They do not contain DNA and protein belonging to an aborted child. That is a common antivax talking point. Do you have any sources for that claim?
They could contain DNA from a cell line that originated decades ago from an aborted fetus, but those are not the same. For example, is a cheek swab culture "me" in the same sense of my physical…
They do not contain DNA and protein belonging to an aborted child. That is a common antivax talking point. Do you have any sources for that claim?
They could contain DNA from a cell line that originated decades ago from an aborted fetus, but those are not the same. For example, is a cheek swab culture "me" in the same sense of my physical being? Would destroying that culture be harming or destroying "me"? Certainly not. HeLa cells have been used in a majority of medical breakthroughs in the past decade, and were also unethically sourced-- yet I do not see any pushback on the many discoveries from them.
Even the article you linked (which is 20 years old and has been updated several times), does not mention your claim of "injecting cells and genetic material belonging to an aborted child into our bodies" as that is not how the vaccine development process works.
All guidance from the Vatican or USCCB mentions that this is at most remote material cooperation in evil, and we are still obligated to use these vaccines to protect the common good if no alternative is available. To forgo necessary vaccines because of this remote cooperation in evil is itself wrong, and no guidance from church authority has said otherwise. For example: https://www.usccb.org/resources/Vatican%20CDF%20statement%20on%20COVID%20vaccines.pdf
By typing these responses on our phones/laptops, we are financially supporting companies that use those funds to provide abortions. That is a much greater degree of remote material cooperation than taking a vaccine necessary to the common good (while still using our voices to ask for better alternatives, of course).
You can find both MRC-5 and WI-38 listed on the ingredients of the vaccines.
These cells are essentially stolen goods, harvested after a murder.
Yes HeLa cells were also taken unethically, but not after a murder. And there has been for more publicity decrying that process than there has been for the murders that led to these cell lines.
It is my impression from the guidance that we are released from the obligation to avoid these unethical vaccines if it is a grave inconvenience. But that does not mean we are obligated to take the unethical vaccine. And as this article pointed out, "There’s a strong tradition in Catholicism that people must not be required to do something they consider to be sinful in order to participate in an organization."
I think the article does a good job explaining that people can in good conscience come to different conclusions on this matter. I don't intend to convince others that it's wrong to take the vaccine. I just hope not to be bullied into taking it or be told that I'm doing wrong by not taking it.
The document you cited seems to contradict your statement that it is "wrong" not to take a "necessary" vaccine. The document states, "practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral
Obligation..."
Notwithstanding the obligation to avoid spreading of the disease by other means, I don't understand where it says it's wrong to opt out of a vaccine. Please correct me if I missed something or misunderstood your point.
They do not contain DNA and protein belonging to an aborted child. That is a common antivax talking point. Do you have any sources for that claim?
They could contain DNA from a cell line that originated decades ago from an aborted fetus, but those are not the same. For example, is a cheek swab culture "me" in the same sense of my physical being? Would destroying that culture be harming or destroying "me"? Certainly not. HeLa cells have been used in a majority of medical breakthroughs in the past decade, and were also unethically sourced-- yet I do not see any pushback on the many discoveries from them.
Even the article you linked (which is 20 years old and has been updated several times), does not mention your claim of "injecting cells and genetic material belonging to an aborted child into our bodies" as that is not how the vaccine development process works.
All guidance from the Vatican or USCCB mentions that this is at most remote material cooperation in evil, and we are still obligated to use these vaccines to protect the common good if no alternative is available. To forgo necessary vaccines because of this remote cooperation in evil is itself wrong, and no guidance from church authority has said otherwise. For example: https://www.usccb.org/resources/Vatican%20CDF%20statement%20on%20COVID%20vaccines.pdf
By typing these responses on our phones/laptops, we are financially supporting companies that use those funds to provide abortions. That is a much greater degree of remote material cooperation than taking a vaccine necessary to the common good (while still using our voices to ask for better alternatives, of course).
Regarding MRC-5 and WI-38,
"Each of these cell lines started with cells harvested from a deliberately aborted fetus" -https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/mrc-5-cell-line
You can find both MRC-5 and WI-38 listed on the ingredients of the vaccines.
These cells are essentially stolen goods, harvested after a murder.
Yes HeLa cells were also taken unethically, but not after a murder. And there has been for more publicity decrying that process than there has been for the murders that led to these cell lines.
It is my impression from the guidance that we are released from the obligation to avoid these unethical vaccines if it is a grave inconvenience. But that does not mean we are obligated to take the unethical vaccine. And as this article pointed out, "There’s a strong tradition in Catholicism that people must not be required to do something they consider to be sinful in order to participate in an organization."
I think the article does a good job explaining that people can in good conscience come to different conclusions on this matter. I don't intend to convince others that it's wrong to take the vaccine. I just hope not to be bullied into taking it or be told that I'm doing wrong by not taking it.
The document you cited seems to contradict your statement that it is "wrong" not to take a "necessary" vaccine. The document states, "practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral Obligation..."
Notwithstanding the obligation to avoid spreading of the disease by other means, I don't understand where it says it's wrong to opt out of a vaccine. Please correct me if I missed something or misunderstood your point.