. . . unless one decides not to have his/her children vaccinated, and then they catch the disease and their lives (and the lives of those with whom they come into contact) are put in jeopardy.Do the research, make the decision and act on it. It is a personal decision without moral or theological repercussions.
Deliberately exposing innocent children to potentially fatal diseases has no moral repercussions?!Do the research, make the decision and act on it. It is a personal decision without moral or theological repercussions.
If your intent in withholding a vaccine was to purposefully expose your child to the virus, then it would be morally wrong. If, however, there are other reasons you chose not to vaccinate your child, they would not automatically be morally wrong. It would depend entirely on your reasons.Deliberately exposing innocent children to potentially fatal diseases has no moral repercussions?!
Well … no. That was actually the point of the article.Do the research, make the decision and act on it. It is a personal decision without moral or theological repercussions.
I don’t think they should have ever used cells from aborted babies to create vaccines.Perhaps there was another more moral alternative. The article does point out the fact that some people cannot get beyond the idea that the technology was developed using an immoral practice.
Although the means were immoral, I am glad they clarified that issue. I have met several people who have been very vocal in their beliefs that getting those vaccines is sinful. So instead they choose to risk the health of their own children, and the children with whom they come in contact.I don’t think they should have ever used cells from aborted babies to create vaccines.Perhaps there was another more moral alternative. The article does point out the fact that some people cannot get beyond the idea that the technology was developed using an immoral practice.
We don’t use the vaccines derived from aborted fetal cells (like the MMR) for our daughter, and we don’t do some of the others, either (flu) more out of practical considerations.Although the means were immoral, I am glad they clarified that issue. I have met several people who have been very vocal in their beliefs that getting those vaccines is sinful. So instead they choose to risk the health of their own children, and the children with whom they come in contact.
No, not really. Efficacy is actually not the arbiter of moral norms in Catholic teaching. Just because something works doesn’t make it good. Dropping a nuclear bomb on Syria and Iraq would do wonders for the fight against ISIS, bit that doesn’t make it right.The Church teaches that our intellects are a gift from God, and the fruits of our intellects are good.
Therefore, since vaccines work. we should use them.
And not using vaccines puts many people at risk of dangerous life-changing, life-limiting diseases.
I know a number of people who agree. That’s why I am so glad the article clarified that this is not Catholic teaching, and not a valid reason to avoid vaccination.We don’t use the vaccines derived from aborted fetal cells (like the MMR) for our daughter, and we don’t do some of the others, either (flu) more out of practical considerations.
I am not sure how a Catholic can in good conscience use those. We, at least, cannot.
Yes, it is really contagious. It’s particularly dangerous for infants, who cannot be vaccinated until they are a little older.I had measles when I was 6 years old. I understand you can have it a second time. Supposedly, if you are in a room with someone who has measles, you can be infected up to 2 hours after the person has left the room.
You shouldn’t be making moral decisions based on a news article.I know a number of people who agree. That’s why I am so glad the article clarified that this is not Catholic teaching, and not a valid reason to avoid vaccination.
I’m not.You shouldn’t be making moral decisions based on a news article.