Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[Ernie]

I am opposed to alcohol use ( I take a swig from a beer bottle) but I don't oppose the taxes building my roads nor do I petition for the bar being proposed to not be built. After all, it will help us even though we are opposed.

That's is how the members who speak against it and then use it look.

I don't know of anyone opposed to alcohol who takes a swig of beer now and then. I avoid alcohol as much as I can but I have not made it an ethical issue. All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful but I will not be brought under the power of any. That is why I avoid it whenever I can.

[Soloist]

I don't know of anyone opposed to alcohol who takes a swig of beer now and then. I avoid alcohol as much as I can but I have not made it an ethical issue. All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful but I will not be brought under the power of any. That is why I avoid it whenever I can.

But you do know people who are opposed to fetal cells and are fine benefiting from them. It was an example of situational ethics.

The example to which you responded to, you illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. You find it inconsistent for someone to stand against alcohol and drink it.

[HondurasKeiser]

I am opposed to alcohol use ( I take a swig from a beer bottle) but I don't oppose the taxes building my roads nor do I petition for the bar being proposed to not be built. After all, it will help us even though we are opposed.

That's is how the members who speak against it and then use it look.

I don't know of anyone opposed to alcohol who takes a swig of beer now and then. I avoid alcohol as much as I can but I have not made it an ethical issue. All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful but I will not be brought under the power of any. That is why I avoid it whenever I can.

Are there times when it is unavoidable?

[joshuabgood]

Should I return my land to the Lenape?

[Ken]

Should I return my land to the Lenape?

Did you take it from them? Are they asking for it back? As far as I know they mostly were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma over century ago.

But you probably should support policies that do work to reverse four centuries of injustice against native peoples that your government pursued on your behalf. It seems the least we can do.

[Bootstrap]

I don't know of anyone opposed to alcohol who takes a swig of beer now and then. I avoid alcohol as much as I can but I have not made it an ethical issue. All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful but I will not be brought under the power of any. That is why I avoid it whenever I can.

But you do know people who are opposed to fetal cells and are fine benefiting from them. It was an example of situational ethics.

Again, I respect and understand your decision to not want to have anything to do with fetal cells. My opposition is to abortion, and that comes out a little different. I am not particularly opposed to using cells from a baby killed in 1972, especially since the baby was not killed in order to harvest stem cells. You may think of that as "benefiting from abortion".

I think it's analogous to someone who needs a heart transplant and gets a heart from someone who was killed in a mugging or a car accident. Accepting that heart is not an endorsement of muggings or car accidents. The victim is already dead. Accepting organs from shady sources that may be harvesting them from political prisoners in some oppressive country is a completely different matter, it can actually lead to more people being killed to make money for the regime.

To me, some of these analogies are more distracting than instructive. The abortion equivalent to "taking a swig of beer" is to abort a baby from time to time or to do things that promote abortions now. I don't think using cells from a baby aborted in 1972 does that. I know lots of people who use vanilla extract even though it contains alcohol because their real opposition is to drunkenness or because they know that the alcohol bakes out. I would not call them hypocrites.

[Soloist]

Should I return my land to the Lenape?

Are you going to continue to profit from future exploited land?

[Bootstrap]

Should I return my land to the Lenape?

Are you going to continue to profit from future exploited land?

The word "future" is important here, I think. 1972 is not in the future.

[Soloist]

To me, some of these analogies are more distracting than instructive. The abortion equivalent to "taking a swig of beer" is to abort a baby from time to time or to do things that promote abortions now. I don't think using cells from a baby aborted in 1972 does that. I know lots of people who use vanilla extract even though it contains alcohol because their real opposition is to drunkenness or because they know that the alcohol bakes out. I would not call them hypocrites.

Its not an equivalent... You missed the statement Ernie made apparently. The swig of beer is in reference to using the cells while objecting to its use.

Publicly stating its wrong to use the cells and then using them is like saying alcohol is wrong and then taking a swig.

There is a problem between the sender and the receiver on these messages apparently or we lack critical reading and writing skills.

The word "future" is important here, I think. 1972 is not in the future.

And the references I've provided about current happenings? You've ignored them. You also declined to commit to not using later cell lines so... you are going to not return the land and you will continue to gain from future exploited lands.

[Bootstrap]

While we are on beer analogies, I'd like to consider the other half of the equation.

Drunk drivers routinely insist that they can drive safely while drunk, many have gotten away with it, the odds are good that any given drunk driver will not kill someone, but the statistical evidence says that their actions do pose a real risk to others. And this causes deaths. Some people resent being told they should not drink and drive.

Soloist is not like this, he believes Covid-19 is real and he takes precautions.

But what if a drunk driver says he does not believe the experts, nobody dies because of drunk drivers, nobody has the right to restrict his right to drive? Does society have a right to reach an agreement that drunk driving does pose a risk and that there should be laws to govern it, even if there are people who disagree? If you think it is a real risk and I do not, when do I get to do things that you think might risk your health? Or to risk the health of others in society around me?