
(07-09-2021, 10:43 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote:
(07-09-2021, 09:48 PM)ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident Wrote: 99.7%

(07-09-2021, 10:38 PM)Happy Boy Wrote: 3 in 100

[Image: 2tfsx4.jpg]

I believe Happy Boy is referring to the "case fatality rate" (CFR - those people who have tested positive with Covid-19), and ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident is referring to the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR - those who caught Covid-19, regardless of whether they were diagnosed or not).

ChairmanJoeAintMyPresisdent is not wrong that the IFR is well below 1%.  From the World Health Organization, when there had been about a half billion infections, which is a really good statistical sample (stats from 9/2020). Read the whole thing. Summary on Page 10 noted below.

Quote:https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_firs...265892.pdf

Acknowledging these limitations, based on the currently available data, one may project
that over half a billion people have been infected as of 12 September, 2020, far more than the
approximately 29 million documented laboratory-confirmed cases. Most locations probably have
an infection fatality rate less than 0.20% and with appropriate, precise non-pharmacological
measures that selectively try to protect high-risk vulnerable populations and settings, the infection
fatality rate may be brought even lower.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)