Major Sword-Tip (aka Hat-tip) to The Badger Catholic on this story:
The BC links to a Right to Life of Michigan article that explains how many of the Vaccines that we administer (or don't in some cases) to Children in this country
RTL of Michigan explains:
For several years now, information has circulated among prolife groups and individuals regarding the development of very common vaccines through the use of tissue taken from aborted babies. While initially the reports and information were not conclusively documented, further detailed research by several prolife groups has provided direct proof of a connection between aborted fetal tissue and most vaccines. That connection, and its implications for whether prolife citizens should consider using the vaccines, raises some complicated issues. In sorting through those issues, this LifeNotes will address the basic science involved, the documentation of the abortion-vaccine connection, the moral/ethical questions about using abortion-tainted vaccines, and information about available alternative vaccines.This is a SHOCKING report. As someone who considers themselves pretty "up" on RTL issues, this one has escaped me. Sure I heard rumblings of this in the past, but as RTLM says, it was inconclusive speculation for a long time, so I didn't really every think to much about it.
Apparently The Badger Catholic was thinking about it, because they posted this story only a week ago about a measure in the Minnesota Legislature that would force pharma companies to list vaccine "ingredients." See that post here: Minnesota Vaccine Bill Proposal
Well, now it appears that Right to Life of Michigan has a conclusive list and puts it out there for all to see. Maybe this is something that everyone already knew about, but I sure didn't. As a newer father, I have not heard *one* Catholic parent talk about this anywhere, even those VERY OPPOSED to vaccines for other reasons.
I think what is MOST shocking is that there are NO alternatives to the CHICKENPOX and RUBELLA Vaccines, two vaccines which many states require school children receive prior to entry into the public and even somtimes private school system. I plan on doing more on this story later but I wanted to get this out there. This may have HUGE implications in terms of "Religious Exemptions" for Catholic parents morally opposed to their children get vaccinated with fetal cell line vaccines. Here is what Right to Life says about the Moral implications:
Should These Vaccines Be Used? The Moral & Ethical ConsiderationsThe ethical quandary created by the tainting of these otherwise beneficial vaccines is obvious and vexing. Parents are more than justified in wanting to protect their children from these potentially life-threatening diseases. It can be legitimately argued that parents have an obligation to take reasonable steps to protect their children. Likewise, as a society, we must take into consideration the morality and cost of failing to prevent widespread outbreaks of disease. Thus, there is a civic responsibility associated with vaccines and controlling diseases.
The moral perspective of those who are utterly opposed to the use of these vaccines is straightforward and equally justifiable. If these vaccines were developed from cell lines taken from Jews murdered in Nazi concentration camps, it is not difficult to imagine that there would be widespread, if not universal rejection of those vaccines. Since many prolifers see no difference between the moral magnitude of abortion and the Holocaust, their passionate refusal to use these vaccines is completely understandable.
When dealing with difficult ethical issues like vaccines grown on the tissue of aborted children, one of the main questions to answer is how do individuals act in a moral way when they are acting in a world that is filled with immorality. For example, should a person watch no television programming on a certain network because some of its programming is immoral? It is crucial to remember that the moral nature of any act depends first on the action itself. Secondly, the intention of the individual is also a crucial factor. The further away the current act (using a vaccine) and intent (protecting a child from a disease) of an individual are from a previous immoral act (aborting a child), the less that individual is restricted by the immorality of the previous act. While the act of aborting the child was certainly immoral, all of the steps involved with the development and use of the vaccines thereafter neither cooperated with the abortion, nor intended to promote more such practices, nor intended anything but the preservation of life and health.
The Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, and the U.S. and British bishops conferences have studied the issue in detail and concluded that using the vaccines is morally permissible. However, once a person learns that certain vaccines are morally tainted, there is an obligation to seek out ethical alternatives where possible and to make objections known to health care providers and vaccine manufacturers. In addition, parents are entirely justified in citing a "conscientious objection" to tainted vaccines being used to immunize their children, particularly when the vaccine is not for a substantially threatening illness (Chickenpox, flu). Parents have a right to demand ethical alternatives be used or reject the vaccine if an alternative is not available.
A number of noted prolife activists have weighed in on both sides of the issue. Some have encouraged parents to use and demand nothing less than morally acceptable vaccines. While others like Jack Wilke, M.D., former National Right to Life Committee president and Bernard Nathanson, M.D., prolife activist and creator of "The Silent Scream" have opined that using the vaccines is morally allowable.
What is unanimous among all commentators on the subject is that everyone ought to know of the facts surrounding the vaccines, and prolife citizens should make an effort to persuade - even pressure - vaccine producers to eliminate their tainted products in favor of ethically acceptable products.
No comments:
Post a Comment