Posted on 12/05/2020 5:14:43 PM PST by xomething
Four pro-life medical groups provided clarifying details Wednesday about whether the development of two new coronavirus vaccines involved cells from aborted babies.
In a statement, the Catholic Medical Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations said the vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna did not use cells from aborted babies in their production phases, the Catholic News Agency reports.
Though “it is true that the animal-phase testing for these vaccines used abortion-derived fetal cells, commendably, it does not appear that production methods utilized such cells,” the pro-life groups said.
Both vaccines soon could be available in the United States. The companies said they are waiting for final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but the vaccines already are in production.
The pro-life medical groups said ethical alternatives to cells from aborted babies are available, such as umbilical cord tissue and adult stem cells, neither of which involve the destruction of human life. They said many viral vaccines that have been produced in recent years did not use “abortion-derived fetal cell lines for their production.”
“These and other ethical approaches provide encouragement for the future, where no vaccine will violate the dignity of human life in their production,” they continued.
They urged pharmaceutical companies to commit to the “assurances of safety, efficacy” and “uncompromised ethical development” of vaccines.
“It is profoundly important to recognize the vaccines that may have been developed with the use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines,” they said. “This awareness is necessary from the perspective of both the health care professional and the patient, and every participant in this process deserves to know the source of the vaccine used to allow them to follow their moral conscience.”
According to the report, a number of Catholic leaders said it is not immoral to use the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, including the chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pro-life committee and a leader at the National Catholic Bioethics Center.
However, some did identify the vaccine from Oxford University/AstraZeneca as a problem because researchers are using cells from aborted babies in its development.
According to the Charlotte Lozier Institute, 17 research groups are conducting ethical coronavirus vaccine experiments while five are not. The five using cells from aborted babies in their research include researchers with the University of Oxford, Johnson & Johnson and the University of Pittsburgh.
In May, U.S. Catholic Archbishop Joseph Naumann urged pro-life advocates to speak out against the unethical use of cells from aborted babies in the creation of a coronavirus vaccine.
Speaking with EWTN Pro-Life Weekly, Naumann said now is the time for Catholics and other pro-lifers to demand ethically developed vaccines.
“I think all we need really is for our pharmaceutical companies to realize that this is offensive to a large number of Americans and give them the encouragement, give our government the encouragement, to make sure these vaccines are not morally compromised in any way,” he said.
Vaccine producers are listening to pro-lifers’ concerns. In September, the company Sanofi-Pasteur announced plans to produce a new, ethically-developed polio vaccine. The project will replace an older polio vaccine that was developed with cells from an aborted baby, according to the Catholic News Agency. Sanofi-Pasteur is one of the largest vaccine production companies in the world.
Ethical alternatives to cells from aborted babies are available, including pluripotent stem cells and tissue from placentas, umbilical cords and amniotic fluid. In 2018, the Trump administration created a $20 million grant to invest in these ethical research alternatives.
Who cares ?
Screw thus stupid 🐜 bug
Screw the stupid vaccine !
Screw tests !
Screw masks !
Want my flu bro rant ??
No stem cells but either women will be made infertile or their offspring will look like aliens. ie Zuckerberg or Lori Lightweight.
In other words, we do not go about actively and deliberately committing evil, in order that it might prompt some good to come of it.
If this were true, there would be no su h thing as sin. Evil would bring about good, so evil would be good.
We’d not need the 10 commandments.
Adam and Eve wouldnt have done anything wrong. They could say look at all the opportunities for good we’ve just set in motion!
Whose interpretation of St Thomas Aquinas are you quoting? Certainly it is not a direct quotation.
1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.
By intention the reference is the acting subject, which in this case is definitely not evil.
It would be in reference to “administering a Vaccine” action, and intention “for the sake of health.”
This is in no way an evil action, therefore we are not talking about ends justifying means, it is not evil.
If we were talking about lying to ones neighbor for the purpose of making them like you, that would be evil, since no matter what good intention there might be the actions taken are not allowed.
You need to formulate the argument better, otherwise the statement from the Catechism is not being used correctly.
With your logic one could justify partaking in the cannibalization of a ship-wrecked survivor murdered by another survivor in order to survive for just another few days. Is mortal life that precious to you?
Is it worth it? The vaccine was developed with the help of the murder of a baby girl who didn't even have a chance to be baptized.
You’re not good at this, and it’s terrible for your case.
(Logic one could justify partaking in the cannibalization of a ship-wrecked survivor murdered by another survivor in order to survive for just another few days.)
In this case that is not correct at all, since killing is a sin. The act itself is about killing someone and the intention is for food, the other bits are just additional bad circumstances to the nature of the act. This ofcourse has nothing to do with whether someone should take a vaccine.
Try again, you either need to understand Catholic Theology more re: Thomas Aquinas, or drop the subject. If you want to understand it better, you need either ask your priest or a Catholic theologian.
(Is it worth it?)
Not to develop the vaccine along those lines is a good argument. To use one already developed is another.
You have to be better at explaining and expressing why the use is wrong or it doesn’t change anyone’s mind.
What in the heck to you think abortion is?
Who do you think Planned Parenthood has been selling aborted fetuses or their organs to?
Research labs, perhaps? Who else would want them?
Abortion is plainly murder. So what?
Infanticide is still going on and science is still “benefiting” from it, for profit.
And you are advocating taking advantage of those “benefits” for a questionable vaccine against a flu with a 2% mortality rate.
That’s what!
Thank you for explaining this.
Science is benefitting from murder. Clearly that is wrong.
The vaccine is probably not that questionable. Do you want to take that bet?
The vaccine is not relying on murder for its production, ergo the fact that one benefits is not at all grevious. It is a clear case of something very remote, which medical science benefits from all the time.
Cadavers for medical practice were being carved up in Catholic universities throughout the western world for many years for example. Some of those might also have been murder cases.
Are you suggesting that using the cells of a baby girl murdered in the 1970’s is more remotely removed from sin than the baby girl who will be aborted this coming week and who’s kidney will be sold for research?
Are we remotely removed from Adam and Eve’s Original Sin by time?
I don’t think so.
"Probably" is a disturbing word when describing a mostly untested vaccine.
Besides being immoral, I find the the vaccine to be highly questionable health wise. There have been all types of warnings about side effects, mostly concerning heart attacks, strokes, bells palsy and sterility. Imagine that: an aborted baby girl causing sterility.
Some of those might also have been murder cases.
And what about it? Fetal stem cells have been and still are available from umbilical cords and placentas.
Why is infanticide such a necessity?
Because big pharma has invested so much time and dollars, since the 70's instead of starting over again. It's all about the money.
Your use of the word “probable,” I’ll take it and find out. I sincerely doubt Trump would have funded a Vaccine that actually harms people.
Your characterization of immoral is also questionable. Not gonna explain to me why taking the vaccine is immoral? You still attempt talking past that sale?
Again, so what? Your problem is you don’t understand Catholic teaching, its a terribly ineffective teaching if the person who uses it doesn’t understand it.
Was the girl in question murdered by big pharma?
Over and above that question, which you keep dodging around, is how my taking of the vaccine constitutes an immoral act.
The vaccine I will take uses no abortive fetal tissue. None of its components come from some freshly killed innocent. Ergo, it is not immoral to make the drug nor take the drug.
"freshly killed"!!!
That's where you and I disagree! Was Jesus Christ "freshly killed" on Calvary?
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.