Refusing vaccinations that come from aborted fetal tissue

[EIF5A]

It seems odd to make an “evil drug company vs. God’s created immune system” dichotomy.

I don’t doubt that there are unscrupulous individuals out there who have profits in front of their eyes…but that doesn’t mean all/most/some vaccines are results of evil corporations trying to dupe the public into jamming harmful chemicals into their bodies for no reason.

Back to the original post…I have a feeling if more people cared about the ethics of using aborted fetuses, more alternatives would/could have been developed. From what I currently understand about the situation, the aborted tissues were found to be efficient, not that the aborted tissues were the only ones to be efficient. In research/biology, people tend to not change things if they work (why fix if it ain’t broke type of mentality) — saves time and money not to reinvent the wheel. Unfortunately in this case, it “worked” with cells derived from a medical procedure resulting in death…

 

[UbiCaritas15]

Around the world this has saved millions of children!

Baby Sammy, Justina Pelltier, the German family looking for refuge in the US because the government was threatening to take their children due to homeschooling, where does it end?

I agree that you are entitled to your opinion, but you tell me that I should be compelled to inject what I consider poison into my child. So they come for the vaccine refusers, the second opinion getters, the gun owners in CT, the homeschoolers soon, then the Christians and Catholics next? How much of my rights become no longer mine because you like your version of facts better?

This has happened over and over in history, with different scenarios. I have no problem with people choosing to vaccinate their kid and, given the controversy and stakes, I don’t give my opinion in a one on one basis. But you think it is perfectly fine to take my rights away.

I stand by my opinion that your conscience does not get to dictate my choices.

“Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law” CCC 1778
"Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” CCC 1782

 

[EIF5A]

I think the issue here is “informed opinion” versus “being swayed by unsubstantiated claims with shock value”.

Vaccines have saved millions and millions of lives. That’s a fact, not an opinion.

(For obvious reasons, it’s unfortunate that cells derived from an act of murder were used. But the Church has addressed that issue, and if there’s no viable alternative, it seems to be allowed.)

As with all things in this present life, not everything goes the way we want it to or plan for. We don’t want adverse reactions to vaccines (or any medical intervention), but it happens.

A child may be fine with zero vaccinations. But that same child may come down with severe disease if exposed to circumstances that we do not prepare for. (You can’t see pathogens.)

There’s poison all around us. Smog, radiation, etc.

They’re not just in vaccines.

But at some point, there needs to be calculated acceptable risk (e.g., tiny amount of preservative to maintain the efficacy of the vaccine) to prevent greater harm.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I agree that you are entitled to your opinion, but you tell me that I should be compelled to inject what I consider poison into my child.

Just because you irrationally “consider” a life-saving vaccine to be a poison, that does not excuse you from having your children vaccinated. Your irrational belief, no matter how deeply held it may be, does not entitle you to put the rest of society at risk. So, yes, absolutely yes, society is entitled to protect itself by compelling you to vaccinate. Because in this matter, society’s opinion of what it needs to do to protect itself trumps your personal opinion, as long as you intend to mix in with society and expose society to whatever germs you and your children may harbor.

“Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law” CCC 1778
"Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” CCC 1782

You should read further in the Catechism where it says:
“Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.” CCC 1801.
It does not say that society, which happens to think you are wrong, is compelled to make allowances for any and all misguided decisions of the consciences of its members, especially in matter that pertain to the protection of all the people in the society.

 

[thistle]

Baby Sammy, Justina Pelltier, the German family looking for refuge in the US because the government was threatening to take their children due to homeschooling, where does it end?

I agree that you are entitled to your opinion, but you tell me that I should be compelled to inject what I consider poison into my child. So they come for the vaccine refusers, the second opinion getters, the gun owners in CT, the homeschoolers soon, then the Christians and Catholics next? How much of my rights become no longer mine because you like your version of facts better?

This has happened over and over in history, with different scenarios. I have no problem with people choosing to vaccinate their kid and, given the controversy and stakes, I don’t give my opinion in a one on one basis. But you think it is perfectly fine to take my rights away.

I stand by my opinion that your conscience does not get to dictate my choices.

“Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law” CCC 1778
"Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” CCC 1782

I would even go further (yes it is just my opinion) and say that if a parent refuses to vaccinate their children and they die from a disease that could have been prevented by vaccination then these parents should be prosecuted and jailed.

 

[adrift]

Children are not the only ones who get vaccinated.

I won’t get the shingles vaccination although I have been told that there is one that does not use fetal tissue.

 

[SMGS127]

I would even go further (yes it is just my opinion) and say that if a parent refuses to vaccinate their children and they die from a disease that could have been prevented by vaccination then these parents should be prosecuted and jailed.

Would you favor prosecution of a parent who refused to get their child vaccinated, their child got the disease, passed it to a newborn down the street who was too young to be vaccinated, and the newborn died as a result?

 

[thistle]

Would you favor prosecution of a parent who refused to get their child vaccinated, their child got the disease, passed it to a newborn down the street who was too young to be vaccinated, and the newborn died as a result?

I’m not going to play silly games with you and have to answer every permutation possible.
I stand by what I said.

 

[SMGS127]

I’m not going to play silly games with you and have to answer every permutation possible.
I stand by what I said.

I…support your position thistle . I was asking out of honest curiosity, as that exact scenario is actually a current ethical question and was the subject of a Law and Order: SVU episode. Why did you take it as offensive?

 

[Cat]

If vaccinations are not compulsory by law then yes parents have to decide.
However, the benefits of mass vaccinations far out-weight the risks of having them and in my personal view parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated are deliberately risking the lives of their children.

I haven’t read through this whole thread (I’m surprised it’s here-I thought this topic was banned on CAF).

But as a medical technologist, I have to say that watching a child suffer (and sometimes die) with whooping cough is hellish.

And same for influenza.

I can’t see putting our own children or other children at risk for some of the awful childhood diseases because of an urban legend. Everything I have heard in various medical and pharmacological conferences says that aborted fetal material is no longer used in vaccinations.

If you want to fight abortion, do so by volunteering at a local pregnancy life center, or by donating money to the good organizations that fight abortion. Putting your innocent and helpless child at risk does nothing to end abortion in the U.S., and to be honest, it makes pro-life workers look ignorant and backwards.

 

[thistle]

I…support your position thistle . I was asking out of honest curiosity, as that exact scenario is actually a current ethical question and was the subject of a Law and Order: SVU episode. Why did you take it as offensive?

My apologies. Maybe too sensitive as I’ve been caught up in scenarios like that before when I give one answer then a series of endless permutations is brought up.
I don’t watch Law and Order so I didn’t see that.
However, to answer your question I probably would support such a prosecution.
Parents are responsible for their children and they have to be accountable if something goes wrong that they could have prevented but chose not to prevent, whether it happens just to their children or to others through their children.

 

[thistle]

I have read that in England the parents of a boy who died from rickets (an easily treatable disease) because they refused to get him medical help because of religious beliefs (seven day adventists) were jailed for manslaughter.

I think that should be applied to parents who refuse to vaccinate their their children and something happens to their children that could have been prevented.

 

[EIF5A]

I do wonder what the source of the distrust is…

Something out there must convince people that vaccines are made by money-grubbing corporations that intentionally inject toxins into children.

From what I understand, the non-biological materials are meant for longer shelf-life and to boost the immune response so that the vaccine is more likely to provide protection.

So I don’t see a government-sponsored conspiracy…

 

[adrift]

If vaccinations are not compulsory by law then yes parents have to decide.
However, the benefits of mass vaccinations far out-weight the risks of having them and in my personal view parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated are deliberately risking the lives of their children.

Risking their lives? For some vaccination yes but for others like chickenpox no.

The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, and the U.S. and British bishops conferences have studied the issue in detail and concluded that using the vaccines is morally permissible. However, once a person learns that certain vaccines are morally tainted, there is an obligation to seek out ethical alternatives where possible and to make objections known to health care providers and vaccine manufacturers. In addition, parents are entirely justified in citing a “conscientious objection” to tainted vaccines being used to immunize their children, particularly when the vaccine is not for a substantially threatening illness (Chickenpox). A number of noted prolife activists have weighed in on both sides of the issue. Some have encouraged parents to use and demand nothing less than vaccines obtained through morally acceptable means.(6) Others like Jack Willke, M.D., former National Right to Life Committee president and the late Bernard Nathanson, M.D., prolife activist and creator of “The Silent Scream” have opined that using the vaccines is morally allowable.(7,8)

 

[SMGS127]

My apologies. Maybe too sensitive as I’ve been caught up in scenarios like that before when I give one answer then a series of endless permutations is brought up.
I don’t watch Law and Order so I didn’t see that.
However, to answer your question I probably would support such a prosecution.
Parents are responsible for their children and they have to be accountable if something goes wrong that they could have prevented but chose not to prevent, whether it happens just to their children or to others through their children.

No problem. I assumed you thought I was trying to egg you instead of being serious. And I would support such a prosecution as well. Vaccinations are an issue of public safety, and so parental rights are superseded by the protection of their neighbor’s children (and their own children, for that matter).

I see no difference in someone denying vaccinations for their healthy children and someone denying treatment for their sick children. Either way there is a needless endangerment of their child and other children, and protection of children is an area where the government has a just right to limit parental choices.

 

[thistle]

No problem. I assumed you thought I was trying to egg you instead of being serious. And I would support such a prosecution as well. Vaccinations are an issue of public safety, and so parental rights are superseded by the protection of their neighbor’s children (and their own children, for that matter).

I see no difference in someone denying vaccinations for their healthy children and someone denying treatment for their sick children. Either way there is a needless endangerment of their child and other children, and protection of children is an area where the government has a just right to limit parental choices.

We are in full agreement then.

 

[thistle]

Risking their lives? For some vaccination yes but for others like chickenpox no.

I don’t disagree with you. All my posts have talked about vaccinations in general. Its not my aim to type out a list and say yes for this and no for that.
I think by now most people should know what diseases are potentially life threatening or disabling.

I also agree that if for a particular disease (life threatening or disabling) there are several types of vaccinations then the one from fetal tissue must not be used.

On the other hand if there is only one vaccine and that is from fetal tissue I have no issue with that being used and neither does the Church.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

Whatever

 

[Blessed_is_He]

My son is one and a half. He got his vaccines. I think he has more to go. If I get the AlterNet vaccines would they work as well as the regular? I don’t want vaccines from animals either. are there more options? And why are fetus cells in them any

 

[UbiCaritas15]

This is an excellent case in point where attacking and even moderately threatening someone is apparently easier online, than face to face. You don’t know me. You don’t knows family, history or anything about me.

I appreciate the reminder. I hope you have a wonderful Lent.