Immorally produced vaccines

Lachlan Nice Farmyard wrote: »

Personally, I find it sickening that material derived from aborted babies is being used in the development and production of Covid-19 vaccines. Bishop Strickland in the US has been very vocal in speaking out against such vaccines and should be commended for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6ZThHkv0cA

Also, the Charlotte Lozier Institute came up with a list of vaccines which are developed unethically, using abortion derived cells.

https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/

I think this is an anthropological problem, in how we view the human being. Instead of being seen as a precious child of God, people are increasingly viewed as pieces of meat, first to be killed when inconvenient, then their bodies to be used as organic matter in medical production.

I would be of the opinion that anyone who is sincerely anti-abortion should/would reflect on whether they wish to avail of a vaccine such as this, factoring in their ethical concerns with personal and public health concerns.
If they refused on conscientious grounds that I would respect that, while hoping they continue to ensure they do not become a risk to others.
I would also imagine that vegans would have ethical concerns given the trials on animals.

But this comment "I think this is an anthropological problem, in how we view the human being. Instead of being seen as a precious child of God, people are increasingly viewed as pieces of meat, first to be killed when inconvenient, then their bodies to be used as organic matter in medical production." I find ironic given the amount of people killed throughout the ages, and still happening today, for not conforming to particular religious beliefs - were they not precious children of God?
Literally millions were killed during Europe's Wars of Religion - victims on all side of the sectarian divide - with civil and religious authorities giving the orders.
Human beings were burned , crushed, roasted, alive - and I won't describe how some gaymen were executed as it is too horrific.
And that's just in one century, on one continent, between believers in the same God.

We had brutal sectarian murders right here on this island in the very recent past - carried out by people who would consider themselves religious.

Human beings have frequently been viewed as inconvenient by religious leaders - unmarried mothers, illegitimate children feature highly among inconvenient Irish who died from starvation and neglect under the care of Church authorities (mainly RCC but the COI aren't innocent either ) so the high moral ground based on how religions view humans is a very shaky foundation upon which to base an ethical stance.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that anyone who is sincerely anti-abortion should/would reflect on whether they wish to avail of a vaccine such as this, factoring in their ethical concerns with personal and public health concerns.
If they refused on conscientious grounds that I would respect that, while hoping they continue to ensure they do not become a risk to others.
I would also imagine that vegans would have ethical concerns given the trials on animals.

For vaccines to be successful at a societal level they need a high uptake rate. I would sincerely hope that those facing a personal moral dilemma here could weigh that against the harm they are exposing others to by not getting vaccinated and act in a selfless manner for the greater good. This would seem to be the stance taken by the Catholic church in Ireland.

smacl wrote: »

For vaccines to be successful at a societal level they need a high uptake rate. I would sincerely hope that those facing a personal moral dilemma here could weigh that against the harm they are exposing others to by not getting vaccinated and act in a selfless manner for the greater good. This would seem to be the stance taken by the Catholic church in Ireland.

I agree.Now, the kneejerk anti-vaxx Billgates/5g/freemansons yada yada crowd can, imo, take a hike.
However, I can appreciate that for some people it will be a genuinely huge ethical dilemma and we should acknowledge that.

witchgirl26

Just to note that both the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine for Covid-19 do not use foetal tissue, they use the new mRNA technology, which uses a DNA template rather than cells.

I do appreciate the moral dilemma that is faced by those with quite strict beliefs in relation to abortion however I do think that information about the vaccines being made with mRNA technology needs to be spread better so that it can be seen and understood that none of these vaccines have used any foetal tissue. Also in some cases, it is not aborted foetal tissue that is used but still-born that has been donated by the parents.

Iscreamkone

Whether it's immoral or not is subjective.... but that's just my opinion

theological

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that anyone who is sincerely anti-abortion should/would reflect on whether they wish to avail of a vaccine such as this, factoring in their ethical concerns with personal and public health concerns.
If they refused on conscientious grounds that I would respect that, while hoping they continue to ensure they do not become a risk to others.
I would also imagine that vegans would have ethical concerns given the trials on animals.

But this comment "I think this is an anthropological problem, in how we view the human being. Instead of being seen as a precious child of God, people are increasingly viewed as pieces of meat, first to be killed when inconvenient, then their bodies to be used as organic matter in medical production." I find ironic given the amount of people killed throughout the ages, and still happening today, for not conforming to particular religious beliefs - were they not precious children of God?
Literally millions were killed during Europe's Wars of Religion - victims on all side of the sectarian divide - with civil and religious authorities giving the orders.
Human beings were burned , crushed, roasted, alive - and I won't describe how some gaymen were executed as it is too horrific.
And that's just in one century, on one continent, between believers in the same God.

We had brutal sectarian murders right here on this island in the very recent past - carried out by people who would consider themselves religious.

Human beings have frequently been viewed as inconvenient by religious leaders - unmarried mothers, illegitimate children feature highly among inconvenient Irish who died from starvation and neglect under the care of Church authorities (mainly RCC but the COI aren't innocent either ) so the high moral ground based on how religions view humans is a very shaky foundation upon which to base an ethical stance.

This is a silly argument.

It is obvious that people have manipulated Christianity to suit political ends in the past. For the record, people have also manipulated atheism for political ends in the past.

It is also pretty obvious that Biblical Christianity never sanctioned such behaviour.

The fact that you post here in the assumption that most of us think that this is ok, or indeed that Christianity actually sanctioned such behaviour is where the absurdity begins.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that anyone who is sincerely anti-abortion should/would reflect on whether they wish to avail of a vaccine such as this, factoring in their ethical concerns with personal and public health concerns.
If they refused on conscientious grounds that I would respect that, while hoping they continue to ensure they do not become a risk to others.
I would also imagine that vegans would have ethical concerns given the trials on animals.

I think this part of your post is quite sensible, and is how things should work in a tolerant society.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I find ironic given the amount of people killed throughout the ages, and still happening today, for not conforming to particular religious beliefs - were they not precious children of God?
Literally millions were killed during Europe's Wars of Religion - victims on all side of the sectarian divide - with civil and religious authorities giving the orders.
Human beings were burned , crushed, roasted, alive - and I won't describe how some gaymen were executed as it is too horrific.
And that's just in one century, on one continent, between believers in the same God.

We had brutal sectarian murders right here on this island in the very recent past - carried out by people who would consider themselves religious.

Human beings have frequently been viewed as inconvenient by religious leaders - unmarried mothers, illegitimate children feature highly among inconvenient Irish who died from starvation and neglect under the care of Church authorities (mainly RCC but the COI aren't innocent either ) so the high moral ground based on how religions view humans is a very shaky foundation upon which to base an ethical stance.

I'm going to use a phrase that I dislike intensely, but isn't all of this just whataboutery? Even if everything you've said here is true, it has precisely nothing to do with the value or status of the unborn.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree.Now, the kneejerk anti-vaxx Billgates/5g/freemansons yada yada crowd can, imo, take a hike.
However, I can appreciate that for some people it will be a genuinely huge ethical dilemma and we should acknowledge that.

I think this is 100% correct. As with many complex ethical decisions, it's something that each individual should have the freedom to decide for themselves (whether religious or not).

I was pleasantly surprised to find myself agreeing with the Irish Catholic bishops when they said: "The Church has always made a distinction…between formal (deliberate) involvement in an immoral act and material involvement, which may be incidental and remote...The decision of those who decide to accept vaccines which have had some link with fetal cell lines in the past does not imply any consent on their part to abortion."

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that anyone who is sincerely anti-abortion should/would reflect on whether they wish to avail of a vaccine such as this, factoring in their ethical concerns with personal and public health concerns.
If they refused on conscientious grounds that I would respect that, while hoping they continue to ensure they do not become a risk to others.
I would also imagine that vegans would have ethical concerns given the trials on animals.

But this comment "I think this is an anthropological problem, in how we view the human being. Instead of being seen as a precious child of God, people are increasingly viewed as pieces of meat, first to be killed when inconvenient, then their bodies to be used as organic matter in medical production." I find ironic given the amount of people killed throughout the ages, and still happening today, for not conforming to particular religious beliefs - were they not precious children of God?
Literally millions were killed during Europe's Wars of Religion - victims on all side of the sectarian divide - with civil and religious authorities giving the orders.
Human beings were burned , crushed, roasted, alive - and I won't describe how some gaymen were executed as it is too horrific.
And that's just in one century, on one continent, between believers in the same God.

We had brutal sectarian murders right here on this island in the very recent past - carried out by people who would consider themselves religious.

Human beings have frequently been viewed as inconvenient by religious leaders - unmarried mothers, illegitimate children feature highly among inconvenient Irish who died from starvation and neglect under the care of Church authorities (mainly RCC but the COI aren't innocent either ) so the high moral ground based on how religions view humans is a very shaky foundation upon which to base an ethical stance.

Is your post a dig at organised religion, with a sprinkling of virtue signaling and empathy ?

CountNjord wrote: »

Is your post a dig at organised religion, with a sprinkling of virtue signaling and empathy ?

If you consider outlining the historical facts as 'virtue signalling' that is your prerogative.
But it strikes me as a head in the sand approach.

Well why go off on one about the atrocities committed by the Catholic church in a post about the moral complications about the vaccine.

What has that to do with the original post ?

I think it's unfair to start adding that sort of observation to your observation about the vaccine.

Christians are not all the same,or should be guilt shamed into the atrocities committed by the church.

It's a simple original post, why bring all the past into the present.

Isn't there another forum where you can post about that kind of thing ??

theological wrote: »

It is also pretty obvious that Biblical Christianity never sanctioned such behaviour.

Only if Biblical Christianity ignores the OT. - which it doesn't.

Elijah killed 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest. 1 Kings 18:22-40
(The total in this massacre may have been 850 if it included the priests of the groves.)
Elisha (with help from God) sent two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of his bald head. 2 Kings 2:22-23
Elijah (and God) burned to death 102 men. 2 Kings 1:10-12

The fact that you post here in the assumption that most of us think that this is ok, or indeed that Christianity actually sanctioned such behaviour is where the absurdity begins.

Any assumptions are yours and yours alone.
Christianity more than sanctioned the killing of those considered 'heretic' (the definition of which varied according to which side of the theological debate one stood on), it actively pursued it - perhaps you have heard of the Papal sanctioned Spanish Inquisition?

Here is a quick outline of sanctioned behaviour https://www.history.com/topics/religion/inquisition

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I find ironic .

CountNjord wrote: »

Well why go off on one about the atrocities committed by the Catholic church in a post about the moral complications about the vaccine.

What has that to do with the original post ?

I think it's unfair to start adding that sort of observation to your observation about the vaccine.

Christians are not all the same,or should be guilt shamed into the atrocities committed by the church.

It's a simple original post, why bring all the past into the present.

Isn't there another forum where you can post about that kind of thing ??

I am allowed to say I find a thing ironic and state why - which is exactly what I did.

If religion was a recent thing without a lengthy history at it's back then you could claim that my finding it ironic is not relevant.

However, the fact - whether you like it or not/feel shame or not - there is a history within organised religions of finding some human lives inconvenient - so perhaps complain that the OP was the one who introduced that particular topic of inconvenient lives rather than to me who merely responded by saying I found it ironic.

I will post where ever I wish unless a mod tells me other wise - you are not a mod in this forum.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm going to use a phrase that I dislike intensely, but isn't all of this just whataboutery? Even if everything you've said here is true, it has precisely nothing to do with the value or status of the unborn.

Whatabout the lives of the unborn having value but the lives of those who were killed for religious reasons having no value?
What a strange argument.

If one is going to argue from a religious basis, a 'precious child of God' as the OP put it, that all lives have value then one should acknowledge that there have been many occasions when religious authorities did not value human lives.
That is all I did. I said I find using the preciousness of human lives to religions argument ironic given the history of religions. ALL religions (although there are sects within religions who are unbloodied e.g the Quakers).

Post away what ever you like, I don't know why you're coming in here pointing out the past and telling Christian's that because of the past they shouldn't be against a vaccine which doesn't agree with their principles.

Its not about the past,the post is about the present.

What has the past to do with the original post ?

I don't know what you're trying to get at here to be honest.

CountNjord wrote: »

I don't know why you're coming in here pointing out the past and telling Christian's that because of the past they shouldn't be against a vaccine which doesn't agree with their principles.

Its not about the past,the post is about the present.

What has the past to do with the original post ?

I don't know what you're trying to get at here to be honest.

Perhaps if you stopped making assumptions and read what I actually wrote you would understand.

I said - I (me personally) find it ironic to talk about lives as being 'precious gifts of God' when discussing a vaccine and using that as a reason to oppose a vaccine - which is what the OP did -but not acknowledging 'precious gifts from God' when it was religions who were taking lives for religious reasons
The point it - I find that Ironic. Me, personally.
How anyone else finds it it completely up to them.

And nowhere did I say, imply, infer, insinuate that Christians should do anything.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Whatabout the lives of the unborn having value but the lives of those who were killed for religious reasons having no value?
What a strange argument.

If you were talking to those who sanctioned religiously motivated killings then you would definitely have a point. I'm perfectly comfortable with saying that such things are wrong, and that killing the unborn is also wrong.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If one is going to argue from a religious basis, a 'precious child of God' as the OP put it, that all lives have value then one should acknowledge that there have been many occasions when religious authorities did not value human lives.
That is all I did. I said I find using the preciousness of human lives to religions argument ironic given the history of religions. ALL religions (although there are sects within religions who are unbloodied e.g the Quakers).

I'd go further than mere acknowledgement and say that, as far as practicable, religious organisations and institutions should seek to make amends for wrongs done in their name (e.g. participating fully and openly in any public inquiries, issuing clear public apologies, providing financial compensation where appropriate, and putting procedures in place to try and ensure such things do not happen again).

I have no problem at all with you pointing that out, but I do have a problem with anyone saying "because people like you did those bad things, you have no right to comment on these bad things" If that's not what you were saying then I apologise

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps if you stopped making assumptions and read what I actually wrote you would understand.

I said - I (me personally) find it ironic to talk about lives as being 'precious gifts of God' when discussing a vaccine and using that as a reason to oppose a vaccine - which is what the OP did -but not acknowledging 'precious gifts from God' when it was religions who were taking lives for religious regions.
The point it - I find that Ironic. Me, personally.
How anyone else finds it it completely up to them.

And nowhere did I say, imply, infer, insinuate that Christians should do anything.

That's all in the past and has been debated to death on forums all over the world.

I don't see why you have to point out that here, it's irrelevant in the 21st century.
So what it's in the past, I'm not a fan of the crusades, or any of the wrong and immoral acts of the Catholic church in the name of God or whatever.

And as someone else pointed out that there's a totally different ingredient in the vaccine than what they thought.

So in effect you pointing out the irony is only taking the debate in the wrong direction.

theological

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Only if Biblical Christianity ignores the OT. - which it doesn't.

Elijah killed 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest. 1 Kings 18:22-40
(The total in this massacre may have been 850 if it included the priests of the groves.)
Elisha (with help from God) sent two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of his bald head. 2 Kings 2:22-23
Elijah (and God) burned to death 102 men. 2 Kings 1:10-12

Any assumptions are yours and yours alone.
Christianity more than sanctioned the killing of those considered 'heretic' (the definition of which varied according to which side of the theological debate one stood on), it actively pursued it - perhaps you have heard of the Papal sanctioned Spanish Inquisition?

Here is a quick outline of sanctioned behaviour https://www.history.com/topics/religion/inquisition

How this isn't regarded as trolling is beyond me.

I would personally disagree with the Inquisition for 2 reasons. Firstly, because this definitely isn't encouraged by the Christian gospel, and second because many people with similar convictions to mine were killed during it. So even if particular people in particular institutions may justify such behaviour, it's rather obvious that Christianity as it is revealed to us Scripturally doesn't. The insinuation that I am responsible some how for any of the things you mentioned by following Jesus is an absurdity.

When I am referring to Biblical Christianity I'm referring to people this side of the cross who follow Jesus Christ. I'm happy to deal with the other questions about the OT, which I think are valid, but I don't want to take this thread off its original topic.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Only if Biblical Christianity ignores the OT. - which it doesn't.

Elijah killed 450 religious leaders in a prayer contest. 1 Kings 18:22-40
(The total in this massacre may have been 850 if it included the priests of the groves.)
Elisha (with help from God) sent two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of his bald head. 2 Kings 2:22-23
Elijah (and God) burned to death 102 men. 2 Kings 1:10-12

I'm not sure that these passages really support your point.

The slaughter of the priests of Baal at the end of 1 Kings 18 is recorded without comment, so I think it's wrong to assume the writers approval of Elijah's actions here. It's also noteworthy that directly after this, at the start of chapter 19, Elijah is rebuked by God for his fanaticism.

The two examples from 2 Kings are clearly recorded as instances of God's direct execution of judgement. Whatever you think about that, it's certainly not implied that God's people, either then or now, were to emulate them.

I think you'd have more of a case with some of the judicial laws that governed Old Testament Israel, but even then those were only applicable to that theocratic society and are explicitly not binding on the church in the New Testament and beyond.

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I have no problem at all with you pointing that out, but I do have a problem with anyone saying "because people like you did those bad things, you have no right to comment on these bad things" If that's not what you were saying then I apologise

That is absolutely not what I was saying.
Which is why I did not say that.
I meant I find it ironic - so that is what I said.

We all mis-read things at times and run away with what we think people said rather than what they said - I can be just as guilty.

CountNjord wrote: »

That's all in the past and has been debated to death on forums all over the world.

I don't see why you have to point out that here, it's irrelevant in the 21st century.
So what it's in the past, I'm not a fan of the crusades, or any of the wrong and immoral acts of the Catholic church in the name of God or whatever.

And as someone else pointed out that there's a totally different ingredient in the vaccine than what they thought.

So in effect you pointing out the irony is only taking the debate in the wrong direction.

Tell that to the OP.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That is absolutely not what I was saying.
Which is why I did not say that.
I meant I find it ironic - so that is what I said.

We all mis-read things at times and run away with what we think people said rather than what they said - I can be just as guilty.

Fair enough, mea culpa

I can definitely appreciate the irony in our Irish context, when there are so many wrongs that have neither been adequately acknowledged nor reparations made - and the very same institution then steps forward to speak on other matters of morality. I don't want to say much more about that as I'm not a Roman Catholic myself, and would rather RC posters on here speak for themselves.

Certainly, any Christian needs to practice what they preach. If not then you are quite right to call out the hypocrisy.

smacl

CountNjord wrote: »

Isn't there another forum where you can post about that kind of thing ??

CountNjord wrote: »

Post away what ever you like, I don't know why you're coming in here pointing out the past and telling Christian's that because of the past they shouldn't be against a vaccine which doesn't agree with their principles.

theological wrote: »

How this isn't regarded as trolling is beyond me.

Mod warning: Less of the backseat modding please. Theological carded for this as they have been previously warned about it. Any responses to the feedback thread or via PM only please. Thanks for your attention.

[Deleted User]

CountNjord wrote: »

Post away what ever you like, I don't know why you're coming in here pointing out the past and telling Christian's that because of the past they shouldn't be against a vaccine which doesn't agree with their principles.

It is relevant in that it exposes the hypocritical nature of pretty much all organised religion. You cannot denounce X because it is against your principles, while turning a blind eye to Y, which is also against your principles but was carried out by people 'on your side', or because you find it useful in your everyday life. Well, you can, but anyone with an ounce of moral fibre will recognise the disconnect and hypocrisy for what it is.

How about everything else that is against your principles? It is a valid criticism to point out the irony of someone refusing a vaccine, while posting about it using an invention that would not exist because of a gay man (Turing). Do you not refuse to use PCs because homosexuality is against your religion?

The same can be said of any multitude of inventors or pioneers.....Da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, The Wachowski brothers/sisters, John Burnside, Truman Capote, Leonard Bernstein, Andy warhol........the list is endless, and they're just the famous ones.

Religious folk tend to cherrypick the bits and pieces which they find suitable or which sits well in their world view, only to handwave away all of the other stuff that is in direct contradiction to the stuff they hold dear. This is no different. And that's okay, nobody is gonna crucify you over it. But you must be open, on a public forum at least, to accepting the fact that others find it hypocritical. Because it is hypocrisy incarnate.

In my mind, if you really held those principles to be true and wanted to live your life by them, then you wouldn't be religious in the first place because they are completely anathema to organised religion.