"The Catholic Church’s concern about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is that it is morally compromised as a cell line from aborted fetal tissue was used in its development and production," said Father Robert Shea, diocesan ethicist for health care. "As the U.S. Bishops’ statement on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine indicates, it is possible to receive it in good conscience if given no other choice, but it should be avoided if there are alternatives (like Pfizer or Moderna) available." Why should there be a difference between fetal tissue used to make a vaccine and using the organs of a murdered infant for organ transplant to a Catholic?
You should clarify between what would be anyone's initial assumption-- that you mean, "different," from the other vaccines-- and what I would take, after reading your OP, to be your actual meaning: "different," from using fetal organs for transplants. In fact, some backround info on this I, personally, think would be an interesting addition to your thread.
This “feral tissue” both is and is not an issue. It is cells from a foetus aborted back in the seventies. (From memory - I could be corrected on the dates) These are cells that have been cloned and cloned again over decades and the cells are only used to grow the vaccine there is no remaining cell tissue in the final product but all the Catholic Church has said is that where you can have an option go wth one of the others https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/0...ccine-despite-concerns-from-catholic-leaders/
All tissue was fetal tissue at some point. Unless it was lab created from scratch in which case the Catholics should be okay with it, no?
The Catholic Church : "Ya, we have our standards but if they don't suit us we just change the standards...we'll use anything if it saves our butts"..
What I was trying to highlight is the Catholic church thinks using fetal tissue morally compromises the vaccine because it historically used tissue from a "murdered baby". My question then is using the organs for transplant from a murdered infant "morally compromised" or is it doing good after a tragic event? I think Catholic ethicists need to recalculate.
The Catholic Church's current position on this is that it's permissible to use those vaccines, but that each person can decide for themselves whether they think it's ethical, and the Church does want to be clear to point out there are ethical concerns with this, and this type of thing. It's the same type of logic some people use to say that medical science should not benefit from horrific medical experiments performed on unconsenting victims by the Japanese or Nazis during World War 2. The idea, I guess, is that something wrong had to be done in order for you to benefit, so you should not benefit from that wrong. (I'm just telling you the argument) Now, if you actually accepting that benefit might do anything to incentivize that wrong being committed, it takes it to a whole other level.
So the thread's focus is much less on the vaccine element, and much more on the fetal-tissue debate. While I can certainly see the potential, abominable abuses, to which a too-casual attitude, about this, could lead, I agree with your take that the use of this tissue should be based more squarely upon scientific-footing, specifically its tangible benefits to the living, rather than upon some theological evaluation.
Could you be a little clearer? Using fetal tissue for vaccines, or organ implants, certainly has SOMETHING to do with science. The, "issue," I took it, from the thread-poster's direct response to my first comment, about the possible confusion caused by her OP, is that the Catholic CHURCH, treats these different, SCIENTIFIC-uses of the tissue, on an unequal basis. If my understanding of the thread's focus is not mistaken, I don't think one can correctly say that this, "has NOTHING to do with science." If my understanding of the thread is incorrect, I would appreciate your taking a shot at explaining what the thread's point actually is since, in that case, the thread's originator would have failed, after two attempts, to've been able to accomplish that basic task.
What I meant was that the ethical issues involved do not have to do with science. The science of this is pretty clear and settled upon; it is not in dispute. The difference of opinion does not have to do with disagreements about science. Catholics do not really hold any different of a scientific view about this than anyone else. This is an ethical/moral issue. Trying to "be more scientific" isn't going to change anything.
The difference is purely moral. Some people refuse to eat meat because they oppose killing animals as a resource. I don't know of any that would eat meat that was killed by accident, but strictly speaking, doing so would not violate their code, and in fact would be a better use of the meat than just incinerating it, as is often done for roadkill. I suspect the Catholic church is essentially opposing the perception of aborted fetuses as a desireable resource while supporting (or tacitly accepting) the efficiency of using them when they otherwise die coincidentally. Of course, most people that get abortions are not doing it as a means to capitalize on a resource... but I do support efforts to KEEP it that way.
I can't fault your post's position but, I take it from Edna's OP, that her impression is that the Church is more visibly uncomfortable with the vaccine use, than the organ use(?). Maybe she is trying to make too fine a point, as the vaccine is clearly front & center in the news, whereas organ transplants are not(?). Also, I could understand the church seeing future embryonic-tissue vaccines as a possible growth-industry (forgive the term), and so would naturally be more uneasy about seeming, even through their silence, to in any way encourage this front, when there are numerous, alternate paths for developing vaccines. I fully agree with your concluding sentence. Since this is a debate forum, however, permit me to point out that there are numerous levels between being an avowed consumer of conventionally-raised meat, and a vegetarian, or vegan, on strictly moral grounds (in fact, that's two layers, right there). One might have no qualms, for example, with eating animals raised under certified humane conditions, or which live something resembling a life as nature intended, as opposed to one of over-confinement, with an unnatural diet (cf. a preference for range-fed cattle, or pastured chicken). Further along the spectrum would be the limiting oneself to just wild, game-meats and, lastly, to only the specific animals whose lives one had personally gained an appreciation of, by personally dispatching, themself.
Oh definitely. I buy animal products with things like 'cage free' and 'free range' and 'no hormones/steroids' (because the hormones and steroids are usually used to prevent infection when the animal is confined in awful conditions). Im ok with animals being an industry... but they still deserve to be happy before we eat them. Once I get my chest freezer mostly empty, I plan to take up hunting. Hopefully this fall. I will not enjoy the kill. At all. But I will enjoy the meat.
I've had the same intention myself, though I am an awful procrastinator. My perfectionist streak compounds the problem: in the interest of fairness, I'd wanted to not use a gun, but a bow. I'd even believed I would, at least at times, use one which I, myself, construct. More likely, I'll settle for chasing down & clubbing a groundhog. Anyway, I think it will give more significance to the experience of consuming its flesh. Happy hunting!
Admirable, but I think my chances of getting a quick, far less painful kill are substantially increased with a rifle (I'm crap with bows). I'll feel better about that than I would from any sense of 'fairness.' Either way, its prolly better than slowing from age until eaten alive by coyotes.
I'm aware of that suffering argument. I'll surely consider it when I'm finally ready for my first hunt, but most likely it will just necessitate my needing to develop my stalking skills, to be able to be nearer to my prey.
@edna kawabata Quick apologies if it seemed I was giving you a hard time, before. You see, more often than I find threads by pre-picking a forum, I use the list of Recent Posts, but I don't always, initially, take note of the forum, in which each post appears. So, while your title might be able to be read as a, "vaccine subject" thread, your putting it under ABORTION, had I noticed, would have left no doubt as to your intended meaning. I hope you can write off my carelessness as nothing personal.
