Covid Vaccination

[Lilllabettt]

29 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

didn't know you were pregnant. Congrats

 

Thanks! It's an adopted baby. This Lutheran couple did ivf, made this baby. Then the mother died suddenly. The father was never taught anything against ivf but he knew enough that killing or leaving a baby frozen was wrong so he contacted our adoption agency to place the baby. 

[elizabeth09]

What if someone had a vaccine years ago, and already had a side effect to it?

[Ice_nine]

4 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Thanks! It's an adopted baby. This Lutheran couple did ivf, made this baby. Then the mother died suddenly. The father was never taught anything against ivf but he knew enough that killing or leaving a baby frozen was wrong so he contacted our adoption agency to place the baby. 

that's wild. I remember you talking about embryo adoption a while back. It seems a little crazy to me but suspending an embryo indefinitely also seems really wrong.

What a weird world we live in. I hope everything goes well.

[little2add]

Going to get the vaccine, my spouse is a RN and works on a COVID unit.   One of the  providers (nurse practitioner) she works with tested positive, yesterday.  She is afraid she is going to expose her 87 year old mother or her children and grandchildren.

Enough’s, enough ...  she will get the first round today and another in 28 days.

God bless and protect our Healthcare workers, amen

 

 

[Peace]

On 12/30/2020 at 7:25 AM, Anomaly said:

Too many unfounded generalizations to even think you’re serious.  

“unknown”?  What, they found it on a shelf and know nothing about it?   Hundreds of scientists and doctors were not involved in the development for each vaccine?

”unproven”?  What, there weren’t any testing or review for any of the vaccines?   Not one, not one hundred, not one thousand?  For any of the vaccines?

”massive financial gain”?   You actually know how much net profit is being made?   Did all the scientists, lab workers, doctors, work for free?   Did the janitors keep the place clean and running ‘gratis’?    What percentage net profit is unfair?   .5%?, 1%, 5%?

”rush”?   How long should they wait, given that about 1,000 people a day due of Covid in the US?   Maybe deaths are over reported, so let’s say only 500 a day.   We should wait a month, 15,000 deaths, “to see how things go”?

The vaccines are being distributed now.  Is it ideal?   No.   Is it because of gross negligence and unfettered greed? No.   Come on, you’re usually more honest and balanced.    I’m surprised and disappointed. 

Friend, you are an atheist. I've been disappointed with you since the moment we met.

That being said, obviously by "unknown" I did not mean "found it on a shelf". You are the one who is being unreasonable, with all due respect.

A belated Merry Christmas, with the emphasis on Christ, to you, sir.

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Friend, you are an atheist. I've been disappointed with you since the moment we met.

That being said, obviously by "unknown" I did not mean "found it on a shelf". You are the one who is being unreasonable, with all due respect.

A belated Merry Christmas, with the emphasis on Christ, to you, sir.

Why thank you, for wishing me well.   I’m assuming complete sincerity, though I reserve a bit a doubt.   Regardless of my lack of belief in God or Christ, I fully respect sincere belief in either / both, along with the fundamental intent to be a good person in this current plane of existence.  

May your last day of 2020 be memorably great and a precursor to a fantastic 2021.  My we both grow in attributes and diminish in negatives.  

[Lilllabettt]

13 hours ago, elizabeth09 said:

What if someone had a vaccine years ago, and already had a side effect to it?

You should talk to your doctor. They will walk you through the pros and cons and probably give you their recommendation from a medical perspective. 

[little2add]

Being part of the solution.

 

[Anomaly]

On 12/30/2020 at 8:08 PM, Lilllabettt said:

Thanks! It's an adopted baby. This Lutheran couple did ivf, made this baby. Then the mother died suddenly. The father was never taught anything against ivf but he knew enough that killing or leaving a baby frozen was wrong so he contacted our adoption agency to place the baby. 

Congratulations.  And as a fellow human, thank you.   Your child is already luckier than some.  Your child has parents that want them.  

[Peace]

On 12/31/2020 at 12:51 AM, Ice_nine said:

that's wild. I remember you talking about embryo adoption a while back. It seems a little crazy to me but suspending an embryo indefinitely also seems really wrong.

It will be interesting to see if the Church takes a formal stance on that (as well as the "artificial womb" after the tech is created). The only doc I saw on it a few years back indicated that it could pose some potential problems from an ethics standpoint, but did not expressly forbid it.

[elizabeth09]

On 12/31/2020 at 11:45 AM, Lilllabettt said:

You should talk to your doctor. They will walk you through the pros and cons and probably give you their recommendation from a medical perspective. 

What happens if the person went and still do not want it, then what?

[Lilllabettt]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

It will be interesting to see if the Church takes a formal stance on that (as well as the "artificial womb" after the tech is created). The only doc I saw on it a few years back indicated that it could pose some potential problems from an ethics standpoint, but did not expressly forbid it.

Long story short, don't hold your breath. Similar to how it is very very unlikely to ever say there is a moral obligation to vaccinate. Similar to how - I sincerely doubt they will ever say anything about sex reassignment surgery for treatment of gender dysphoria. 

Originally I thought the Church had come down pretty hard against embryo adoption, but then I was educated as to how this was not case. And then I gradually became convinced of the arguments supporting it - and then I became convinced there is a moral obligation to practice embryo adoption - at least what I mean by embryo adoption. There are women who pay to have an embryo made to order to their specifications, and then they fly to Greece and have it implanted, and they call this straight up human trafficking "embryo adoption." There was a case where a community of nuns offered to gestate embryos that had been abandoned and marked for "discarding" (the term the IVF industry uses); the Vatican said this "embryo adoption" was a praiseworthy endeavor from a prolife perspective but because the sisters did not intend to raise the children they gestated, it posed some ethical problems similar to surrogacy. 

Of course what I mean by embryo adoption has pitfalls as well. Some people say there is a mystical significance to pregnancy itself (rather than just conception) and that a husband has the right to his wife only being pregnant with his genetic child. Personally I find this argument silly. I don't believe this right exists, and I don't think nourishing an embryo in utero is ontologically dissimilar from nourishing a baby with your body ex utero, e.g. wet nursing i.e. breast feeding another woman's child. Some people argue that it is forbidden because it requires involvement with the IVF industry. I answer, if plannned parenthood was the only one offering breast exams, it would be licit to go to planned parenthood for a breast exam. The ivf industry is the only one that assists with embryo adoption. If embryo adoption is licit, it matters not that the ivf industry, the only one that provides it, is evil. There is a long tradition in the Church of ransoming the enslaved - paying kidnappers and slavers for the freedom of people. That's definitely what embryos are in the clutches of the IVF industry - human chattel.  Or in their terminology a "scarce medical resource" like a kidney or a liver. When we sat with lawyers to finalize the adoption, I was told it was legally a property transfer. Still feel sick just typing that.

The head of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Fr. Tad something, favors keeping embryos frozen indefinitely until artificial womb technology is developed.  The possibility (not certainty) of that technology is so far off - centuries - that it is morally irresponsible and indefensible to weigh the possibility in decision making, imo. And once again, his argument focuses on Theology of the Body and pregnancy (rather than conception) as a mystical thing. Some people think the best move is to "discard" the embryos - turn off their artificial life support and let them die. Imo this is euthanasia - the embryos are presumed to be healthy, they only die because they are denied an opportunity to receive the ordinary means of life support (nourishment, which can only be offered in utero.) 

This is all very off topic from the thread so I won't digress further. But long story short don't hold your breath. This is the Church that says it is praiseworthy to boycott vaccinations made from aborted fetal lines, at the same time it says such boycotting is not required, and that people who do not get such vaccinations are morally responsible for birth defects caused by their lack of vaccination. Some things are out of their lane as theologians, some issues they are just very cautious about saying anything lest later science contradict a reason or explanation they base a decision on, and with other issues, like embryo adoption, an explicit decision was made at the highest level not to decide.

2 hours ago, elizabeth09 said:

What happens if the person went and still do not want it, then what?

then that is your "choice." if you don't have a medical exemption, there is a decent chance that the rest of society will make your choice unpleasant and burdensome - eg, forbid you from air travel, working in an office, going to school, concerts, shows etc.  If you accept all those restrictions, you have nothing to worry about.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Lilllabettt

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Long story short, don't hold your breath. Similar to how it is very very unlikely to ever say there is a moral obligation to vaccinate. Similar to how - I sincerely doubt they will ever say anything about sex reassignment surgery for treatment of gender dysphoria. 

Originally I thought the Church had come down pretty hard against embryo adoption, but then I was educated as to how this was not case. And then I gradually became convinced of the arguments supporting it - and then I became convinced there is a moral obligation to practice embryo adoption - at least what I mean by embryo adoption. There are women who pay to have an embryo made to order to their specifications, and then they fly to Greece and have it implanted, and they call this straight up human trafficking "embryo adoption." There was a case where a community of nuns offered to gestate embryos that had been abandoned and marked for "discarding" (the term the IVF industry uses); the Vatican said this "embryo adoption" was a praiseworthy endeavor from a prolife perspective but because the sisters did not intend to raise the children they gestated, it posed some ethical problems similar to surrogacy. 

Of course what I mean by embryo adoption has pitfalls as well. Some people say there is a mystical significance to pregnancy itself (rather than just conception) and that a husband has the right to his wife only being pregnant with his genetic child. Personally I find this argument silly. I don't believe this right exists, and I don't think nourishing an embryo in utero is ontologically dissimilar from nourishing a baby with your body ex utero, e.g. wet nursing i.e. breast feeding another woman's child. Some people argue that it is forbidden because it requires involvement with the IVF industry. I answer, if plannned parenthood was the only one offering breast exams, it would be licit to go to planned parenthood for a breast exam. The ivf industry is the only one that assists with embryo adoption. If embryo adoption is licit, it matters not that the ivf industry, the only one that provides it, is evil. There is a long tradition in the Church of ransoming the enslaved - paying kidnappers and slavers for the freedom of people. That's definitely what embryos are in the clutches of the IVF industry - human chattel.  Or in their terminology a "scarce medical resource" like a kidney or a liver. When we sat with lawyers to finalize the adoption, I was told it was legally a property transfer. Still feel sick just typing that.

The head of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Fr. Tad something, favors keeping embryos frozen indefinitely until artificial womb technology is developed.  The possibility (not certainty) of that technology is so far off - centuries - that it is morally irresponsible and indefensible to weigh the possibility in decision making, imo. And once again, his argument focuses on Theology of the Body and pregnancy (rather than conception) as a mystical thing. Some people think the best move is to "discard" the embryos - turn off their artificial life support and let them die. Imo this is euthanasia - the embryos are presumed to be healthy, they only die because they are denied an opportunity to receive the ordinary means of life support (nourishment, which can only be offered in utero.) 

This is all very off topic from the thread so I won't digress further. But long story short don't hold your breath. This is the Church that says it is praiseworthy to boycott vaccinations made from aborted fetal lines, at the same time it says such boycotting is not required, and that people who do not get such vaccinations are morally responsible for birth defects caused by their lack of vaccination. Some things are out of their lane as theologians, some issues they are just very cautious about saying anything lest later science contradict a reason or explanation they base a decision on, and with other issues, like embryo adoption, an explicit decision was made at the highest level not to decide.

then that is your "choice." if you don't have a medical exemption, there is a decent chance that the rest of society will make your choice unpleasant and burdensome - eg, forbid you from air travel, working in an office, going to school, concerts, shows etc.  If you accept all those restrictions, you have nothing to worry about.

Yeah that's a pretty controversial topic. It's up for each person to decide I think. If I were married I would not say "I have a right to my wife only being pregnant with my genetic child" but at some level I can understand that idea. If I married someone who was say 35 and she proposed embryo adoption, I would probably be like "Nah baby. Let's put on the R. Kelly tape and go half on it." Because those next 9 months could be the only opportunity to have a child of my own. You never know. That would probably be the way I would look at it from my own perspective, the various ethical points aside.

[Lilllabettt]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Yeah that's a pretty controversial topic. It's up for each person to decide I think. If I were married I would not say "I have a right to my wife only being pregnant with my genetic child" but at some level I can understand that idea. If I married someone who was say 35 and she proposed embryo adoption, I would probably be like "Nah baby. Let's put on the R. Kelly tape and go half on it." Because those next 9 months could be the only opportunity to have a child of my own. You never know. That would probably be the way I would look at it from my own perspective, the various ethical points aside.

That is a good point. In my case my equipment is gone (ovaries) so this was not a concern. But there were many times during the process, preadoption, when abstinence would have been required for fertile women. Definitely requires mutual consent. 

[elizabeth09]

On 1/1/2021 at 9:58 PM, Lilllabettt said:

Long story short, don't hold your breath. Similar to how it is very very unlikely to ever say there is a moral obligation to vaccinate. Similar to how - I sincerely doubt they will ever say anything about sex reassignment surgery for treatment of gender dysphoria. 

Originally I thought the Church had come down pretty hard against embryo adoption, but then I was educated as to how this was not case. And then I gradually became convinced of the arguments supporting it - and then I became convinced there is a moral obligation to practice embryo adoption - at least what I mean by embryo adoption. There are women who pay to have an embryo made to order to their specifications, and then they fly to Greece and have it implanted, and they call this straight up human trafficking "embryo adoption." There was a case where a community of nuns offered to gestate embryos that had been abandoned and marked for "discarding" (the term the IVF industry uses); the Vatican said this "embryo adoption" was a praiseworthy endeavor from a prolife perspective but because the sisters did not intend to raise the children they gestated, it posed some ethical problems similar to surrogacy. 

Of course what I mean by embryo adoption has pitfalls as well. Some people say there is a mystical significance to pregnancy itself (rather than just conception) and that a husband has the right to his wife only being pregnant with his genetic child. Personally I find this argument silly. I don't believe this right exists, and I don't think nourishing an embryo in utero is ontologically dissimilar from nourishing a baby with your body ex utero, e.g. wet nursing i.e. breast feeding another woman's child. Some people argue that it is forbidden because it requires involvement with the IVF industry. I answer, if plannned parenthood was the only one offering breast exams, it would be licit to go to planned parenthood for a breast exam. The ivf industry is the only one that assists with embryo adoption. If embryo adoption is licit, it matters not that the ivf industry, the only one that provides it, is evil. There is a long tradition in the Church of ransoming the enslaved - paying kidnappers and slavers for the freedom of people. That's definitely what embryos are in the clutches of the IVF industry - human chattel.  Or in their terminology a "scarce medical resource" like a kidney or a liver. When we sat with lawyers to finalize the adoption, I was told it was legally a property transfer. Still feel sick just typing that.

The head of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Fr. Tad something, favors keeping embryos frozen indefinitely until artificial womb technology is developed.  The possibility (not certainty) of that technology is so far off - centuries - that it is morally irresponsible and indefensible to weigh the possibility in decision making, imo. And once again, his argument focuses on Theology of the Body and pregnancy (rather than conception) as a mystical thing. Some people think the best move is to "discard" the embryos - turn off their artificial life support and let them die. Imo this is euthanasia - the embryos are presumed to be healthy, they only die because they are denied an opportunity to receive the ordinary means of life support (nourishment, which can only be offered in utero.) 

This is all very off topic from the thread so I won't digress further. But long story short don't hold your breath. This is the Church that says it is praiseworthy to boycott vaccinations made from aborted fetal lines, at the same time it says such boycotting is not required, and that people who do not get such vaccinations are morally responsible for birth defects caused by their lack of vaccination. Some things are out of their lane as theologians, some issues they are just very cautious about saying anything lest later science contradict a reason or explanation they base a decision on, and with other issues, like embryo adoption, an explicit decision was made at the highest level not to decide.

then that is your "choice." if you don't have a medical exemption, there is a decent chance that the rest of society will make your choice unpleasant and burdensome - eg, forbid you from air travel, working in an office, going to school, concerts, shows etc.  If you accept all those restrictions, you have nothing to worry about.

There is a choose that I have to make.  I don`t know the side effects, or if does bring the covet.  No one ask if I have the other vaccines.