Is it wrong to purchase Pepsi?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SaintNobody
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SaintNobody

Guest
I’m trying to wrap my head around this problem.

In light of the aborted fetal cells scandal, I’m wondering:

Do I have to 1) Stop buying and 2) Stop Drinking Pepsi?

As I understand it, Pepsi is partnering with a company that uses the clones of kidney cells of an aborted fetus (who was killed in the 1970s) are used as “dummy cells” to test biochemical reactions in order to help enhance flavour.

So the product itself appears to be tainted with a remote, morally problematic process. Nobody puts fetal cells in the product, but one process that is used to make the product is morally questionable.

I’m not trying to be contentious, but if it takes that remote a co-operation to make a product questionable, it seems our whole world is tainted. If the company in question is doing it for Pepsi, it’s probably doing it for a whole bunch of companies.

And even if I buy the supermarket brand, how did the supermarket brand get its flavouring?

I mean, how far does a product/process have to be before you say: okay, it’s tainted but you can still drink it.

I know, for instance, that vaccines developed through aborted fetal cells are to be avoided.

But I’m trying to understand how this is different (or similar). I know there’s no obligation or necessity to drink Pepsi, but boycotting the product based on a partnership with a company using questionable means strikes me as a bit out there.

Can you help me?
 
If you want to boycott Pepsi, do so. Write them a letter and tell them why.

Are you required to boycott Pepsi? No
 
My conscience forbids me. I switched to coke even though I like the flavor of pepsi better.
 
I am curious if it matters when the event happened.

Let us say, hypothetically, that the U.S. Government banned all fetal cells from going to research ever again.
Could a researcher, who would never accept cells directly from an aborted fetus accept cells from a fetus that died in 1970, and she is really accepting cells from a culture that has been growing since then?

To me, this seems like the fact that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional (for those who don’t know the story, the negotiators Jefferson sent were only supposed to be buying a small piece of Louisiana, but when Napoleon offered a ridiculously low price, they accepted without checking in with Jefferson, as they were supposed to, for fear that Napoleon would come to his senses before the message could get across the Atlantic and back). Yes, it was not handled as it should have been, but I don’t think that means that we need to give back the land, 200 years later.

Yes, the fetus should not have been killed 40 years ago, but it has happened, and there are a large number of benefits that can come from cells grown from cells grown… from cells that were once part of a fetus.
 
I’m trying to determine what the moral law requires of me, objectively.

This is not like the issue of boycotting Pepsi for its support of Planned Parenthood. You can’t tell people what to do with their money.

In this case, the product itself is problematic. Is it licit to purchase such a product, seeing as there’s no compelling reason to consume it?
 
Why would you even drink that junk anyway? It’s so bad for you.

When you’re thirsty, just drink water.
 
That doesn’t answer my question.

I drink it because I like it.
 
I don’t think anyone can give you a definitive answer to your question. I have heard various opinions on it, and they differ quite a bit.
You could ask your priest, that might be your best bet.
I agree that it’s so unhealthy to drink that stuff, that it’s morally questionable if it’s ramping up the costs of healthcare. The first advice I give my patients is to give up liquids with high fructose corn syrup or any kind of articifial sweetener. Pepsi & Coke are first on the list.
Sorry, you didn’t ask for that. But we are supposed to care for our bodies.
 
InJesusItrust said:
My conscience forbids me. I switched to coke even though I like the flavor of pepsi better.
Click to expand...
Don’t drink Coca Cola. It has one of the worst labour rights records in the world of all soft drink companies. Coca Cola union workers and leaders in South and Latin America have been murdered (often after being tortured) for speaking up for higher wages and better working conditions. This evil company exploits people and has been responsible for people being MURDERED. Read about Colombia.

killercoke.org/crimes_colombia.php

If you really are pro-life, please DO NOT drink this product.
 
I’ve been purchasing the supermarket brand lately until I figure out what I need to do.

But then I say to myself: is it moral to purchase the supermarket brand? After all the process used to develop the taste that it is copying was developed with HEK-239.

I have a problem with this remote co-operation with evil. How remote does an evil have to be before you stop having to worry about it?
 
I can imagine instances where a person would need to choose between buying a Pepsi and letting someone get shot. In that kind of situation, buying a Pepsi would be the lesser evil.

In any other situation, I wouldn’t do it, though. If you know someone will be using your money to do evil, and you give them that money because you -want- them to do the evil, then that’s formal cooperation with evil. If you know they’ll do the evil, and you give them the money for some other reason (to obtain a Pepsi,) then that’s material cooperation with evil. However, both are evil acts.

In short, unless you’re under extreme duress, I wouldn’t do it.
 
mytruepower2 said:
I can imagine instances where a person would need to choose between buying a Pepsi and letting someone get shot. In that kind of situation, buying a Pepsi would be the lesser evil.

In any other situation, I wouldn’t do it, though. If you know someone will be using your money to do evil, and you give them that money because you -want- them to do the evil, then that’s formal cooperation with evil. If you know they’ll do the evil, and you give them the money for some other reason (to obtain a Pepsi,) then that’s material cooperation with evil. However, both are evil acts.

In short, unless you’re under extreme duress, I wouldn’t do it.
Click to expand...
The thing is, it’s not Pepsi that’s using the aborted fetal cells. It’s another company. Pepsi may not even be aware of this.

And how far does this extend? Consider how compromised we are in every situation if we follow that line of thought. The newspapers make money by publishing escort ads. Do I sin by buying those papers? Television channels make money by promoting seedy shows. Do I sin by subscribing to cable and paying for one of those channels?

If Pepsi were doing abortions, I would understand boycotting them. If Pepsi were putting actual fetal cells in their product, I would get it. But that’s not the case. They’re paying a company to test their products, and THAT COMPANY is using the cloned cells of aborted fetuses.

How many degrees away from the act of abortion do we have to go before it is no longer a sin to purchase the product? If one company is using aborted fetal cells, I can’t imagine they’re only ones, and I suspect our food supply is probably compromised.

Now you may be saying to yourself: but it’s only pop. Okay, I get that. But what if we’re looking at widespread use of fetal cells? Are we going to have to have a “kosher” system to certify our food?

I’m trying to get all this.
 
SaintNobody said:
The thing is, it’s not Pepsi that’s using the aborted fetal cells. It’s another company. Pepsi may not even be aware of this.

And how far does this extend? Consider how compromised we are in every situation if we follow that line of thought. The newspapers make money by publishing escort ads. Do I sin by buying those papers? Television channels make money by promoting seedy shows. Do I sin by subscribing to cable and paying for one of those channels?

If Pepsi were doing abortions, I would understand boycotting them. If Pepsi were putting actual fetal cells in their product, I would get it. But that’s not the case. They’re paying a company to test their products, and THAT COMPANY is using the cloned cells of aborted fetuses.

How many degrees away from the act of abortion do we have to go before it is no longer a sin to purchase the product? If one company is using aborted fetal cells, I can’t imagine they’re only ones, and I suspect our food supply is probably compromised.

Now you may be saying to yourself: but it’s only pop. Okay, I get that. But what if we’re looking at widespread use of fetal cells? Are we going to have to have a “kosher” system to certify our food?

I’m trying to get all this.
Click to expand...
There are two key principles to use in making moral determinations like this.
  1. Cooperation with evil comes in three types. (A. Formal cooperation with evil; helping someone to do evil because you want them to,) (B. Material cooperation with evil; helping someone to do evil for another reason,) and (C. Helping someone do evil under duress.) All are wrong, but the culpability is worse with the earlier categories.
  2. If you are faced with two possible, evil choices, and it’s absolutely impossible to avoid both, you may do the lesser evil action in order to avoid or prevent yourself from doing the greater.
However, there is no justification for willingly cooperating with evil. If, for example, the law was forcing you to pay for something evil (old news,) that’s not a sin, because it’s not a choice you got to make, but what you buy with your own money is an utterly different case.
 
Well I’m not sure what to say. But why would they have an aborted fetus from the 70’s? Surely they must be using newer ones. And by that I also mean multiple of them. That is gross.
 
This is one of those dumb posts that are common sense questions that hardliners don’t want you to do.

I can’t believe its even a discussion topic! This is almost as bad as that Santa Claus was immoral and pagan (which I found in the archives).

Wow I can’t believe this. We’ve sunk to a new low. 😦

What’s next? The Easter bunny?! :rolleyes:
 
I understand the principle of cooperation with evil, but how remote does the act of evil have to be before you don’t have to worry about it any more? Like I said, if Pepsi was actually putting aborted fetal cell in its drinks, it would be a no-brainer.

But what if Pepsi used the product of a company that purchased another ingredient from another company and-- multiply the chain three, four, five times-- and that product was compromised?

I mean suppose the product wasn’t Pepsi but it was an ingredient of an ingredient of an ingredient for something as common as bread?

Are we still supposed to say: well, I won’t buy the final product then?

Because it seems to me that if that’s the standard, the whole food supply could be potentially jeopardized.

Why should I have to stop drinking Pepsi for something the company hired another company to do?
 
PumpkinSeed said:
Well I’m not sure what to say. But why would they have an aborted fetus from the 70’s? Surely they must be using newer ones. And by that I also mean multiple of them. That is gross.
Click to expand...
They clone the cells from the kidney. You don’t need new fetuses, just keep cloning the same ones. The cells themselves are not operational-- I understand they don’t function as cells function-- they’re essentially dummy cells and they’re used to test chemical reactions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top