Covid19 vaccine, will we know how it's made

  • Thread starter Thread starter esieffe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JSRG said:
From my understanding, this is incorrect. What it is using is a replicating cell line (which has already been used in other vaccines) that was originally derived from fetal tissue decades ago. There is no “fetal tissue” in these cells, the cells used now aren’t even the original cells anyway, and they’re used in production of the vaccine rather than being in the vaccine themselves.
Click to expand...
JSRG said:
Moderna’s vaccine, from what I can tell, is simply using those cell lines.
Click to expand...
The case of the COVID vaccine is a little more complex and involves “humanized mice” with human fetal tissue. Coronavirus treatment research is delayed by Trump’s ban on the use of fetal tissue - Vox
 
Last edited:
ZemD said:
I apologize for my poor word choice.

I do think the argument is a bit convoluted though. If one is against using aborted fetal cells for research or to grow vaccines, why would it matter if the fetus was aborted 40 years ago or 4 hours ago? Yes the cells used now are essentially copies made in a lab over and over again, not the original cells anymore, but again decades ago a baby was aborted to get those original cells.

I know the church has said “this is fine”, I don’t think I know better than the church, I personally think the justification given is poor. Is it justified in any other area of catholic teaching to permitt an objective evil for the potential, not even guarentee, to prevent suffering in others? Particularly when there are many other ethical avenues to develop vaccines.
Click to expand...
I highly doubt the mother of that fetus purposely got pregnant and then aborted for the purpose of providing those cells.

Remember the story of the soccer team in a plane crash in the Andes? Some persons sadly died in the crash and others, having no other food, ate the corpses.

Being that some were devout Catholics, after their rescue the Church felt it necessary to announce publicly that they had.done nothing wrong.

If a fetus is going to be aborted regardless, this may well be a similar a situation, where something that in normal circumstances wpuld be abhorrent is OK where saving lives is in question.

And I highly doubt anyone would use fetal tissue if easier and less ethically doubtful methods are available.
 
Last edited:
Whatever reason the mother had for aborting her baby would be unjust and abhorrent. Taking the life of an innocent human being, at any stage of life, is always unjust and abhorrent. To then say, “since we are going to kill him anyway, the commodification of his organs and tissues is now okay” does not respect life, in my opinion.

I don’t see how this situation is at all related to eating a person who died in a plane crash because one is starving. Food is necessary for life, the person died naturally although tragically and untimely. The fetal tissue did not come from babies who died naturally, but were killed by the choice of their mothers and doctors. Vaccines are not necessary to sustain life, and there are other methods to create them that do not use fetal tissue

There are other methods for creating and growing vaccines. I have no idea if they are easier or harder, but easy or hard should not help tip the scales when weighing something that is ethical versus unethical. Something as unethical as using the tissue from aborted babies should not be considered, in my opinion. Their lives are no less valuable than any life that could be saved by a vaccine.

I understand that I disagree with the church on this. I don’t think I know better or am smarter than the church. I am not encouraging anyone to not receive a vaccine that they otherwise would. I am not anti-vaccine. It is just my opinion that if I do not accept aborting babies to be permissible in any circumstance, I should not accept that for vaccines or other medical research those babies now be justly used as a commodity.
 
ZemD said:
I apologize for my poor word choice.

I do think the argument is a bit convoluted though. If one is against using aborted fetal cells for research or to grow vaccines, why would it matter if the fetus was aborted 40 years ago or 4 hours ago? Yes the cells used now are essentially copies made in a lab over and over again, not the original cells anymore, but again decades ago a baby was aborted to get those original cells.
Click to expand...
It matters insofar as the claim was that they were currently doing it, when that is false.

Also, it is my understanding, and someone is free to correct me, but the baby was not aborted to get those original cells. As I understand it, it got aborted by the mother’s choice and then the scientists used the tissue to extract the cell line; there wasn’t any encouragement or anything from the scientists, it was going to get aborted regardless.

Let me put it this way. If someone gets murdered (any reason or type of murder would do, but let’s say they were coming home and encountered a burglar, and the burglar shot them), and scientists harvest tissue from the corpse in order to create some medical treatment (which, upon its creation, requires no more tissue harvesting), would you consider it immoral to make use of the medical treatment they made? If no, what is the distinction between this and what happened with the abortion?
 
If the person who died was not an organ donor or did not have a will that mentioned he wished his body to be donated to science, yes I would consider the harvesting of his organs and tissue immoral.
 
ZemD said:
To then say, “since we are going to kill him anyway, the commodification of his organs and tissues is now okay” does not respect life, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
“Going to kill him anyway”? Is that the circumstance? A dead fetus was used at some point - I’m not even sure if that is ongoing or only historical.

The use of the fetal tissue is independent of the abortion. The former was no motivation for the latter.
ZemD said:
It is just my opinion that if I do not accept aborting babies to be permissible in any circumstance…
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, the vaccine making process is not a relevant circumstance for the abortion as they are totally independent.

I do understand your uneasiness.
 
Last edited:
ZemD said:
If the person who died was not an organ donor or did not have a will that mentioned he wished his body to be donated to science, yes I would consider the harvesting of his organs and tissue immoral.
Click to expand...
This is a relevant issue and I wonder how hospitals approach the handling of aborted fetuses. Who has what legal rights?
 
JSRG said:
Let me put it this way. If someone gets murdered (any reason or type of murder would do, but let’s say they were coming home and encountered a burglar, and the burglar shot them), and scientists harvest tissue from the corpse in order to create some medical treatment (which, upon its creation, requires no more tissue harvesting), would you consider it immoral to make use of the medical treatment they made? If no, what is the distinction between this and what happened with the abortion?
Click to expand...
If somebody were set to profit handsomely off the corpse of my loved one then, yes, I would strongly take issue. Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine could cruise to $5B in sales—or more, analysts say
 
Last edited:
The fetus has no legal rights, as they are not currently viewed as people under the law. That is why it is legal to kill them for any reason until they are born. The mother would have the right to make this decision.

And to answer your other post, yes the mother who chose to abort her baby likely did not do so in order to have that baby’s tissue harvested to help create a vaccine BUT just the fact that we use this tissue in medical research for things such as vaccines creates a demand for abortion or justification to keep it legal and that is wrong.
 
ZemD said:
The mother would have the right to make this decision.
Click to expand...
Do mothers grant permission for medical research on their fetus? I’m assuming so.
ZemD said:
just the fact that we use this tissue in medical research for things such as vaccines creates a demand for abortion or justification to keep it legal and that is wrong.
Click to expand...
But what are the facts here? Is there an ongoing demand for fetuses for vaccine development / production? How does that assumed demand compare with supply? Does the assumed demand have any influence on the supply, or are they totally independent? I think all these questions need to be answered before drawing too many conclusions.
 
the first question is whether or not this covid19 virus was made with fetal cells. This is a manufactured virus, this is not natural. It was made in a lab and they played with dna from animals or protozoa. and it could have been also made with fetal dna. The fact young children are least effected by it is alarming because the youngsters usually are the most effected by respiratory infections. I personally wouldnt take the vaccine.
 
Those are good questions. I do not think there is ongoing demand for fetal tissue specifically for vaccine research. There is obviously much more supply than demand for this as so many babies are aborted just in this country alone.

But I personally do not feel comfortable accepting this vaccine if it was developed with fetal cells, whether the fetus died 40 years ago or 4. And I hope I’ve been very clear, I know the church disagrees with me on this and I do not think I am right and the church is wrong. As far as I know we are not required to accept all vaccines either by the church, so it would be acceptable for me to decline a Covid 19 vaccine.
 
Last edited:
there is no source for that, but t hey at least call it a " novel" virus. I suspect the HIV virus was also a " novel" virus and it was followed up with massive virus research after a good 10 yrs of collecting fetal tissue for research from legalized abortions. Vaccines are riddled with fetal cells. If you search the catholic church has a list of them. MMR is one of them. This has all been going on for a long time. in labs quietly. I dont know if china deliberatly released it, it doesnt matter but im not sure they can make a vaccine for a novel virus, They have not made a vaccine for HIV virus.
 
mary77 said:
This is a manufactured virus, this is not natural. It was made in a lab and they played with dna from animals or protozoa
Click to expand...
Source please. The top scientists around the world say it is NOT a manufactured virus.
 
The Covid 19 virus is a variant of the common cold and flu viruses. The vaccine will most probably be derived from the same branch.
None of the publicly available data point to the use of embryos in the research but of course it is a heavily guarded secret see the recent events on attempts by Russia to hack the labs were the research is being carried out.
Peace!
 
mary77 said:
there is no source for that, but t hey at least call it a " novel" virus.
Click to expand...
Novel just means “not previously identified”. That in itself has no implications for whether it naturally arose or not. As you say - there is no source to credibly support a claim that it’s man-made.
 
Last edited:
I am a lot more skeptical then you about the origin of this virus. This particular virus prompts the immunesystem too harshly. They have been experimenting in Immune response prompting for many years and I would even say this virus acts like a vaccine gone wrong or not finished or something that was being created for some kind of biowarfare.
 
Expressing your view as a personal one is fine. But your original statement was expressed as though it were objectively determined fact.

I for one hold no view on how it came about. I presume naturally, but don’t know.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top