Posted on 09/27/2021 8:58:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
How Alinsky of him. Use their rules against them.
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”-PJ
Nothing to do with Alinsky. We ought not to misinform. Period.
He's basically saying that if people have a religious exemption to the vaccine, then they better live up to the 10 commandments, too.
-PJ
RE: I presumed you were talking about finding stolen money
I was talking about UNCLAIMED money.
If you knew the owner of the stolen money of course the moral thing is to return it to the rightful owner.
But many aborted fetuses are unknown. Their mothers are anonymous. Most importantly, they are DEAD. The souls have left the body. The cells, if unpreserved would become dust.
Literally. This brings tears to my eyes.
The things that break God's heart should break ours, also.
RE: He’s basically saying that if people have a religious exemption to the vaccine, then they better live up to the 10 commandments, too.
He is saying that if you are going to use the aborted fetus as an argument to get religious exemption, you better not misrepresent the truth of the matter.
I don’t know a lot on this subject, but HeLa cells were used if that makes any difference?
If TPTB are violating the Nuremberg code, you better dot every i and cross every t when you assert your rights....
not!
No.
Is it now okay to use the knowledge of Josef Mengele because what he did to Jewish prisoners of the holocaust happened 80 years ago?
That is the ethical question, and I wonder if simply waving it away as having happened beyond a statute of limitations isn't misrepresenting the opinion of those with religious objections to the vaccines, or inserting his own opinion over theirs.
-PJ
Then it’d depend on the amount. Finding a 20 on the ground means someone likely dropped it and there’s no chance of finding the original owner.
However, finding a wrapped bundle of 10 grand would likely make you think something else was up. The procedure then is to turn it over to the cops and file the appropriate report. If continued to be unclaimed they give it to you.
I’m not sure how you think anonymity provides cover in your latest example. Knowledge of the act is what’s important, not the “players”.
RE: So is the author lying by suggesting that “immortal” cell lines are okay because the abortion happened a long time ago, or is that just a difference of opinion?
To answer this question, the moral principle of complicity needs to be considered.
One is complicit when he consents to the acts of others, either for good or for evil. If one grants approval to evil, one bears culpability and guilt in that evil act.
I don’t think the author ever says he grants approval of deliberately aborting a baby for the purpose of doing research.
Interestingly, there seems to be no market or bank of
tissue deposits that come from miscarriages or instances of natural fetal demise.
The majority, if not all, of the fetal tissue comes from
elective abortions. Does that mean that research on vaccines encourages abortions? Can a direct line from
abortion be drawn to patients who use them?
The Federal Government from the time of GW Bush recognized that the market for unborn tissue may create unethical incentives and has set up certain restrictions that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) monitor for compliance so that human subjects are protected in research.
The existing statute intends to prevent research from increasing the number of abortions to achieve certain research ends.
While there may be a desire to use aborted tissue,
the researcher is put at a distance to prevent influencing one to abort. If the statute is followed, no direct line exists between researcher and
abortion. The desire for tissue is separated from the actual cause of death. Therefore, a direct line from vaccine user to abortion does not exist.
“The majority, if not all, of the fetal tissue comes from
elective abortions.”
“Does that mean that research on vaccines encourages abortions?”
Oh, nooo! No no no. PP selling baby parts has nothing to do with people being willing to look the other way regarding injecting themselves with serum utilizing aborted fetuses or containing aborted fetuses
Unclaimed Cadavers Are not used for this nor are products from organ donation, however The ‘argument’ here has morphed into that.
“Can a direct line from abortion be drawn to patients who use them?“
Patients who use fetuses for their own well being prefer to pretend that there is no use of the fetus for their own well being. Of course the line can be drawn but to try to prove that is a truth less culture is not possible.
People are walking around with foreign fetal products In their systems But shhh!
Well, it was 75 years ago, and the bad guys were all dead. We should go ahead and take advantage of their data it sounds like.
If so, how does harvesting the cell line of a dead fetus whose death you had nothing to do with make you morally culpable for the fetus’ death?
If so, how does harvesting skin of a dead Jew whose death you had nothing to do with make you morally culpable for the Jew’s death? You just run a lampshade factory.
The majority, if not all, of the fetal tissue comes from elective abortions. Does that mean that research on vaccines encourages abortions?
I don't think so. I think the reason that people choose to have an elective abortion are personal and immediate. I don't think that anybody believes they are furthering science by aborting their baby in the way that people who leave their bodies to science do.
Can a direct line from abortion be drawn to patients who use them?
I think the second question is like asking someone if they would still buy a gun if they knew it was used in a murder, or buy a home where people were killed in it, and so on.
Maybe it's superstitious, maybe it's a moral objection, or maybe it's societal inculcation to not consecrate a place or object where evil happened.
But I think the gist of your question is whether people who use a vaccine that depended on aborted cell lines is in any way encouraging abortions? I think the answer is no, the reasons for abortions are removed from the future use of the aborted fetuses.
That's a different question than asking if someone who used a vaccine that depended on aborted cell lines has in any way benefitted from the abortion. That's the moral question that each person must answer for themselves, however consistent or not the answer comports with how they live the rest of their lives.
-PJ
You’re conflating the researcher and the subject in that one. What you’re citing refers to protecting potential subjects, i.e. someone talking a reluctant subject into having an abortion because the “someone” wants the tissue, meaning, they are not acting in the best interest of the subject. This’d be comparable to the “fiduciary” relationship financial advisors use.
It’d still effectively be up to the researcher and vaccine recipient to decide for themselves if what they are doing is immoral or not, even if they have legal “cover”.
This is always the foundational problem in these situations. Even though you can point to law or even church tenets, it will come down to the individual’s understanding of the matter. If someone has faith that what they are doing is right or wrong, it’s hard to talk them out of that. So to conclude that a researcher or vaccine recipient cannot possibly conclude something is immoral to them is erroneous.
Imagine if these ‘immortal’ cells came from Holocaust victims. Would a long time ago mitigate their origins?
“If the statute is followed, no direct line exists between researcher and abortion. The desire for tissue is separated from the actual cause of death. Therefore, a direct line from vaccine user to abortion does not exist.”
Why, that is some of the best sophistry I’ve ever seen!
By this logic, a German lampshade maker can use Jewish skin as long as they do not order the skins BEFORE the Jews (who were going to be killed anyway) were murdered.
Nice lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.