Vaccine and other products - abortion connection

[PadrePio]

People object to taking vaccines saying it is abortion tainted however the same people are ready to use products made by companies which donates to Planned parenthood and provides money for abortion.

Isn't that just a hypocrisy?

As per moral theology I understand that both  will likely  come under remote mediate material cooperation

[Ash Wednesday]

I think in fairness, a lot of other situations of remote cooperation are rarely discussed in comparison to how much the vaccines are. A lot of those that I know that have criticized the vaccines for this material cooperation are actually not aware of similar issues with touted alternatives, like ivermectin and hydrochloroquine. I don't think people are in the wrong for opposing the testing and manufacturing practices as they see fit, and I think people that do work and lobby for ethical alternative practices in research and development are commendable. 

There's a pretty extensive amount of threads and discussions/debates on here, including some that go into the CDF's rulings on these vaccines -- in a nutshell, per the CDF, one is permitted to take the vaccine, but it is not a moral obligation. That said, everyone is still morally obligated to take measures to prevent the spread of disease. If someone's keeping that in mind, I am not going to judge anyone's decision either way. 

[Peace]

On 11/2/2021 at 2:16 AM, PadrePio said:

People object to taking vaccines saying it is abortion tainted however the same people are ready to use products made by companies which donates to Planned parenthood and provides money for abortion.

Isn't that just a hypocrisy?

As per moral theology I understand that both  will likely  come under remote mediate material cooperation

Half the items on your kitchen shelf and the computer on which you write have about as much of a material connection to abortion as the vaccine (at least the Moderna). Let's keep it real that's just a smokescreen justification put forth by many people who simply don't want to take the vaccine for other reasons (political, safety, or whatever).

Edited November 3, 2021 by Peace

[Didacus]

On 11/3/2021 at 1:12 PM, Peace said:

Half the items on your kitchen shelf and the computer on which you write have about as much of a material connection to abortion as the vaccine (at least the Moderna). Let's keep it real that's just a smokescreen justification put forth by many people who simply don't want to take the vaccine for other reasons (political, safety, or whatever).

One cannot fight every front at the same time.

Choose your battles wisely.

On 11/3/2021 at 1:12 PM, Peace said:

Half the items on your kitchen shelf and the computer on which you write have about as much of a material connection to abortion as the vaccine (at least the Moderna). Let's keep it real that's just a smokescreen justification put forth by many people who simply don't want to take the vaccine for other reasons (political, safety, or whatever).

One cannot fight at every front at once.

Choose your battles wisely.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Didacus said:

One cannot fight at every front at once.

Choose your battles wisely.

That's true. But why fight a battle against the vaccine, instead of the bottle of shampoo in your bathroom, or what have you? I don't see the logic of targeting the vaccine in particular.

[Credo in Deum]

58 minutes ago, Peace said:

That's true. But why fight a battle against the vaccine, instead of the bottle of shampoo in your bathroom, or what have you? I don't see the logic of targeting the vaccine in particular.

Well for one the shampoo in my bathroom goes on me and not in me.  Secondly, my government hasn’t mandated I use shampoo or lose my livelihood.  Lastly, shampoo has had a nice history of testing before being made available to the public.

Why mandate an experimental vaccine? Why take something that is only called a vaccine because they’ve changed the definition of vaccine twice already because the current vaccine didn’t meat the standards of a vaccine according to the original definition.  Huh, that sounds like a familiar tactic used not so longe ago in order to legalize another evil thing.

Why get mad and vilify people who objects to such tactics? 

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

12 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Well for one the shampoo in my bathroom goes on me and not in me.  Secondly, my government hasn’t mandated I use shampoo or lose my livelihood.  Lastly, shampoo has had a nice history of testing before being made available to the public.

Why mandate and experimental vaccine? Why take something that is only called a vaccine because they’ve changed the definition of vaccine twice already because the current vaccine didn’t meat the standards of a vaccine according to the original definition.  Huh, that sounds like a familiar tactic used not so longe ago in order to legalize another evil thing.

Those are perfectly valid reasons to object to the vaccine.

But it goes back to my point - the abortion issue in relation to the vaccine is simply a smokescreen that is being used to justify a decision to not take the vaccine for other reasons (safety, testing history, etc.). People are just saying "the vaccine is tainted by abortion" because they had decided not to take it anyway. We've all decided that we aren't changing our shampoo, so we don't go around saying "Head and Shoulders (or whatever) was tested on an aborted cell line" or what have you. So in a sense I think its like an "ex post facto" justification in the case of the vaccine.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peace

[Credo in Deum]

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

Those are perfectly valid reasons to object to the vaccine.

But it goes back to my point - the abortion issue in relation to the vaccine is simply a smokescreen that is being used to justify a decision to not take the vaccine for other reasons (safety, testing history, etc.). People are just saying "the vaccine is tainted by abortion" because they had decided not to take it anyway. We've all decided that we aren't changing our shampoo, so we don't go around saying "Head and Shoulders (or whatever) was tested on an aborted cell line" or what have you. So in a sense I think its like an "ex post facto" justification in the case of the vaccine.

 It could be that they genuinely didn’t understand the scope of fetal cell line testing in medicine and other products, since had they known they wouldn’t have used such products either.  Plus not knowing the scope, these people didn’t know they should look for it in other everyday items as well as new experimental “vaccines”. 
 

 

[Peace]

26 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

 It could be that they genuinely didn’t understand the scope of fetal cell line testing in medicine and other products, since had they known they wouldn’t have used such products either.  Plus not knowing the scope, these people didn’t know they should look for it in other everyday items as well as new experimental “vaccines”.

That's a fair point.

[hakutaku]

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

Why mandate an experimental vaccine?

Send not to know for whom the bell tolls... perhaps the 11 million dead people might ring some bells?  

Perhaps you think the flu vaccine that is created anew through genetic engineering every year is eternally experimental?

Sure, the mRNA is new in humans, but we've been using both DNA and RNA based viruses safely in veterinary settings for years.

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

Why take something that is only called a vaccine because they’ve changed the definition of vaccine twice already because the current vaccine didn’t meat the standards of a vaccine according to the original definition.

No vaccine has ever granted total immunity, 100% of the time.  Some organizations "changed the definition" they broadcast to the public because the old one was being interpreted by people as though vaccines did.

[Credo in Deum]

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

No vaccine has ever granted total immunity, 100% of the time.  Some organizations "changed the definition" they broadcast to the public because the old one was being interpreted by people as though vaccines did.

Ah, yes, how dumb of me.  They changed the definitions to protect US from ourselves; it just so happens to be coincidentally during a time when their “vaccines” were taking a nose dive in “rare” breakthrough cases. 

 

I’m so happy they’re looking out for us! The fact that this definition change coincidently allows them to cover their rears while continuing to rank in tons of money is just a happy accident. 
 

A huge win/win for all of us! 

[Peace]

 

9 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Ah, yes, how dumb of me.  They changed the definitions to protect US from ourselves; it just so happens to be coincidentally during a time when their “vaccines” were taking a nose dive in “rare” breakthrough cases. 

 

I’m so happy they’re looking out for us! The fact that this definition change coincidently allows them to cover their rears while continuing to rank in tons of money is just a happy accident. 
 

A huge win/win for all of us! 

That's it? That's the big "definition change" that you are are all worked up about?

That seems like some weak sauce man but I'll give you an opportunity to explain. Why does that matter?

Edited November 9, 2021 by Peace

[Credo in Deum]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

That's it? That's the big "definition change" that you are are all worked up about?

That seems like some weak sauce man but I'll give you an opportunity to explain. Why does that matter?

Oh Peace, if you don’t see how going from prevent, to immunity, to protection isn’t a problem when calling something a vaccine, well, then I don’t know how any rational explication could help you, bud.  The bar to call something a vaccine has been lowered so much they could label anything that offers even a smidgen of “protection” a vaccine. 
 

You might as well give them total authority to use all of us a Guinea pigs. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

18 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Oh Peace, if you don’t see how going from prevent, to immunity, to protection isn’t a problem when calling something a vaccine, well, then I don’t know how any rational explication could help you, bud.  The bar to call something a vaccine has been lowered so much they could label anything that offers even a smidgen of “protection” a vaccine. 
 

Who cares? You can call it a “vaccine” or a “smidgen of protection shot” for all I care. The specific efficacy rates are published for each of the shots, so each person can know what he is taking, regardless of what it’s called.

Smugly writing “Oh peace” doesn’t change the fact that you’ve demonstrated this to be nothing other than a matter of semantics.

But please feel free to explain why it should be considered more than that.

18 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

You might as well give them total authority to use all of us a Guinea pigs. 

I’m not watching the video. What is your point? A Guinea pig has no say in whether or not tests are performed on it. You have a choice to take or not take the shot, so there is no authority to use anyone as a Guinea pig.

You don’t appear to have a point. I realize that you believe that you have a point, and you may very well have a point, but you certainly have not explained it here.

So are you going to explain it your point or not?

[Credo in Deum]

Have you been living under a rock the past couple of months?! These “vaccines” are being mandated to the point of get the shot or lose your job and livelihood.  That’s not a choice, that’s coercion.  You call my argument one of semantics, um, duh since we’re talking about DEFINITIONS!

Lowering the standards of “vaccines” to being anything that provides protection is like calling condoms a vaccine for STDS and then mandating people wear them in order to prevent the spread of HIV. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Credo in Deum