A
Anrakyr
Guest
Which is unfounded because using human cells in a vaccine is idiotic.
Ergo you and everyone else have nothing to worry about.
- Status
Ergo you and everyone else have nothing to worry about.
R
Rau
Guest
The Catholic archbishop of Sydney is himself a bioethicist. He noted that some viruses have been developed by processes that utilized cell lines originating with aborted fetuses.
He does not declare it immoral for a person to accept such a vaccine but he noted that some people may see taking such a vaccine as ethically challenging, and that may lead to some reduced acceptance of it.
He does not declare it immoral for a person to accept such a vaccine but he noted that some people may see taking such a vaccine as ethically challenging, and that may lead to some reduced acceptance of it.
U
umamibella
Guest
Unbelievable and uninformed response. The word ‘idiotic’ is hardly inline with an informed and ethical call out of the Archbishop of Sydney.
Last edited:
A
Anrakyr
Guest
So no more a biologist then me.
Who still doesn’t have a medical degree that can trump anyone elses knowledge.
R
Riman643
Guest
Thank you for highlighting this. I personally would rather die from COVID-19 than take such a vaccine. These people are sick and I can’t believe they think this is an appropriate way to create a vaccine. Who knows what other vaccines I have taken that have utilized such unethical practices. I am quite nauseous just thinking about it.
U
umamibella
Guest
Are you an Archbishop? I dont think so.
B
Bithynian
Guest
Apparently he or she is ‘Norse’, per their profile.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
What does being an arch bishop have to with having a passing knowledge of biology.
Oi, stay on topic.Apparently he or she is ‘Norse’, per their profile.
blackforest
Well-known member
How are you defining “human cells?” MRC-5 human diploid cell lines are already in several vaccines. That is the Archbishop’s objection. Also, there are currently scientists bemoaning a lack of federal funding for fetal tissue research for a vaccine.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
I’m going to go over this again. Try to pay attention:
A vaccine is created by forcing a virus to evolve away from being effective for infecting humans. This is done by exposing the virus to cells that are not human. This is a very delicate balancing act because if you evolve the virus too much it won’t benefit the patient. Too little and it’s no better then giving the patient the virus.
Aborted cell clusters are used to establish a base line. Then can be grown in bulk so getting more is simply a non issue.
If you use human cells (pre birth, 12 year olds, grandma’s, IDC) you defeat the purpose of the procedure.
blackforest
Well-known member
Yes. As my post quite carefully mentioned, they’re called human diploid cell lines. And Catholic bioethicists, whom bear more credibility to me than anonymous Internet forum users, consider them unethical. There’s no need for rudeness.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
But they aren’t.
I’m getting annoyed because I have reiterate my point because you lot get stuck on points like:
None of which is helpful or constructive if I have to retread my point just to arrive somewhere we should have gotten too 30 posts or 4 days ago.
blackforest
Well-known member
That is your opinion.
At the time of this post, the term “human cells” appears 7+ times in this thread, (more with this post I’m currently making), without any clear operational definition, so my question is fair. “Human cells” is broad enough for equivocation, which is apparently what is happening here.
Last edited:
A
Anrakyr
Guest
In Rome’s. As it has been linked many times over on my threads about this same topic:
** as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;
the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);**
If you have a better way then advocate it as I asked four days ago.
If you do not then concede the point and move on.
blackforest
Well-known member
You did catch that accepting a vaccine under these circumstances is a second choice, right? This is why the Archbishop is pushing for an alternative to human diploid cell lines.
He doesn’t want Catholics put in this ethical quandry. If you’re pro-life and take these issues seriously, this is a reasonable request. And as this article details, it’s not always necessary.
On this, I think you and I could find something we can agree on. I don’t like the fact that these vaccines make use of cell lines that, long, long ago, relied upon aborted fetuses. If there were another alternative, we could and should take it. But if using these lines is absolutely the only way a COVID-19 vaccine could be derived, in a reasonable time frame given the urgency of finding a vaccine — keeping in mind that the Catholic Church cannot just up and create its own pharmaceutical company to do all the research and testing to develop such a vaccine (interesting thought), and the only alternative is to risk the life and health of both myself and, far more importantly, my family (some of whom are gravely disabled and elderly) — then I would reluctantly take it, much as the rugby team whose plane crashed in the Andes used the only source of food that they had. The embryos have already been killed, what’s done is done, we live in an imperfect world, and perhaps the unwilling sacrifice of these embryos can be turned to good, and save lives much as the contribution of Henrietta Lacks (requiescat in pace) has done.blackforest:
In Rome’s. As it has been linked many times over on my threads about this same topic:
** as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one’s own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women;
the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one’s children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);**
If you have a better way then advocate it as I asked four days ago.
If you do not then concede the point and move on.
If it’s something that comes from the Pontifical Academy for Life, that is awfully close to a Roma locuta, causa finita statement. I would welcome the Holy Father ratifying this by an encyclical or a motu proprio.
A
Anrakyr
Guest
You did catch that I asked back 4 days ago if there was a second option (notice how we keep retreading? This is happening because of you)
Then he would do better saying;
“there is not moral quandary BUT it would be helpful if we could use an alternative IF POSSIBLE.”
. . . .
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
I think it’s a lot speedier and more efficient to simply point me to a post member rather than demand readers pour through 78 posts and looking for your precise answer. But you do you.
This was a good article. Thanks for sharing. I like this part:
I appreciate this because I don’t like the complacency of, “Well, it’s bad. But whaddya gonna do? (Shrug).”
But here I disagree.
Catholics have for years been demanding alternatives with no response.
From a strictly business standpoint, what financial incentive would these drug companies have to spend the time and money producing new and more ethical vaccines? This isn’t your typical free-market, vote-with-your-dollar product because many of these products are mandated for school, (sometimes homeschool, depending on your state).
S
stormer83
Guest
I’ve never fully understood why is this an issue? It’s not as if the abortions took place to make these vaccines. How is it then different if a vaccine was developed from cell lines derived from a murder victim’s body that was donated to science?
U
umamibella
Guest
It is relevant because we are discussing a moral statement from a Catholic Archbishop. You asked
If you dont know the answer to that, you are struggling to understand this thread premise and the statement from the Archbishop of Sydney
Great question. Both are murder. The answer is beyond my theology, I think we need a Catholic bioethicist to answer this question if there are any on CAF.
Last edited:
- Status