Immorally produced vaccines

uptherebels

John Hutton wrote: »

You do realise that it is a central teaching, and reality, that everyone sins and is a sinner? Why do some seem to think that pointing this out is a kind of "gotcha!" revelation?

I suppose it has to do with the christian teaching of redemption and forgiveness - people can't get their heads around it. It's most definitely counter cultural today where people are written off forever for misspeaking, never mind actually doing something wrong.

You wrote all that, yet you failed to answer the very simple question.

martingriff

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think my Christian formed view of the fundamentally corrupt nature of man (myself included), my personal experience of corporate world and the avalanche of evidence regarding the sociopathic nature of corporations - entities which concentrate and amplify individual corruption - has provided me with all the evidence I need.

I'm not so much interested in (since I haven't the means to find out) whether this or that vaccine is safe or not. It's a general view applied to the current topic.

I do gain from others personally formed views leading them to trust the system, leading to their availing of a vaccine - I get the benefit of whatever herd immunity there is. But its a side bonus, not a grounding, parasitic reason not to take the vaccine.

For when you inject a vaccine, you are not so much injecting a medical product as the system which produced it.

And I don't trust that system.

Have you heard of a search engine. I am guessing you don't take antibiotics either

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1210/1183698-vaccine-covid-19/

They have said there is no aborted cells and the Catholic church has said it is fine anyway to take a vaccine also where was Dr (I use that term extremely loosely) Wakefield exonerated about his views

John Hutton

uptherebels wrote: »

You wrote all that, yet you failed to answer the very simple question.

I did answer your question. I am sure everyone commits all kinds of sins, Catholics are no exceptions, nor are the examples you outline.



What is your point?

antiskeptic

martingriff wrote: »

Have you heard of a search engine. I am guessing you don't take antibiotics either

That search engine (and personal experience working in one) has shown me that corporations are sociopathic (buy a VW recently?) and that the bodies tasked with defending our interests aren't auto-trustworthy.

When the editor/former editor of respected peer review journals talk of a crisis in science (i.e. obtaining the results they want to obtain, conflicts of interest, etc,) then it would seem stupid to blindly suppose vaccines safe just because science says so.


In the event of reasonable doubt, the question of whether I would take a medication which may damage me vs a virus which may damage me arises.

There is too, the not inconsiderable task of establishing quite how deadly this disease is. The death figures are problematic to say the least. With 45% of infections being asymptomatic, how does one establish who actually dies from Covid? I mean, if you simply label a death as a Covid death merely because someone has Covid...


I'm not convinced by the 'for the good of your neighbour' argument frequently deployed. I doubt anyone takes a vaccine for the good of their neighbour. Call me cynical..

The same question would arise with an antibiotic. Since they are not without issue themselves I tend to avoid them where I can. One wonders why the public are informed not to overuse antibiotics when they can only be obtained on prescription. The self same kind of authority we are supposed to trust when it comes to taking a vaccine are the ones who dole out antibiotics like smarties. Our kid fell on his face and banged his mouth. Took him to the dentist to check his teeth out. She prescribes an antibiotic in case his cut lip would get infected. In the bin with that and out with some cups of salt water to swish around his mouth..

They have said there is no aborted cells and the Catholic church has said it is fine anyway to take a vaccine

I'm not a Catholic. Amd my wondering as to vaccine safety is not abortion related

also where was Dr (I use that term extremely loosely) Wakefield exonerated about his views

Wakefield was judge, juried amd executed by the very same GMC whose approach, in the case of his co-author, was roundly eviscerated by the courts as kangeroo-ish.

You don't have to be exonerated to be considered not necessarily guilty. Else we must suppose all those found guilty by kangeroo courts as guilty, failing their being exonerated.

Ism't the usual approach to dismiss as unsafe the findings of kangeroo courts? I mean, innocent until proven guilty??

martingriff

antiskeptic wrote: »

That search engine (and personal experience working in one) has shown me that corporations are sociopathic (buy a VW recently?) and that the bodies tasked with defending our interests aren't auto-trustworthy.

When the editor/former editor of respected peer review journals talk of a crisis in science (i.e. obtaining the results they want to obtain, conflicts of interest, etc,) then it would seem stupid to blindly suppose vaccines safe just because science says so.


In the event of reasonable doubt, the question of whether I would take a medication which may damage me vs a virus which may damage me arises.

There is too, the not inconsiderable task of establishing quite how deadly this disease is. The death figures are problematic to say the least. With 45% of infections being asymptomatic, how does one establish who actually dies from Covid? I mean, if you simply label a death as a Covid death merely because someone has Covid...


I'm not convinced by the 'for the good of your neighbour' argument frequently deployed. I doubt anyone takes a vaccine for the good of their neighbour. Call me cynical..

The same question would arise with an antibiotic. Since they are not without issue themselves I tend to avoid them where I can. One wonders why the public are informed not to overuse antibiotics when they can only be obtained on prescription. The self same kind of authority we are supposed to trust when it comes to taking a vaccine are the ones who dole out antibiotics like smarties. Our kid fell on his face and banged his mouth. Took him to the dentist to check his teeth out. She prescribes an antibiotic in case his cut lip would get infected. In the bin with that and out with some cups of salt water to swish around his mouth..



I'm not a Catholic. Amd my wondering as to vaccine safety is not abortion related



Wakefield was judge, juried amd executed by the very same GMC whose approach, in the case of his co-author, was roundly eviscerated by the courts as kangeroo-ish.

You don't have to be exonerated to be considered not necessarily guilty. Else we must suppose all those found guilty by kangeroo courts as guilty, failing their being exonerated.

Ism't the usual approach to dismiss as unsafe the findings of kangeroo courts? I mean, innocent until proven guilty??

What Kangaroo courts come on. The Lancet retracted his papers he wrote, he was struck off as a doctor by the British Medical Board and even his libel actions were dropped by him (against Channel 4 and The Sunday Times) as he had no case. I can see no kangaroo court and you cant even show one bit of proof. Anyway this has pulled the thread clearly offcourse so I will end here

smacl

John Hutton wrote: »

The majority of unplanned pregnancies across the board, those of all religions and none, do not end up with the killing of the child. The majority end up working out well and the child is loved and cared for. I would imagine that among practicing Catholics the percentage who decide to have an abortion is smaller still. But again, how does this matter? What is your point? That Christians sometimes, or even often, commit sin? Is this an argument that because some, or even many, Christians commit a particular sin it should no longer be considered a sin? Loads of people steal, should we delete "thou shalt not steal" too?
The aim however, seems to be to skip the wealth bit.
If you subscribe to the moral school of "the ends justify the means" I can see how one would struggle to understand an objection to committing one incorrect action to prevent others. But that's not really the case here, you are proposing a "ends justify the means" position to me, which you do not hold yourself because you do not think that artificial contraception (many of which are forms of abortion) is incorrect. This is not really a fair proposition from you, because I do not think you would accept the general principle that the ends justifying the means on something is a good moral policy, yet you say you don't understand the objection of Christians to it when it is quite plain. If I proposed an example to you where you could commit one bad act to prevent another bad act (which would not occur in the majority of cases) you would likely object, even more so if I proposed this as an indefinite policy to occur millions of times, rather than as a once off. Although it is good you raised it, because it brings us back to the topic at hand, ethics.

Anyway, in case it needs to be said, I am not in favour of banning artificial contraceptives (where they are not an abortifacient) in a country where the citizens, through democratic means, have decided that they should be allowed.

In the UK slightly more than a quarter of women who have an abortion became pregnant after their artificial contraceptives - those catagorised as the best and most reliable forms of artificial contraceptive (implant, coil etc)- failed. More than half were using some form of artificial contraceptive.

Natural family planning, particularly the billings method, is extremely effective, as much as, if not more so, than many artificial contraceptives. People struggling to conceive often discover this, in reverse.

While we are on the subject, if you want to be really sure a pregnancy does not happen, you should be using a combination of natural and artificial methods of contraception. You would be amazed at the amount of people (men especially) who do not know that if you only use condoms, over time, it works out at an approx 80% success rate.

Of course, the best of all options, is to not have sex unless you are in a loving relationship, such as marriage, and in a position where an unplanned pregnancy, should natural methods fail, can be coped with and, indeed, welcomed as the blessing it is. (No one ever said the moral life was easy!)

Most of this is predicated on the belief that any and every abortion equates to killing a child. For those of us that do not hold such a belief, the ethical arguments are entirely different. There is no ethical issue with the end justifying the means in the situation where one does not have any moral issue with those means. For example, I personally do not have any moral issue with any first trimester abortion, use of the morning after pill, use of contraception or sexual intercourse between consenting adults. I fully acknowledge that these things do constitute moral issues of varying degree to various Christian groups but would question the expectations of Christians on those who do not share their beliefs to adhere to the same moral imperatives. Just as you might consider my stance immoral based on your beliefs, so might I consider your stance immoral based on mine. Again by example, I would consider limiting or denying access to contraception to any group that are sexually active to be deeply immoral. At the same time we are part of the same society which is governed by the same rules and that society is perpetually changing. How exactly are we to make and refine those rules in this context?

antiskeptic

martingriff wrote: »

What Kangaroo courts come on. The Lancet retracted his papers he wrote, he was struck off as a doctor by the British Medical Board and even his libel actions were dropped by him (against Channel 4 and The Sunday Times) as he had no case.

Yes, but subsequently and in the case of the papers co author, who too was hauled before the GMC, was too found to be guilty as charged an a washlist of crimes and was too, struck off..

...was exonerated by the courts.

I can see no kangaroo court and you cant even show one bit of proof. Anyway this has pulled the thread clearly offcourse so I will end here

Justice John Mitting, in Case No: CO/7039/2010 in the Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, ruled on the appeal by Walker-Smith, saying that the GMC “panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it.” He said that its conclusions were based on “inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.”

Calling for changes in the way GMC fitness to practise panel hearings are conducted , the judge said of the flawed handling of Walker-Smith's case: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again.

Whilst somewhat off topic I would note the general point about trust in authorities - a significant reason why folk would suppose a particular vaccine safe. Should we trust an authority like the GMC, found to be operating as they did?

You yourself display this faith in authority for authorties sake. "Paper retracted", "struck off by an authority". Woo - sounds so very lofty doesn't it, like an argument from authority. What do you say then, when another authority, the courts, finds a problem - so much so that they overturn the whole charade?

Question: Are you going to keep trusting your original authorities? What will you do the next time they strike off someone involved in something controversial? Wakefield made the point that his paper was the normal first tier reporting: a doctor in a maternity ward notices that a number of children are born without arms, notes that the parents report taking a drug call Thalidimoide and yanks on the alarm bell. He is right to note the observation and possible link. He ought not to be disbarred for doing so. Wakefield noticed a link between the gastro symptoms, common behaviours and the parents reporting onset after MMR. What else ought he have done?



Of Wakefield not taking a similar route, we must remain agnostic. Point is, if someone stood in the same dock and subject to the same process, we have at least reasonable reason to suppose Wakefield not necessarily guilty of anything.

https://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9262180.htm

Hotblack Desiato

John Hutton wrote: »

You do realise that it is a central teaching, and reality, that everyone sins and is a sinner? Why do some seem to think that pointing this out is a kind of "gotcha!" revelation?

"Do what you like - provided you feel sufficiently guilty about it later" ? Sorry but I don't find that a basis for any form of morality.

We really are reaching an endgame, the whole "go forth and muliply" nonsense is played out and really needs to end asap. Catholic teaching imperils the future of the human race, just as well most Catholics ignore it.

John Hutton wrote: »

because you do not think that artificial contraception (many of which are forms of abortion) is incorrect.

Totally incorrect. The contraceptive pill and morning after pill were both legal in Ireland under the 8th amendment which was a total ban on abortion short of maternal death. Barrier methods, spermicides etc. and the pill itself prevent fertilisation in the first place. The IUD is intended to prevent implantation, if you want to call that abortion that's up to you but it'd be a minority view and again it must be noted it was fully legal here under the 8th amendment.
Similarly with the MAP, it primarily acts to prevent ovulation but if ovulation has already occurred it may discourage implantation.
It should be noted that IUDs are not all that popular and the MAP is used as a last resort short of abortion.

It never ceases to amaze me that Catholics decry abortion yet campaign against all of the things (including proper sex education) which prevent abortion.

Natural family planning, particularly the billings method, is extremely effective, as much as, if not more so, than many artificial contraceptives.

:pac: If this really worked, the RCC would oppose it.

Of course, the best of all options, is to not have sex unless you are in a loving relationship, such as marriage, and in a position where an unplanned pregnancy, should natural methods fail, can be coped with and, indeed, welcomed as the blessing it is. (No one ever said the moral life was easy!)

Well just because you're in a committed relationship or marriage doesn't mean that you're keen on the possibility of 12 or 13 opportunities a year to conceive :rolleyes:

John Hutton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Do what you like - provided you feel sufficiently guilty about it later" ? Sorry but I don't find that a basis for any form of morality.

No that is not the case. Although it is one of the wonders of the Christian message that those who sincerely seek forgiveness with always be forgiven.

Totally incorrect. The contraceptive pill and morning after pill were both legal in Ireland under the 8th amendment which was a total ban on abortion short of maternal death. Barrier methods, spermicides etc. and the pill itself prevent fertilisation in the first place. The IUD is intended to prevent implantation, if you want to call that abortion that's up to you but it'd be a minority view and again it must be noted it was fully legal here under the 8th amendment.
Similarly with the MAP, it primarily acts to prevent ovulation but if ovulation has already occurred it may discourage implantation.
It should be noted that IUDs are not all that popular and the MAP is used as a last resort short of abortion.

It is not incorrect... as you go on to point out, a number of methods used as artificial contraceptives are forms of abortion, the fact that they were legal under the 8th amendment has no bearing on this.

It never ceases to amaze me that Catholics decry abortion yet campaign against all of the things (including proper sex education) which prevent abortion.



:pac: If this really worked, the RCC would oppose it.

You decry supposed catholic opposition to sex education, yet then go on to reveal yourself as being ignorant in this area? The billings method is extremely effective.

Well just because you're in a committed relationship or marriage doesn't mean that you're keen on the possibility of 12 or 13 opportunities a year to conceive :rolleyes:

As mentioned, the billings method is extremely effective. If you are not in a position to deal with the responsibilities involved in possibly creating a human life you should not take the 1 in a 100 risk (such as with the billings method) or the risk of failure of artificial contraception by having sex.

Hotblack Desiato

The Billings method is effective in theory but in practice difficult to use correctly so its real-world effectiveness is poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings_method

Evidence of effectiveness is not very clear. Typical use of this method is associated with a pregnancy rate of 1 to 22%. A World Health Organization study found that 15% is caused by a conscious departure from method rules. The percentage of people who stop using the method after a year is between 1 and 24%. Perfect use has been estimated to result in pregnancy in 0.5 to 3%. Some studies of perfect use excluded those who could not detect secretions that represented fertility.

Also you are still incorrect in maintaining that "many" forms of artificial contraception are forms of abortion - all the popularly used ones prevent ferticilsation in the first place so can have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

Traditional IUDs prevent implantation, but are rarely used these days. Hormonal IUDs prevent ovulation and/or thicken the cervical mucus to prevent sperm reaching the egg. No fertilisation, no abortion.

MAP primarily works by preventing ovulation. Also it is intended for emergency use only.

Yet you have the cheek to call me ignorant.

John Hutton

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The Billings method is effective in theory but in practice difficult to use correctly so its real-world effectiveness is poor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billings_method



Also you are still incorrect in maintaining that "many" forms of artificial contraception are forms of abortion - all the popularly used ones prevent ferticilsation in the first place so can have nothing whatsoever to do with abortion.

Traditional IUDs prevent implantation, but are rarely used these days. Hormonal IUDs prevent ovulation and/or thicken the cervical mucus to prevent sperm reaching the egg. No fertilisation, no abortion.

MAP primarily works by preventing ovulation. Also it is intended for emergency use only.

Yet you have the cheek to call me ignorant.

Those figures are not far off condoms at the "bad end" around 20% failure and at the good end it is actually as, if not more effective than the "best" artificial contraceptives. I don't think they are figures to scoff at as you did.

Artificial contraceptives that prevent, or can possibly prevent, implantation are abortificants. Are we really going to split hairs over this?

John Hutton

Interesting as this is, it has nothing to do with vaccines, so maybe we should park it there and return to the main topic?

harrylittle

Its important to hear what prophecy says about vaccines .... if the prophecy is from the holy spirit .... then its meant as a warning for christians to take heed ... christians that ignore true prophecy are ignoring the holy spirit and exposing themselves to danger.

here are some prophecies from the book of truth about coming global vaccines which on the face of it is here now

beachhead

WHO IS ALLOWING THIS RUBBISH ON BOARDS.
IS IT WITH THE FULL AGREEMENT OF THE MODERATORS/OWNER

smacl

beachhead wrote: »

WHO IS ALLOWING THIS RUBBISH ON BOARDS.
IS IT WITH THE FULL AGREEMENT OF THE MODERATORS/OWNER

Mod: Carded for backseat moderation. If you have an issue with a post, report it. Please do not discuss this in thread. Thanks for your attention.

smacl

harrylittle wrote: »

Its important to hear what prophecy says about vaccines .... if the prophecy is from the holy spirit .... then its meant as a warning for christians to take heed ... christians that ignore true prophecy are ignoring the holy spirit and exposing themselves to danger.

here are some prophecies from the book of truth about coming global vaccines which on the face of it is here now

Mod: Not seeing any reasonable Christian basis for the above 'prophesy' or subsequent extended diatribe, which has been carded and deleted. Given you don't cite any sources here, the implication I take is that it is original material and you are placing yourself in the role of a prophet. In the context of a sincere Christianity forum, I consider this to be trolling and will deal with it accordingly. Do not reply in-thread and please ensure any further posts are on-topic an in line with the charter, notably points 6 and 7 which your posts are in breach.

Yellow_Fern

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Do what you like - provided you feel sufficiently guilty about it later" ? Sorry but I don't find that a basis for any form of morality.

We really are reaching an endgame, the whole "go forth and muliply" nonsense is played out and really needs to end asap. Catholic teaching imperils the future of the human race, just as well most Catholics ignore it.

Frankly it sounds like you are advocating a death cult.

Anyway back to the topic, Id urge y'all to watch Jimmy Akins coverage on the ethics of vaccine. One of the things that he stresses is how we should all petition pharma companies to use as most ethical approaches as possible
to develop vaccines and refrain from using tissue from killed people, from people without permission and from endangered species https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOVRwbKB1Q&t=3s

Hotblack Desiato

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Frankly it sounds like you are advocating a death cult.

I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion based on what I posted.

Do you think it is remotely sustainable that we have quadrupled the global population in 90 years? As recently as 1974 global population was only 4 billion, it is now just short of 8 billion. Surely by now we have learned that we need to be responsible in safeguarding our planet and its resources.

Anyway back to the topic, Id urge y'all to watch Jimmy Akins coverage on the ethics of vaccine. One of the things that he stresses is how we should all petition pharma companies to use as most ethical approaches as possible
to develop vaccines and refrain from using tissue from killed people, from people without permission and from endangered species https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOVRwbKB1Q&t=3s

Why spread disinformation which implies that aborted foetuses are used in the production process of vaccines when they are not?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

If we didn't live so long, consuming vast resources in the attempt to drag the last dregs from decrepit bodies, others to come would have more.

Yet the Catholic Church and other churches insist that voluntary euthanasia, even when undergoing great suffering, is immoral. Go figure.

Donegal Overlanding

What I find most incredible is any kind of Christian entity trying to pass any kind of moral judgement upon anyone.

The amount of murderers, rapists and paedophiles employed by the Catholic Church makes them the largest offenders in human history.

Thankfully Ireland is slowly dragging itself out of the grasps of the Paedophilic Priests, though far too slowly in my eyes. There is no place for religion, it is horrendous and an affront to everything we hold dear.

Effects

Donegal Overlanding wrote: »

There is no place for religion, it is horrendous and an affront to everything we hold dear.

Ah there is place for religion. Just don't let it interfere with society.
Think vaccines are immoral? Then don't get one.

smacl

Donegal Overlanding wrote: »

What I find most incredible is any kind of Christian entity trying to pass any kind of moral judgement upon anyone.

The amount of murderers, rapists and paedophiles employed by the Catholic Church makes them the largest offenders in human history.

Thankfully Ireland is slowly dragging itself out of the grasps of the Paedophilic Priests, though far too slowly in my eyes. There is no place for religion, it is horrendous and an affront to everything we hold dear.

Mod: Carded for breach of charter, specifically

"6. Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. The goal of this forum is to be a place where ideas relating to Christianity are expounded, debated and challenged. While discussion is encouraged, each member is expected to remain within the boundaries of taste and decency. If you disagree with a opinion expressed, please do so in a well mannered fashion"

Response via PM or to the feedback thread only. Please read and understand the charter before posting here again. Thanks for your attention.

Donegal Overlanding

Effects wrote: »

Ah there is place for religion. Just don't let it interfere with society.
Think vaccines are immoral? Then don't get one.

There is a place for religion, it is in the Fiction section in the library.

This is not designed to inflame, nor offend anyone. It is quite simply my opinion, which is just as valid as the opinions of others. I got a yellow card for my last post which was not abusive, nasty, or anything else.

However, it seems that telling the truth and outing things for what they are is condemned by the mods on Boards. To turn a blind eye is to be complicit.

The reason these offences have been able to persist is that we do not address them, and instead hush them up. Have we learned nothing from the mistakes of the past?

If standing up and speaking the truth results in another yellow card, or a red card, then so be it. The truth is the truth and no mod action will change that.

If you want to believe in imaginary people in the sky, that is up to you, but when that organisation is abusing humanity then we have a duty to oppose it.

smacl

Effects wrote: »

Think vaccines are immoral? Then don't get one.

The only issue there is that refusing vaccination where the vaccine is not 100% effective is providing a haven for the disease and thus not only exposing yourself to risk of infection but also those around you, some of whom are likely to be vulnerable. Thus the ethical issues surrounding the source of the vaccine need to be balanced against those of knowingly placing others in the way of harm. My understanding is that, in terms or morality, the Catholic church in this country places greater weight on the latter.

smacl

Donegal Overlanding wrote: »

There is a place for religion, it is in the Fiction section in the library.

This is not designed to inflame, nor offend anyone. It is quite simply my opinion, which is just as valid as the opinions of others. I got a yellow card for my last post which was not abusive, nasty, or anything else.

However, it seems that telling the truth and outing things for what they are is condemned by the mods on Boards. To turn a blind eye is to be complicit.

The reason these offences have been able to persist is that we do not address them, and instead hush them up. Have we learned nothing from the mistakes of the past?

If standing up and speaking the truth results in another yellow card, or a red card, then so be it. The truth is the truth and no mod action will change that.

If you want to believe in imaginary people in the sky, that is up to you, but when that organisation is abusing humanity then we have a duty to oppose it.

Mod: You got a yellow card for breach of the forum charter. You have now got a one month ban to add to that for repeated breach of charter, ignoring mod instruction and backseat modding.

I would appreciate if no one replies to the above as the poster is not in a position to respond. Any feedback to the feedback thread only please.

Effects

smacl wrote: »

My understanding is that, in terms of morality, the Catholic church in this country places greater weight on the latter.

Yeah, I'd agree there.

Yellow_Fern

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why spread disinformation which implies that aborted foetuses are used in the production process of vaccines when they are not?

Misleading statement.


The video is an excellent discussion on the morality of the vaccines. It also provides information on vaccine development that I imagine you would only benefit from. You should watch it before accusing others of disinformation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOVRwbKB1Q&t=3s

Yellow_Fern

Effects wrote: »

Ah there is place for religion. Just don't let it interfere with society.
Think vaccines are immoral? Then don't get one.

Telling religions to not interfere with society is like telling gays not to interfere with society. It is a form of incitement to hatred.

smacl

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Telling religions to not interfere with society is like telling gays not to interfere with society. It is a form of incitement to hatred.

I think the issue is undue influence of the major churches in a secular society, which in no way corresponds to incitement to hatred. It is worth remembering that the majority of Irish citizens are pro-choice for example, while at the same time the majority of Irish citizens consider themselves to be Christian. What this tells us is that church does not speak for the Christian majority in this country for matters such as abortion, on which the ethical objection to vaccines is based. Even then, the Catholic church in this country has been very clear about why ethical objections in relation to vaccines can be put aside by practising Catholics for the greater good of all concerned, so I'm not sure there even is an issue in this instance either way.

Yellow_Fern

smacl wrote: »

I think the issue is undue influence of the major churches in a secular society, which in no way corresponds to incitement to hatred. It is worth remembering that the majority of Irish citizens are pro-choice for example, while at the same time the majority of Irish citizens consider themselves to be Christian. What this tells us is that church does not speak for the Christian majority in this country for matters such as abortion, on which the ethical objection to vaccines is based. Even then, the Catholic church in this country has been very clear about why ethical objections in relation to vaccines can be put aside by practising Catholics for the greater good of all concerned, so I'm not sure there even is an issue in this instance either way.

Undue influence is a vague definition. In my experience some secularists would not be happy until religion was an entirely private matter and did not exist in the public sphere at all. There is also clear incitement to hatred on this thread.

smacl wrote: »

What this tells us is that church does not speak for the Christian majority in this country for matters such as abortion, on which the ethical objection to vaccines is based.

Conscientious objection or indeed rights, granted to us by God through Irish and international law, don't require consent of majority.

smacl wrote: »

Even then, the Catholic church in this country has been very clear about why ethical objections in relation to vaccines can be put aside by practising Catholics for the greater good of all concerned, so I'm not sure there even is an issue in this instance either way.

This is an oversimplification of what was published and you wouldnt take that as your tasaway message.

I certainly will be trying to take the Pfizer vaccine over the Astrazeneca vaccine.

Pfizer one appears to more effective too!

Hotblack Desiato

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Misleading statement.


The video is an excellent discussion on the morality of the vaccines. It also provides information on vaccine development that I imagine you would only benefit from. You should watch it before accusing others of disinformation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOVRwbKB1Q&t=3s

Really? There are a lot of useful things I could be doing with 1 hour 14 minutes instead of listening to some randomer on Youtube and that's the second time you've dumped that link instead of actually engaging in discussion.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I think the issue is undue influence of the major churches in a secular society, which in no way corresponds to incitement to hatred. It is worth remembering that the majority of Irish citizens are pro-choice for example, while at the same time the majority of Irish citizens consider themselves to be Christian. What this tells us is that church does not speak for the Christian majority in this country for matters such as abortion, on which the ethical objection to vaccines is based.

I’m not sure this stacks up very well.

Churches don’t advance ethical claims on the basis that they represent “the majority of Irish citizens”. Apart from the nitpicky fact that only one church could ever make that claim, the truth is that none of the churches make the argument that "this must be right, because a majority of people believe it". Churches would tend to take the view that things are right or wrong regardless of whether people believe them to be right or wrong.

(And churches are not out of line here. People advocating ethical views on secular grounds also rarely do so on the basis that they enjoy majority support. Campaigners against the death penalty, say, advance a variety of arguments, but “a majority of people support my view on this” is rarely one of them. In a democracy, the object of most such campaigns is to persuade a majority to accept or endorse a particular view; this would hardly be necessary if they already did so.)

So, what then is “undue influence” when it comes to public discourse on ethical questions? As you point out, the major churches are not urging people to avoid vaccination over ethical concerns development or testing but, if they were, on what basis would we say that they had “undue influence”? If they succeeded in persuading a material number of people to decline the vaccine, that would presumably be because those people found their arguments convincing. But that wouldn’t be undue influence; it would just be influence.

Undue influence might be be, e.g, if churches used their institutional position to impede the supply of particular vaccines, so that people who were willing to take those vaccines were denied the opportunity to do so. (Practically, I don’t see how churches could do this, but as a hypothetical illustration it will do.)

But that’s a very long way from Effects’s suggestion that we shouldn’t let religion “interfere with society”. On the face of it it’s an absurd suggestion; it treats religion as something separate from and external to society. It’s not; religion is a social phenomenon, and religion can no more “interfere with society” than, say, secularism can. If Effects’ suggestion has any meaning at all — and I’m not convinced that it does — it can only be as a call to purge religion from society; to supress religion entirely. Because as long as religion exists at all, in any form that we can meaningfully call “religion”, it will shape society.

So I think you’re being a bit, um, charitable to Effects when he you say that what he really meant was that religion should not have “undue influence”. If he was saying anything at all, he was saying rather more than that.

Peregrinus

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

. . . This is an oversimplification of what was published and you wouldnt take that as your tasaway message.

I think the official message is:

— If the option of an “ethically irreproachable” vaccine isn’t available to you, “it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process”.

— “In such a case, all vaccinations recognized as clinically safe and effective can be used in good conscience”.

— This “does not in itself constitute a legitimation, even indirect, of the practice of abortion”.

— “Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are . . . encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience”.

— “From the ethical point of view, the morality of vaccination depends not only on the duty to protect one's own health, but also on the duty to pursue the common good”. So, if you decline a vaccine offered for reasons of conscience, you must “do [your] utmost to avoid . . . becoming [a vehicle] for the transmission of the infectious agent” and, in particular, you must “avoid any risk to the health of those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons, and who are the most vulnerable”.

— Finally, there is a duty “to ensure that vaccines, which are effective and safe from a medical point of view, as well as ethically acceptable, are also accessible to the poorest countries in a manner that is not costly for them”.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I certainly will be trying to take the Pfizer vaccine over the Astrazeneca vaccine.

Which is fine. But, if the Pfizer vaccine isn't available to you then you can take the AZ vaccine in good conscience. And, if you choose not to, then you have a particular responsiblity to ensure that others don't bear the cost of that choice by becoming infected through you as a vector of transmission.

Yellow_Fern

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Really? There are a lot of useful things I could be doing with 1 hour 14 minutes instead of listening to some randomer on Youtube and that's the second time you've dumped that link instead of actually engaging in discussion.

You claimed that I said that 'the vaccines have aborted foetuses used in the production process of vaccines. I didnt say this. I simply provided a link of Catholic teaching.

As it happens aborted baby remains are involved in vaccines. Cell lines from aborted baby tissue were used in testing and in production. You might not consider cell lines as actual human tissue but I suspect that if I served you a lab meat hamburger produced with human cell lines that you may be at least initially reluctant to eat it. The fact that human tissue is used isn't intrinsically wrong. It is important if one is continuing an evil and taking any of these vaccines does not seem to be continuing the evil of abortion. Peregrinus made some excellent points which are a nice prelude to the Jimmy Akins explanation. As mentioned above, actually writing to the pharma companies would be more useful than refusing the vaccine.

Peregrinus

Two issues get conflated here:

The first is whether abortion is intrinsically morally unacceptable. If you think that it is not, then obviously you won't have a problem with a vaccine developed using abortion-derived human cell lines.

If you think that it is, only then do you face the issue of deciding whether you have a problem with availing of a vaccine developed in this way.

You can disentangle the issues with a hypothetical — e.g. suppose the vaccine had beend developed using a human cell line derived from Nazi medical experiments peformed on concentration camp inmates, involving the murder of those inmates. If a clinically useful cell line had resulted from those experiments, would it be ethically acceptable to develop a vaccine using that cell line?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can disentangle the issues with a hypothetical — e.g. suppose the vaccine had beend developed using a human cell line derived from Nazi medical experiments peformed on concentration camp inmates, involving the murder of those inmates. If a clinically useful cell line had resulted from those experiments, would it be ethically acceptable to develop a vaccine using that cell line?

Not as clear cut an ethical question as it might appear at face value. I would think the decision is one that would lie with those most closely related to the victims involved. Were that decision to lie with me, I would not have a problem allowing those cell lines to be used, on the basis of salvaging some good out of something evil but I fully accept others might see it differently. Somewhat off topic but my grand parents and great grandmother fled Austria to England as Jews when Hitler came into power. As Austrians, they ended up in English internment camps on the basis that Austria had sided with Germany. While we can romantically look at past wars as the struggle between good and evil, in truth barbarism to varying degrees is often present on both sides. In the aftermath I think it is prudent to salvage what good we can from where we can and strive to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Peregrinus

My point really is that framing the discussion around the use of abortion-derives cell lines means that this conversation tends to break down into those who think abortion is morally problematic versus those who don't. And that's not especially useful or enlightening because we have - ahem - one or two other threads on Boards where this question is pretty exhaustively explored.

Your reaction to the hypothetical — it's permissible to salvage something good out of something evil — is of course not a thousand miles from the position the Catholic Church is laying out in relation to the CV19 vaccines. But it's not a one-size fits all rule. Would it be acceptable for me to accept a kidney transplant from a donor who had been murdered in order to harvest his organs? Given that he has already been murdered before the kidney is offered to me, would that be "salvaging something good out of something evil"? I think most of us would say "no" to that one. Covnersely, we can imagine the issue presenting itelf in a way that doesn't involve human organs or human tissue; suppose the murderous Nazi medical experiments had yielded some information which was in fact clinically useful; is there a moral objection to using that information in a medically beneficial way? Is there a moral objection to using that information in a way that is medically beneficial but also commercially profitable? Etc.

So I think this is a principle which does require some hard thinking when it comes to be applied in practice. Depending on the circumstances, we might feel a range of ethical discomfort from "very little" to "a great deal" when we consider "salvaging something good out of something evil".

It is a dangerous position, pretty close to the morally bankrupt "ends justify the means" position of Machiavelli. You (in terms of a society) may start off "salvaging good from evil" (although this is problematic itself) and end up justifying evil to achieve what you believe is "good" (greater or otherwise).

The "answer" to moral objections to these vaccines hinges around your approach to the evil of abortion. If you think the destruction of the unborn child is acceptable and can justify it in your own head then of course you will not object to the vaccines. If you see abortion as an evil act, then the use of cell lines in vaccines must give you, at the least, cause to pause and consider the morality of using the vaccine. Considering the moral and ethical implications of your actions is a mature and public minded approach to life. In this case many theologians have given this great consideration, I think the Catholic Church were very thorough on this point, and persuasive too.

Peregrinus

Elliott Warm Welt wrote: »

It is a dangerous position, pretty close to the morally bankrupt "ends justify the means" position of Machiavelli. You (in terms of a society) may start off "salvaging good from evil" (although this is problematic itself) and end up justifying evil to achieve what you believe is "good" (greater or otherwise).

I think that, as a general statement, that would be a bit bleak, ex loco. There's a spectrum here from things that are closely connected to a thoroughly evil act (example: purchasing illegally harvested human organs) and things that are distantly connected to a less evil act (example: profiting from the use of previously confidential information that shouldn't have come to you but, through no fault of yours, has become public). It's not difficult to imagine lots of cases in which you benefit from a wrong previously committed that you wouldn't say were at all close to moral banruptcy.

The moral calculation is further complicated by the fact that electing not to take advantage of the previous wrong may also have morally bad outcomes. Take the vaccination — if you can be vaccinated but choose not to be you are creating not just a risk for yourself but also a risk to others; you are injuring the common good. That's not a morally good, or even morally neutral, action. So this may not be an area where you want to be over-scrupulous. And, again, I think that would be a common feature in lots of ethical decisions about whether to derive benefit from wrongs done by others.

looksee

Some of the vaccines - Pfizer's for example are synthetic and have not involved any foetal cell lines. Even looking at your chart the majority do not use foetal cells; at least if you are going to promote non-uptake of vaccine, be specific, rather than implying that vaccines generally are immorally produced. We need to encourage people to get vaccinated in the interests of the health of population of the world, it is not a time to be probing the ethics of using, for example, cells that have been grown from (afaik, a total of two) 50 year ago abortions.

I can sympathise with the views on abortion that you express - I don't necessarily agree with them in their entirety, but I agree to some extent. However even the Catholic church has said that the greater good outweighs the possible necessity of using cells from an aborted foetus - not a foetus that was aborted in order to harvest cells, but an elective abortion for whatever reason.

AstraZeneca has said its vaccine uses a cell strain taken from a female foetus aborted in the 1970s. However, the company said the cells are used to propagate the virus for the vaccine but these cells do not make it into the final jab.

Many commonly used vaccines have used cells in the same way and many millions of children have been saved from debilitating illness and death as a result.

Do you consider that it is unethical to use child labour, often leading to physical damage, distress and death, in producing things that we buy; do you use any of the products - electronics, including your phone/computer, cars, clothing, that use child labour? Are they not also precious children of God?

Edit: the quote is from an article in the Irish Times

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think that, as a general statement, that would be a bit bleak, ex loco. There's a spectrum here from things that are closely connected to a thoroughly evil act (example: purchasing illegally harvested human organs) and things that are distantly connected to a less evil act (example: profiting from the use of previously confidential information that shouldn't have come to you but, through no fault of yours, has become public). It's not difficult to imagine lots of cases in which you benefit from a wrong previously committed that you wouldn't say were at all close to moral banruptcy.

The moral calculation is further complicated by the fact that electing not to take advantage of the previous wrong may also have morally bad outcomes. Take the vaccination — if you can be vaccinated but choose not to be you are creating not just a risk for yourself but also a risk to others; you are injuring the common good. That's not a morally good, or even morally neutral, action. So this may not be an area where you want to be over-scrupulous. And, again, I think that would be a common feature in lots of ethical decisions about whether to derive benefit from wrongs done by others.

The fact that a moral calculation is necessary demonstrates that it is, as I described it, dangerous territory which may lead to greater evils. Engaging in this moral calculation is a good thing, but for it to mean anything in an objective sense it is necessary to refer to and weigh against objective truths.

But we live in an age of moral relativism where there are, so it goes, no real objective truths only social constructions to be dismantled. We are still in the early days of this, it is most bleak to consider where this must end up. Somehow I don't think people will only go "so far" and then suddenly say that there actually are objective truths and lines that should not be crossed.

You are quite right in that there is moral justification (and perhaps even obligation) to take the vaccine in this circumstance. This conclusion can be arrived at after careful consideration of the issue. The fact that this conclusion has been reached does not mean that it was wrong to be wary or to go though this discernment process in the first instance. Or indeed to be watchful and consider again comparable circumstances in the future. Or to be of the opinion that it would be altogether better if vaccines were produced in a more ethically and morally sound manner and to agitate that this is the case in future. Or in fact, to still feel somewhat uncomfortable with it.

Personally what I find most disturbing about this is the fact that for many people the decision required absolutely no moral or ethical consideration whatsoever and that they are shocked that some would have qualms about it at all. As a Catholic I would reflect, and point out to other Catholics, that it is the role of the Catholic Church to instruct and guide the faithful - as Christ intended - inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit, on topics of faith and morals. I will admit that I have found it very easy on this occasion because the teaching tallied with the opinion I had already formed.

smacl

I see the Vatican has told employees that if they don't get vaccinated they may lose their jobs. More here; https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0218/1197902-vatican-covid-vaccine/

Peregrinus

The report you link to says that the Vatican said that initially, but has since walked back from it.

As far as I can see, the decree of 8 February said that employees declining the vaccine without good reason would be putting themselves in a position covered by a 2011 law under which they could be subject to "varying degrees of consequences that could lead to dismissal".

Two points about this:

This is most likely an article in the Italian Labour Code. For the most part, the Vatican doesn't have its own laws for non-churchy matters; it adopts the relevant Italian laws.

Secondly, it doesn't appear that the laws says that vaccine-refusers will be dismissed; it just presents that as a possiblity. And the decree of Feb 8 also (from the media report) doesn't say that vaccine-refusers will be dismissed; just that they'd be putting themselves in a position where, legally, they could be. The later statement seems to say that, though they could be, they won't be; but they may reassigned to duties involving less contact with others.

Presumably, the vaccines offered by the Vatican to its own employees will be ones which weren't developed using cell lines derived from abortion so, if employees decline vaccination, it will be for some other reason than the one we are discussing here.

beachhead

Preaching to the CONVERTED.Oh holy god

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, it doesn't appear that the laws says that vaccine-refusers will be dismissed; it just presents that as a possiblity. And the decree of Feb 8 also (from the media report) doesn't say that vaccine-refusers will be dismissed; just that they'd be putting themselves in a position where, legally, they could be. The later statement seems to say that, though they could be, they won't be; but they may reassigned to duties involving less contact with others.

My reading of it was that reassignment only related to those who could not get vaccinated for health reasons. From the article;

RTE wrote:

The decree said that those who cannot get vaccinated for health reasons may be given another position, presumably where they would have contact with fewer people, but will receive the same pay even if the new post is a demotion.

But the decree said those who refuse to get a vaccination without sufficient reason would be subject to a specific provision in a 2011 law on employee rights and duties.

Presumably, the vaccines offered by the Vatican to its own employees will be ones which weren't developed using cell lines derived from abortion so, if employees decline vaccination, it will be for some other reason than the one we are discussing here.

On what basis do you make that assumption? I would have thought that using one's power and affluence to pick and choose a preferred vaccine at a time when everyone else was struggling to get any vaccine would be morally dubious. Surely that runs contrary to any notion of egalitarianism at this time of shared suffering?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

My reading of it was that reassignment only related to those who could not get vaccinated for health reasons . . .

My reading was that the Feb 8 statement suggested that (a) those who were unvaccinated because of "legitimate health reasons" would be reassigned to low-contact duties if necessary, but those who declined for reasons perceived to be irresponsible would be liable to disciplinary measures under the 2011 law, which at least potentially could extend to dismissal.

But then, after public criticism, Bertello issued a later statement saying that the Vatican would respect freedom of choice, did not intend "sanctioning or punitive" measures and would find "alternative solutions". Which I interpret to mean that this group too will be subject to reassignment to low-contact duties, etc. Or something very like that.

smacl wrote: »

On what basis do you make that assumption? I would have thought that using one's power and affluence to pick and choose a preferred vaccine at a time when everyone else was struggling to get any vaccine would be morally dubious. Surely that runs contrary to any notion of egalitarianism at this time of shared suffering?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already issued a statement encouraging governmental health agencies offer "ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated". Given that Bertello here is acting in his capacity as Governor of the Vatican City State he is a governmental health agency, and presumable he will seek to do as he has been encouraged to do.

And I don't think it's morally dubious for someone to do something that they are suggesting that everyone should be doing. It would be more morally dubious, surely, if the Vatican only offered the ethically problematic vaccine?

breezy1985

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Telling religions to not interfere with society is like telling gays not to interfere with society. It is a form of incitement to hatred.

There is a long list of crimes attached to organized religion. I haven't seen many in regards to organized LGBTQIA charities.

You could also say "Telling religions to not interfere with society is like telling Nazis not to interfere with society. It is a form of incitement to hatred"

smacl

beachhead wrote: »

Preaching to the CONVERTED.Oh holy god

Mod warning: Please refrain from meaningless one liners that do not add any meaningful contrubition to this discsussion. Any feedback by PM only, do not reply in thread. Thanks for your attention.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has already issued a statement encouraging governmental health agencies offer "ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated". Given that Bertello here is acting in his capacity as Governor of the Vatican City State he is a governmental health agency, and presumable he will seek to do as he has been encouraged to do.

And I don't think it's morally dubious for someone to do something that they are suggesting that everyone should be doing. It would be more morally dubious, surely, if the Vatican only offered the ethically problematic vaccine?

The more complete text there is

Vatican wrote:

Both pharmaceutical companies and governmental health agencies are therefore encouraged to produce, approve, distribute and offer ethically acceptable vaccines that do not create problems of conscience for either health care providers or the people to be vaccinated.

The same document also states the following

In this sense, when ethically irreproachable Covid-19 vaccines are not available (e.g. in countries where vaccines without ethical problems are not made available to physicians and patients, or where their distribution is more difficult due to special storage and transport conditions, or when various types of vaccines are distributed in the same country but health authorities do not allow citizens to choose the vaccine with which to be inoculated) it is morally acceptable to receive Covid-19 vaccines that have used cell lines from aborted fetuses in their research and production process.

Your presumption would appear to be that the Vatican can acquire the vaccine of their choosing from those available, a choice unavailable to most countries, notably less well off Catholic majority countries who could be consider the constituents of the Vatican in some sense. Were that the case, to my mind it is ethically dubious, specifically in the context of the WHO's concerns with the world's poorest counties being trampled in the vaccine race. One feels that rather than looking after their own (ethical?) best interests they should be favouring whatever vaccine is most likely to be broadly available and affordable to all.