Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[Josh]

Any efforts in that direction will prevent far more abortions than any policy related to stem cell research or the use of 40-year old stem cell lines.

Those might not meet your criteria of a "non-political stance". But honestly, pretty much everything to do with abortion is political that goes beyond the personal choice of a woman to choose or choose not to have an abortion.

So, do you think it's a "political stance" that I don't want to be involved in injecting aborted fetal tissue into my veins, or otherwise benefit from aborted fetal tissue?

This isn't something I'm trying to force other people to do. I think abortion is murder, and I stay away from benefiting from murder. This affects other areas of my life too. I wouldn't be a sub-contractor to a hitman.

[Bootstrap]

1. In your example, every person who dies - naturally or by murder - has their organs made available for transplants. In the Covid-19 case, there are 860,000 abortions a year, we are talking about the use of cells from two babies who were killed over 20 years ago.
2. If I don't get a liver transplant and die, that does not impose any danger to people around me. If I get Covid-19, I may be a danger to other people. I can no longer do anything to save those two babies killed over 20 years ago, but I can do something to protect lives today.

Bootstrap,

Would you have a different position if fetal tissue from more recently aborted babies started being used? That's my concern. At some point a line has to be drawn.

Soloist would draw the line more strictly, of course, his goal is not only to prevent future abortions. For me, I think the real question is this: am I doing anything that will encourage new abortions? If the answer is "no", then I will still choose the most ethical choice I can find, but I am willing to take the vaccine. I much prefer a vaccine that has no connection to fetal cell lines. I will settle for the ones that the Catholic Church or the Lozier Institute deem morally appropriate.

20 year old stem cell lines can't be used forever (unless you find a way around the Hayflick limit); only cancer cells can be used indefinitely, like how HELA cells are used. So eventually, a new baby will have to be aborted, and fresh tissue used, if this continues.

That sounds almost like they go out and abort a new baby in order to freshen up the cell lines. I don't think that's how it works. As Soloist points out, they choose cells from a baby that was killed 20 years or so, one of perhaps 860,000 babies who were killed at the time. And these children were not killed in order to have fetal cells, it's very much like using an organ from a murder victim who was not killed in order to produce the organ.

I very much think room needs to be created for a religious carve-out for those of us who don't want to be involved. I'm not saying to stop your research, stop creating vaccines from fetal tissue, etc., - I'm just asking for those of us who don't want to do that, to opt out. Hopefully alternative therapies could be made. But if therapies can't be made, we simply have to decline the treatments. If I get bit by a rabid dog, I'll have to give up my life; there isn't a non-fetal-tissue vaccine available in America. But I'd rather go face a righteous judge and explain I gave up my life rather than try to "save my life" using aborted baby tissue.

I agree, there needs to be a religious carve-out and there needs to be research into alternative therapies. But I am not Caesar and I am not a doctor, so I have little say in that.

Conversely, I think those who choose not to get vaccinated should be willing to wear masks if mainstream medicine says they make a significant difference in the risk to others.

[nett]

Conversely, I think those who choose not to get vaccinated should be willing to wear masks if mainstream medicine says they make a significant difference in the risk to others.

Including me, who has natural immunity which peer reviewed studies have shown to be 13-26x more effective than the vax?

[Bootstrap]

Conversely, I think those who choose not to get vaccinated should be willing to wear masks if mainstream medicine says they make a significant difference in the risk to others.

Including me, who has natural immunity which peer reviewed studies have shown to be 13-26x more effective than the vax?

I see two issues here. First, people who have a confirmed case of Covid-19 do have some immunity, and in some places and some states, that means they are treated the same as vaccinated people.

I don't know if "shown to be 13-26 more effective than the vax" is true, but rather than debate this, let me ask this question: Who gets to decide what the research actually shows? If we are all in it together, protecting each other, I think that means that we shouldn't each make separate decisions about what risks we are willing to expose other people to.

I don't think of that as persecution. Yeah, I have heard the argument that you can't buy or sell without following these rules. But you have to wear clothes to go shopping too, and even shoes. In a pandemic, taking the precautions that society chooses to protect each other, based on mainstream medicine, is a very basic form of courtesy. And in Judges, "every man did what was right in his own eyes" was clearly a problem, a state of chaotic sin that culminates in the final dreadful chapters of that book. In modern American society, people may rightly be annoyed that you are imposing a risk on their health that they would not freely choose.

[Josh]

I don't think of that as persecution. Yeah, I have heard the argument that you can't buy or sell without following these rules. But you have to wear clothes to go shopping too, and even shoes. In a pandemic, taking the precautions that society chooses to protect each other, based on mainstream medicine, is a very basic form of courtesy. And in Judges, "every man did what was right in his own eyes" was clearly a problem, a state of chaotic sin that culminates in the final dreadful chapters of that book. In modern American society, people may rightly be annoyed that you are imposing a risk on their health that they would not freely choose.

None of my neighbours and extended community feel that way. They think people should have the right to make personal decisions about masks or no masks.

I don't think those of us in East Rochester, Ohio necessarily have a need to live by the dictates of what makes people in Atlanta or Washington, DC comfortable. Nor do they really care about what makes those of us here in East Rochester comfortable.

There is also no longer a consensus anymore on what "mainstream medicine" is; 30% of people don't buy that narrative anymore (and where I live it's well over the majority). I don't see why the minority where I live should get to tell all of us how to live.

The same goes for other places. People in rural California don't appreciate what people in urban California want, and vice versa. I had my wedding in California and asked the local government first what they wanted me to do. It was not the same at all as what the state claimed we had to do.

[Bootstrap]

I don't think of that as persecution. Yeah, I have heard the argument that you can't buy or sell without following these rules. But you have to wear clothes to go shopping too, and even shoes. In a pandemic, taking the precautions that society chooses to protect each other, based on mainstream medicine, is a very basic form of courtesy. And in Judges, "every man did what was right in his own eyes" was clearly a problem, a state of chaotic sin that culminates in the final dreadful chapters of that book. In modern American society, people may rightly be annoyed that you are imposing a risk on their health that they would not freely choose.

None of my neighbours and extended community feel that way. They think people should have the right to make personal decisions about masks or no masks.

I don't think those of us in East Rochester, Ohio necessarily have a need to live by the dictates of what makes people in Atlanta or Washington, DC comfortable. Nor do they really care about what makes those of us here in East Rochester comfortable.

I agree that local communities, places of business, schools, etc. can make rules based on their understanding. When different levels of government disagree ... really, they should coordinate and avoid letting that happen. These fights between government entities at different levels are not a good thing.

But look, if many people believe that you are threatening their health by your behavior, how important is it to insist on your right to do so? Would you ground that in your faith? And what percent of your neighbors need to feel that way before you are willing to extend this courtesy to them? What if some smaller percent is particularly vulnerable because of medical conditions, and you do not know who they are?

There is also no longer a consensus anymore on what "mainstream medicine" is; 30% of people don't buy that narrative anymore (and where I live it's well over the majority). I don't see why the minority where I live should get to tell all of us how to live.

Again, there are different authorities over different domains.

And yes, there have always been people who simply did not buy mainstream medicine and did not choose to live by these rules. Some of them are famous, remember Typhoid Mary, back in 1907? I don't think her decision to ignore medical knowledge imposed any particular rights on her. Suppose 30% of Americans decided they did not believe clothing was needed to go shopping, what rights do you think that would give them?

If the governing rules say I should wear a mask, I wear one. Romans 13.

[Josh]

Who decided what the “governing rules” are? Local? State? Federal? The UN?

Legislature or the executive branch?

Literally nobody where I live is very concerned about masks; in spring of 2020, I was probably the person who wore masks the most in a 5 mile radius. I highly doubt 100% of people where I live are vaccinated. I rarely see anyone wearing a mask, including in the nearby larger towns and smaller cities. The only exception is in places mandated by an employer, usually a large corporate chain run from out of the state.

This means that the majority of people don’t care and don’t want them. There is no law requiring wearing masks either. Businesses don’t require it for unvaccinated customers. If people want to get vaccinated, it’s a private choice and nobody is stopping them.

So, why should I do something just to please a minority of people I haven’t even personally encountered? Nobody has asked me to put one on or expressed concern about it in a very long time. We had one holdout - Chipotle - which required masks last winter. Other businesses didn’t, including Chase Bank and Wal-Mart.

There is no law or moral principle to do whatever the CDC says. It’s not a legislative body and it’s not democratically elected. Currently, where we live, the government is ORDERING hospitals to administer ivermectin if patients want it. As far as I’m concerned, the hospitals are the lawbreakers, not the patients.

I don’t think the federal government’s agencies supersede my local or state government.

[nett]

I don't think of that as persecution. Yeah, I have heard the argument that you can't buy or sell without following these rules. But you have to wear clothes to go shopping too, and even shoes. In a pandemic, taking the precautions that society chooses to protect each other, based on mainstream medicine, is a very basic form of courtesy. And in Judges, "every man did what was right in his own eyes" was clearly a problem, a state of chaotic sin that culminates in the final dreadful chapters of that book. In modern American society, people may rightly be annoyed that you are imposing a risk on their health that they would not freely choose.

None of my neighbours and extended community feel that way. They think people should have the right to make personal decisions about masks or no masks.

I don't think those of us in East Rochester, Ohio necessarily have a need to live by the dictates of what makes people in Atlanta or Washington, DC comfortable. Nor do they really care about what makes those of us here in East Rochester comfortable.

I agree that local communities, places of business, schools, etc. can make rules based on their understanding. When different levels of government disagree ... really, they should coordinate and avoid letting that happen. These fights between government entities at different levels are not a good thing.

But look, if many people believe that you are threatening their health by your behavior, how important is it to insist on your right to do so? Would you ground that in your faith? And what percent of your neighbors need to feel that way before you are willing to extend this courtesy to them? What if some smaller percent is particularly vulnerable because of medical conditions, and you do not know who they are?

There is also no longer a consensus anymore on what "mainstream medicine" is; 30% of people don't buy that narrative anymore (and where I live it's well over the majority). I don't see why the minority where I live should get to tell all of us how to live.

Again, there are different authorities over different domains.

And yes, there have always been people who simply did not buy mainstream medicine and did not choose to live by these rules. Some of them are famous, remember Typhoid Mary, back in 1907? I don't think her decision to ignore medical knowledge imposed any particular rights on her. Suppose 30% of Americans decided they did not believe clothing was needed to go shopping, what rights do you think that would give them?

If the governing rules say I should wear a mask, I wear one. Romans 13.

I believe masks are harmful to my own physical health, and harmful emotionally and spiritually to my community. Thankfully, our church leadership decided that we were free to not wear masks at church and in public, so that's what I'm going with. I believe the church's authority trumps the government's every time.

[Bootstrap]

I believe masks are harmful to my own physical health, and harmful emotionally and spiritually to my community. Thankfully, our church leadership decided that we were free to not wear masks at church and in public, so that's what I'm going with. I believe the church's authority trumps the government's every time.

OK.

But if medically vulnerable people in your community have a bad impression of your church as a result, I can definitely see it from their side. That's not persecution, that's drawing conclusions from your behavior. And if they have studied the medical literature on masks, knowledgeable people might think masks protect them and will not harm you.

So then they see those people in plain clothing and think, "those are the people who put us at risk by their behavior". And you will wonder, on forums, why some people see you that way, mystified, and consider it unjust. Maybe you will even feel persecuted.

You are subject to your church's authority. If it were my church, I would probably advocate for a different decision.

[Josh]

I believe masks are harmful to my own physical health, and harmful emotionally and spiritually to my community. Thankfully, our church leadership decided that we were free to not wear masks at church and in public, so that's what I'm going with. I believe the church's authority trumps the government's every time.

OK.

But if medically vulnerable people in your community have a bad impression of your church as a result, I can definitely see it from their side. That's not persecution, that's drawing conclusions from your behavior. And if they have studied the medical literature on masks, knowledgeable people might think masks protect them and will not harm you.

Before my church made such a decision we asked our neighbours and they were fully supportive.

There isn’t some community of “medically vulnerable” people out there insisting everyone else wear masks, at least not here. If they want to follow the mainstream consensus, then can:

- get vaccinated
- wear a mask
- wear two masks
- stay at home and avoid going anywhere

There is no social contract for the rest of us to wear masks the rest of our lives just because we won’t take an experimental, ineffective vaccine.

So then they see those people in plain clothing and think, "those are the people who put us at risk by their behavior". And you will wonder, on forums, why some people see you that way, mystified, and consider it unjust. Maybe you will even feel persecuted.

That has yet to happen anywhere except this specific MennoNet forum from a few people with an authoritarian attitude. The only “enforcement” we’ve ever run into is people required to do so by a large, corporate, out of state employer.

You are subject to your church's authority. If it were my church, I would probably advocate for a different decision.

And if your church made a decision you disagreed with on this matter, would you accept it?