Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[Soloist]

This got my attention.

Is there any way to find out what drugs have been developed using humanized mice and fresh abortions? It looks like humanized mice can also use non-fetal tissue?

Humanized mice have become an important tool for many research applications, including human immune function, infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and organ or tissue transplantation. In addition to the need for direct comparisons of humanized mice generated with fetal tissue and those generated with non-fetal tissue, improving current HIS mouse models to better recapitulate the human immune system has the potential to lead to new biological insights and permit the assessment of new biological therapies (Fig. 2).

Maybe you understand why I care so much. This is constantly being funded and then banned by our presidents but the research is ongoing with or without federal funding.

Those generated with non-fetal tissue are not as viable for research but have been done as well. I personally would find it all of this wrong aside from fresh abortion but that has more to do with the specific research into alzheimer's and human brain cells.

It is possible to find out, but one has to dig a little. The FDA documents usually will say how the pre-clinical trials were done or how the medication is generated.

[nett]

I personally would find it all of this wrong aside from fresh abortion but that has more to do with the specific research into alzheimer's and human brain cells.

I think you missed a word there. Are you saying you would or wouldn't find it wrong?

[Soloist]

I personally would find it all of this wrong aside from fresh abortion but that has more to do with the specific research into alzheimer's and human brain cells.

I think you missed a word there. Are you saying you would or wouldn't find it wrong?

I was saying even if the abortion wasn't an issue to me, I would still find the practice of grafting human with animal to be unacceptable.

[nett]

I personally would find it all of this wrong aside from fresh abortion but that has more to do with the specific research into alzheimer's and human brain cells.

I think you missed a word there. Are you saying you would or wouldn't find it wrong?

I was saying even if the abortion wasn't an issue to me, I would still find the practice of grafting human with animal to be unacceptable.

[RZehr]

This author does have an account on MennoNet, but does not write or login. I suppose if he wants to chime in, he can. This is not addressing the questions of efficacy, side effects, or coercive caccinations.

This is strictly asking questions about the claim that all products
and medications which have benefited from fetal cell line research are intrinsically, or fundamentally, immoral.
As I’ve said before, this is not a subject I choose to debate with a great deal of zest, due both to the emotional nature of the
debate and the thorny ethical minefield that it is. One way to remove some of that fog is to break the question down into its
modal logic form.

Note; if modal logic gives anyone headaches, massage your lymph nodes and skip to the last page.
If I understand the argument correctly, it can be represented in modal logic as a two-part “modus ponens” syllogism;

I.
1. If abortion is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from abortion is intrinsically immoral.
2. Abortion is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from abortion is intrinsically immoral
II.
4. If vaccines benefit from abortions, then vaccines are intrinsically immoral.
5. Vaccines benefit from abortions, therefore,
6. Vaccines are intrinsically immoral.

We can simplify the argument even further by using symbolic placeholders instead of the actual argument. This strips away
the fog and emotion produced by rhetoric even more, and lets just look at the pure logic of argument. So if we were to
frame the fetal cell question in symbolic modal form it would look like this;

I.
1. If A, then B
2. A, therefore
3. B
II.
4. If B, then C
5. B, therefore
6. C

Now this is a logically valid argument, meaning that if the premises (the “if/then” statements) are true, then the conclusion
(the “therefore” statement) must also be inescapably true. However, an argument can be logically valid and yet not “sound”
or true. This obviously occurs if one of the premises are not true. I would argue that the second part of the first premise is
not true, while others feel it is. How then do we test our differing perspectives on the validity of Premise 1? It is not a
matter of microscopes and observation, but rather a moral judgment, which makes it more difficult to demonstrate
objectively. However, we can at least use the form of the argument and test it with other analogous situations to see how
well the premise holds up.

So, for example;

I.
1. If murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from murder and
pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral.
2. Murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral.
II.
4. If farming in North America benefits from murder and pillaging of Native Americans, then farming in North America
is intrinsically immoral
5. Farming in North America benefits from murder and pillaging of Native Americans, therefore
6. Farming in North America is intrinsically immoral

Ah, you might say, but that is complicated. Right, it is. This is my point exactly. It is a complex ethical minefield with no clear
winners. Or here’s another thought experiment testing the logical argument in question;

Suppose that a plant breeder 50 years ago discovers a remote village growing some strange corn found nowhere
else in the world. He realizes the potential, hires the massacre of the village and takes the seed home. Within just a
few years, the murderer has developed those special seeds into a Non-GMO corn variety that produces 10 times the
yield and nutrition with ¼ the water and time. He brings it to market and is soon fabulously wealthy. Eventually the
story leaks out, but with his newfound wealth he buys his way out of trouble. Meanwhile, the miracle corn seed
(Mira-Corn) quickly takes over 99% of the corn acres in the world. It is taken to famine stricken countries and saves
thousands of lives. Young children who were slowly starving are now thriving. 50 years and hundreds of corn
generations after the murder and robbery, Mira-Corn is feeding the world.

Now…

I.
1. If genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from genocidal robbery is intrinsically
immoral.
2. Genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral.
II.
4. If Mira-Corn benefits from genocidal robbery, then Mira-Corn is intrinsically immoral.
5. Mira-Corn benefits from genocidal robbery, therefore
6. Mira-Corn is intrinsically immoral.

You may dismiss this as a trivial dis-analogy, but slow down... Mira-Corn is in many ways exactly analogous to products
benefiting from fetal cell line research. We wish the murderer hadn’t done what he did, and we certainly wish he would be
stopped from doing more of the same, but is it truly the most moral thing to do now to take away Mira-Corn from poor
countries? Must we destroy Mira-Corn seed, and never use it again because it had such a vile beginning? Is there no way for
poor starving children to continue to eat this cheap, nutritious food source without condemnation? It does seem to be more
complex than a simple syllogism, “if A, then B. If B, then C”.

To illustrate this complexity, here is another syllogism following the same basic logical form, one that reverses the moral
implications of benefiting from fetal cell research.

1. To refuse to save a child’s life with readily available resources is intrinsically immoral.
2. An EpiPen is a readily available resource, therefore
3. Refusing to save a child’s life with a readily available EpiPen is intrinsically immoral.

Yes, EpiPen’s epinephrine is tested on HEK-293 fetal cell lines. As is insulin, glucagon, and many common antibiotics. If these
lifesaving medications are at hand, is it truly the Godly thing to simply let an easily curable infection kill a child? Or to let a
child go into diabetic shock and die, refusing to allow the EMT to give a shot of glucagon? We can run the same logic with
asthma inhalers. Pretty much all asthma medications used in inhalers have been tested on HEK-293 fetal cell lines. So have
fever reducers. When a small baby gets a fever of 104*, is it truly immoral to use a little Tylenol to try to bring it down to a
safe temperature? Can we see how, once the outrage, and sensationalism and screaming memes of the abortion question
are lanced and drained away, the complexity and real moral dilemmas do begin to emerge?

Is it truly immoral to allow an EMT to use the EpiPen in his hand, and save the life of a child having an allergic reaction? Or is
it actually immoral to refuse?

Now, as someone is almost sure to accuse me of, is this just a lot of educated hand waving and wielding of big words to
obscure simple truth and common sense? I don't think so. I think these are valid dilemmas, not just an appeal to pragmatism
or the end justifying the means, and the shortcuts of ignorance and dogma masquerading as common sense will not glorify
God in the least. May God have mercy on us when we reach a point where we pit “common sense” against “education” and
think we’ve done a clever thing. The name of God is not particularly glorified by human reason, but His name is positively
soiled by Christian unreasonableness.

As I have mentioned numerous times, I have no great passion for overthrowing someone’s convictions about using products
which have benefited from fetal cell line research, although I do struggle with the idea that someone may be dying
unnecessarily. I respect the dilemma, and I respect the sacrifices that are made out of conviction. I understand the visceral
rejection of ongoing research with aborted fetal tissue. It’s not all “in the past” and restricted to the old HEK-293 or PER.C6,
etc., cell lines from the 70’s and 80’s, even though the vast majority is. I would like to see the medical research industry
using more ethically sourced cell lines, such as animal hosts, still-born fetuses, adult stem cells, placental or umbilical cord
cells, etc. Philip Hess made some interesting points on Strength to Strength about the potential of forcing the industry to
use these more ethically sourced tissues by boycotting vaccines. I also found the testimony of Tara Sander Lee in 2018 to
Congress about the viability of using tissues other than aborted fetal cell lines to be very interesting. If there are ways to
avoid using aborted fetal cell lines for research, I would absolutely love to see it happen.

Importantly, I am not presenting these challenges as a “knock-down” argument in favor of vaccines. I am only trying to
answer the question of why it is, for myself, not such a simple question; these are some of the reasons I have come to a
different conclusion about how to relate to products and medications that have benefited from fetal cell line research. In
my mind these logical investigations do show that Premise 1 ( if something is intrinsically immoral, than anything benefiting
from that thing is also intrinsically immoral) does not stand when put to the test.

[nett]

This author does have an account on MennoNet, but does not write or login. I suppose if he wants to chime in, he can. This is not addressing the questions of efficacy, side effects, or coercive caccinations.

This is strictly asking questions about the claim that all products
and medications which have benefited from fetal cell line research are intrinsically, or fundamentally, immoral.
As I’ve said before, this is not a subject I choose to debate with a great deal of zest, due both to the emotional nature of the
debate and the thorny ethical minefield that it is. One way to remove some of that fog is to break the question down into its
modal logic form.

Note; if modal logic gives anyone headaches, massage your lymph nodes and skip to the last page.
If I understand the argument correctly, it can be represented in modal logic as a two-part “modus ponens” syllogism;

I.
1. If abortion is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from abortion is intrinsically immoral.
2. Abortion is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from abortion is intrinsically immoral
II.
4. If vaccines benefit from abortions, then vaccines are intrinsically immoral.
5. Vaccines benefit from abortions, therefore,
6. Vaccines are intrinsically immoral.

We can simplify the argument even further by using symbolic placeholders instead of the actual argument. This strips away
the fog and emotion produced by rhetoric even more, and lets just look at the pure logic of argument. So if we were to
frame the fetal cell question in symbolic modal form it would look like this;

I.
1. If A, then B
2. A, therefore
3. B
II.
4. If B, then C
5. B, therefore
6. C

Now this is a logically valid argument, meaning that if the premises (the “if/then” statements) are true, then the conclusion
(the “therefore” statement) must also be inescapably true. However, an argument can be logically valid and yet not “sound”
or true. This obviously occurs if one of the premises are not true. I would argue that the second part of the first premise is
not true, while others feel it is. How then do we test our differing perspectives on the validity of Premise 1? It is not a
matter of microscopes and observation, but rather a moral judgment, which makes it more difficult to demonstrate
objectively. However, we can at least use the form of the argument and test it with other analogous situations to see how
well the premise holds up.

So, for example;

I.
1. If murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from murder and
pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral.
2. Murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral.
II.
4. If farming in North America benefits from murder and pillaging of Native Americans, then farming in North America
is intrinsically immoral
5. Farming in North America benefits from murder and pillaging of Native Americans, therefore
6. Farming in North America is intrinsically immoral

Ah, you might say, but that is complicated. Right, it is. This is my point exactly. It is a complex ethical minefield with no clear
winners. Or here’s another thought experiment testing the logical argument in question;

Suppose that a plant breeder 50 years ago discovers a remote village growing some strange corn found nowhere
else in the world. He realizes the potential, hires the massacre of the village and takes the seed home. Within just a
few years, the murderer has developed those special seeds into a Non-GMO corn variety that produces 10 times the
yield and nutrition with ¼ the water and time. He brings it to market and is soon fabulously wealthy. Eventually the
story leaks out, but with his newfound wealth he buys his way out of trouble. Meanwhile, the miracle corn seed
(Mira-Corn) quickly takes over 99% of the corn acres in the world. It is taken to famine stricken countries and saves
thousands of lives. Young children who were slowly starving are now thriving. 50 years and hundreds of corn
generations after the murder and robbery, Mira-Corn is feeding the world.

Now…

I.
1. If genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from genocidal robbery is intrinsically
immoral.
2. Genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral.
II.
4. If Mira-Corn benefits from genocidal robbery, then Mira-Corn is intrinsically immoral.
5. Mira-Corn benefits from genocidal robbery, therefore
6. Mira-Corn is intrinsically immoral.

You may dismiss this as a trivial dis-analogy, but slow down... Mira-Corn is in many ways exactly analogous to products
benefiting from fetal cell line research. We wish the murderer hadn’t done what he did, and we certainly wish he would be
stopped from doing more of the same, but is it truly the most moral thing to do now to take away Mira-Corn from poor
countries? Must we destroy Mira-Corn seed, and never use it again because it had such a vile beginning? Is there no way for
poor starving children to continue to eat this cheap, nutritious food source without condemnation? It does seem to be more
complex than a simple syllogism, “if A, then B. If B, then C”.

To illustrate this complexity, here is another syllogism following the same basic logical form, one that reverses the moral
implications of benefiting from fetal cell research.

1. To refuse to save a child’s life with readily available resources is intrinsically immoral.
2. An EpiPen is a readily available resource, therefore
3. Refusing to save a child’s life with a readily available EpiPen is intrinsically immoral.

Yes, EpiPen’s epinephrine is tested on HEK-293 fetal cell lines. As is insulin, glucagon, and many common antibiotics. If these
lifesaving medications are at hand, is it truly the Godly thing to simply let an easily curable infection kill a child? Or to let a
child go into diabetic shock and die, refusing to allow the EMT to give a shot of glucagon? We can run the same logic with
asthma inhalers. Pretty much all asthma medications used in inhalers have been tested on HEK-293 fetal cell lines. So have
fever reducers. When a small baby gets a fever of 104*, is it truly immoral to use a little Tylenol to try to bring it down to a
safe temperature? Can we see how, once the outrage, and sensationalism and screaming memes of the abortion question
are lanced and drained away, the complexity and real moral dilemmas do begin to emerge?

Is it truly immoral to allow an EMT to use the EpiPen in his hand, and save the life of a child having an allergic reaction? Or is
it actually immoral to refuse?

Now, as someone is almost sure to accuse me of, is this just a lot of educated hand waving and wielding of big words to
obscure simple truth and common sense? I don't think so. I think these are valid dilemmas, not just an appeal to pragmatism
or the end justifying the means, and the shortcuts of ignorance and dogma masquerading as common sense will not glorify
God in the least. May God have mercy on us when we reach a point where we pit “common sense” against “education” and
think we’ve done a clever thing. The name of God is not particularly glorified by human reason, but His name is positively
soiled by Christian unreasonableness.

As I have mentioned numerous times, I have no great passion for overthrowing someone’s convictions about using products
which have benefited from fetal cell line research, although I do struggle with the idea that someone may be dying
unnecessarily. I respect the dilemma, and I respect the sacrifices that are made out of conviction. I understand the visceral
rejection of ongoing research with aborted fetal tissue. It’s not all “in the past” and restricted to the old HEK-293 or PER.C6,
etc., cell lines from the 70’s and 80’s, even though the vast majority is. I would like to see the medical research industry
using more ethically sourced cell lines, such as animal hosts, still-born fetuses, adult stem cells, placental or umbilical cord
cells, etc. Philip Hess made some interesting points on Strength to Strength about the potential of forcing the industry to
use these more ethically sourced tissues by boycotting vaccines. I also found the testimony of Tara Sander Lee in 2018 to
Congress about the viability of using tissues other than aborted fetal cell lines to be very interesting. If there are ways to
avoid using aborted fetal cell lines for research, I would absolutely love to see it happen.

Importantly, I am not presenting these challenges as a “knock-down” argument in favor of vaccines. I am only trying to
answer the question of why it is, for myself, not such a simple question; these are some of the reasons I have come to a
different conclusion about how to relate to products and medications that have benefited from fetal cell line research. In
my mind these logical investigations do show that Premise 1 ( if something is intrinsically immoral, than anything benefiting
from that thing is also intrinsically immoral) does not stand when put to the test.

Ongoing evil is very different that a one-time event in the past. Consciously benefiting from ongoing evil when you have an alternative will compromise you eventually.

All of the examples are one-time evils that develop something amazing. I don't think these kinds of situations actually exist. I believe the so-called mira-corn will always have a critical flaw, as part of natural law, but that's beside the point.

I think most of us would choose not to buy product from someone we knew was actively raping and pillaging villages for their own wealth. At least I hope we would.

There is something to be said for mining of resources that are required for the phones most of us have in our pockets. I think there is a case to be made that it's not ethical, but I don't think it's anywhere near the level of evil that abortion is.

[Wade]

This author does have an account on MennoNet, but does not write or login. I suppose if he wants to chime in, he can. This is not addressing the questions of efficacy, side effects, or coercive caccinations.

This is strictly asking questions about the claim that all products
and medications which have benefited from fetal cell line research are intrinsically, or fundamentally, immoral.
As I’ve said before, this is not a subject I choose to debate with a great deal of zest, due both to the emotional nature of the
debate and the thorny ethical minefield that it is. One way to remove some of that fog is to break the question down into its
modal logic form.

Note; if modal logic gives anyone headaches, massage your lymph nodes and skip to the last page.
If I understand the argument correctly, it can be represented in modal logic as a two-part “modus ponens” syllogism;

I.
1. If abortion is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from abortion is intrinsically immoral.
2. Abortion is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from abortion is intrinsically immoral
II.
4. If vaccines benefit from abortions, then vaccines are intrinsically immoral.
5. Vaccines benefit from abortions, therefore,
6. Vaccines are intrinsically immoral.

We can simplify the argument even further by using symbolic placeholders instead of the actual argument. This strips away
the fog and emotion produced by rhetoric even more, and lets just look at the pure logic of argument. So if we were to
frame the fetal cell question in symbolic modal form it would look like this;

I.
1. If A, then B
2. A, therefore
3. B
II.
4. If B, then C
5. B, therefore
6. C

Now this is a logically valid argument, meaning that if the premises (the “if/then” statements) are true, then the conclusion
(the “therefore” statement) must also be inescapably true. However, an argument can be logically valid and yet not “sound”
or true. This obviously occurs if one of the premises are not true. I would argue that the second part of the first premise is
not true, while others feel it is. How then do we test our differing perspectives on the validity of Premise 1? It is not a
matter of microscopes and observation, but rather a moral judgment, which makes it more difficult to demonstrate
objectively. However, we can at least use the form of the argument and test it with other analogous situations to see how
well the premise holds up.

So, for example;

I.
1. If murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from murder and
pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral.
2. Murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from murder and pillaging of Native Americans is intrinsically immoral.
II.
4. If farming in North America benefits from murder and pillaging of Native Americans, then farming in North America
is intrinsically immoral
5. Farming in North America benefits from murder and pillaging of Native Americans, therefore
6. Farming in North America is intrinsically immoral

Ah, you might say, but that is complicated. Right, it is. This is my point exactly. It is a complex ethical minefield with no clear
winners. Or here’s another thought experiment testing the logical argument in question;

Suppose that a plant breeder 50 years ago discovers a remote village growing some strange corn found nowhere
else in the world. He realizes the potential, hires the massacre of the village and takes the seed home. Within just a
few years, the murderer has developed those special seeds into a Non-GMO corn variety that produces 10 times the
yield and nutrition with ¼ the water and time. He brings it to market and is soon fabulously wealthy. Eventually the
story leaks out, but with his newfound wealth he buys his way out of trouble. Meanwhile, the miracle corn seed
(Mira-Corn) quickly takes over 99% of the corn acres in the world. It is taken to famine stricken countries and saves
thousands of lives. Young children who were slowly starving are now thriving. 50 years and hundreds of corn
generations after the murder and robbery, Mira-Corn is feeding the world.

Now…

I.
1. If genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral, then anything benefiting from genocidal robbery is intrinsically
immoral.
2. Genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral, therefore
3. Anything benefiting from genocidal robbery is intrinsically immoral.
II.
4. If Mira-Corn benefits from genocidal robbery, then Mira-Corn is intrinsically immoral.
5. Mira-Corn benefits from genocidal robbery, therefore
6. Mira-Corn is intrinsically immoral.

You may dismiss this as a trivial dis-analogy, but slow down... Mira-Corn is in many ways exactly analogous to products
benefiting from fetal cell line research. We wish the murderer hadn’t done what he did, and we certainly wish he would be
stopped from doing more of the same, but is it truly the most moral thing to do now to take away Mira-Corn from poor
countries? Must we destroy Mira-Corn seed, and never use it again because it had such a vile beginning? Is there no way for
poor starving children to continue to eat this cheap, nutritious food source without condemnation? It does seem to be more
complex than a simple syllogism, “if A, then B. If B, then C”.

To illustrate this complexity, here is another syllogism following the same basic logical form, one that reverses the moral
implications of benefiting from fetal cell research.

1. To refuse to save a child’s life with readily available resources is intrinsically immoral.
2. An EpiPen is a readily available resource, therefore
3. Refusing to save a child’s life with a readily available EpiPen is intrinsically immoral.

Yes, EpiPen’s epinephrine is tested on HEK-293 fetal cell lines. As is insulin, glucagon, and many common antibiotics. If these
lifesaving medications are at hand, is it truly the Godly thing to simply let an easily curable infection kill a child? Or to let a
child go into diabetic shock and die, refusing to allow the EMT to give a shot of glucagon? We can run the same logic with
asthma inhalers. Pretty much all asthma medications used in inhalers have been tested on HEK-293 fetal cell lines. So have
fever reducers. When a small baby gets a fever of 104*, is it truly immoral to use a little Tylenol to try to bring it down to a
safe temperature? Can we see how, once the outrage, and sensationalism and screaming memes of the abortion question
are lanced and drained away, the complexity and real moral dilemmas do begin to emerge?

Is it truly immoral to allow an EMT to use the EpiPen in his hand, and save the life of a child having an allergic reaction? Or is
it actually immoral to refuse?

Now, as someone is almost sure to accuse me of, is this just a lot of educated hand waving and wielding of big words to
obscure simple truth and common sense? I don't think so. I think these are valid dilemmas, not just an appeal to pragmatism
or the end justifying the means, and the shortcuts of ignorance and dogma masquerading as common sense will not glorify
God in the least. May God have mercy on us when we reach a point where we pit “common sense” against “education” and
think we’ve done a clever thing. The name of God is not particularly glorified by human reason, but His name is positively
soiled by Christian unreasonableness.

As I have mentioned numerous times, I have no great passion for overthrowing someone’s convictions about using products
which have benefited from fetal cell line research, although I do struggle with the idea that someone may be dying
unnecessarily. I respect the dilemma, and I respect the sacrifices that are made out of conviction. I understand the visceral
rejection of ongoing research with aborted fetal tissue. It’s not all “in the past” and restricted to the old HEK-293 or PER.C6,
etc., cell lines from the 70’s and 80’s, even though the vast majority is. I would like to see the medical research industry
using more ethically sourced cell lines, such as animal hosts, still-born fetuses, adult stem cells, placental or umbilical cord
cells, etc. Philip Hess made some interesting points on Strength to Strength about the potential of forcing the industry to
use these more ethically sourced tissues by boycotting vaccines. I also found the testimony of Tara Sander Lee in 2018 to
Congress about the viability of using tissues other than aborted fetal cell lines to be very interesting. If there are ways to
avoid using aborted fetal cell lines for research, I would absolutely love to see it happen.

Importantly, I am not presenting these challenges as a “knock-down” argument in favor of vaccines. I am only trying to
answer the question of why it is, for myself, not such a simple question; these are some of the reasons I have come to a
different conclusion about how to relate to products and medications that have benefited from fetal cell line research. In
my mind these logical investigations do show that Premise 1 ( if something is intrinsically immoral, than anything benefiting
from that thing is also intrinsically immoral) does not stand when put to the test.

So in short the author believes that as long as the outcome can be deemed good, following principle can be laid aside...

[Soloist]

I will write more, but few quick comments.

1: Epinepherine was discovered and used well before fetal cells came into use. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanr ... 9/fulltext

2: While I admit that I cannot without live saving treatment from immediate need for another, this does not stop the necessity of protesting and calling for ethical options. I can take a stand myself on using or not using the Rabies vaccine if I got bit by a rabid animal. I cannot however, make that choice for my wife or my children. I can make attempts to acquire the ethical option but if there is no ethical option I will die.

3: while I object to slavery, slavery is not forbidden in Scripture as much as it is a hateful practice. I believe it is forbidden for a Christian to possess slaves but I would not object to someone buying a slave with the intent of freeing them. If everything produced is through slaves, our option is to either live off the land attempting to produce everything ourselves to remove the connection to slavery but that isn't realistic for many people especially if someone has physical limitations. My stance on slavery is to avoid it as much as possible but I admit that the very computer I write on happens to contain components produced with slaves.

4: the aspect of hostilely acquired land through the death of others is a horrible thing but it is not avoidable. There has not been a point in history outside of the first book of the Bible that I can point to where land has not been acquired by force.

Would this author take a stand on contraceptive? if they declined to take a stand against IUD's, the morning after pill then it would be logical that using cells from years ago wouldn't be a problem. Would they object to the medication produced by grafting fresh aborted tissue on mice?
In my experience Mennonites are extremely reluctant to take a stand on medical issues that are debated. The right to free choice in medical decisions is rarely stood against.

I'll write more later in a more formalized posting but I'll just simply say that if we never draw a line and say no more, then we will continue to make exceptions for using unethical products. (my wife took longer then expected, I guess it was longer then I thought it would be)

Edit: The Catholic position if actually followed by the Catholics would have prevented this from happening. By not actually taking a stand and objecting to it they contributed to it happening again and again. If the Pope came out and said that the Catholics were forbidden to use any new medication or treatment unless it had no connection to abortion, the science would follow as its about economics, not about best practice.

[Ken]

Ongoing evil is very different that a one-time event in the past. Consciously benefiting from ongoing evil when you have an alternative will compromise you eventually.

All of the examples are one-time evils that develop something amazing. I don't think these kinds of situations actually exist. I believe the so-called mira-corn will always have a critical flaw, as part of natural law, but that's beside the point.

I think most of us would choose not to buy product from someone we knew was actively raping and pillaging villages for their own wealth. At least I hope we would.

There is something to be said for mining of resources that are required for the phones most of us have in our pockets. I think there is a case to be made that it's not ethical, but I don't think it's anywhere near the level of evil that abortion is.

The treatment of American Indians is actually an interesting parallel. Yes, the American military no longer massacres Indian villages to clear the land for white settlement like it did in the 19th Century. But the mistreatment, exploitation, and discrimination against Native peoples continues to this very day in other forms. We are not talking about a one-time event that happened in the past. There are hundreds of examples, but just to cite one that may be unfamiliar to some, we can look at the displacement of native tribes for the building of dams along the Columbia River and how they were never compensated as promised: https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-nort ... roken.html



Is the wealth and power that has been passed down through generations by white farmers and ranchers morally tainted by how it was acquired? One can certainly make the argument. And then, if so, what is the actual remedy? Is it possible to continue to use land in an ethical manner if it was acquired unethically? Is that not like a 40-year old stem cell line that is many thousands of generations removed from the original sample from fetal tissue?

[nett]

Ongoing evil is very different that a one-time event in the past. Consciously benefiting from ongoing evil when you have an alternative will compromise you eventually.

All of the examples are one-time evils that develop something amazing. I don't think these kinds of situations actually exist. I believe the so-called mira-corn will always have a critical flaw, as part of natural law, but that's beside the point.

I think most of us would choose not to buy product from someone we knew was actively raping and pillaging villages for their own wealth. At least I hope we would.

There is something to be said for mining of resources that are required for the phones most of us have in our pockets. I think there is a case to be made that it's not ethical, but I don't think it's anywhere near the level of evil that abortion is.

The treatment of American Indians is actually an interesting parallel. Yes, the American military no longer massacres Indian villages to clear the land for white settlement like it did in the 19th Century. But the mistreatment, exploitation, and discrimination against Native peoples continues to this very day in other forms. We are not talking about a one-time event that happened in the past. There are hundreds of examples, but just to cite one that may be unfamiliar to some, we can look at the displacement of native tribes for the building of dams along the Columbia River and how they were never compensated as promised: https://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-nort ... roken.html



Is the wealth and power that has been passed down through generations by white farmers and ranchers morally tainted by how it was acquired? One can certainly make the argument. And then, if so, what is the actual remedy? Is it possible to continue to use land in an ethical manner if it was acquired unethically? Is that not like a 40-year old stem cell line that is many thousands of generations removed from the original sample from fetal tissue?

Soloist, and Josh have explained how it's not just a "40-year old stem cell line", there is a lot more to it than that. And the evil of abortion is as bad now as it's ever been.

You're comparison of Indians Tribes being displaced to unborn children being murdered is a false equivalency. Indians Tribes were not defenseless, nor innocent. Often they were violent, and more than willing to kill for their own selfish pursuit, it just turns out the incoming Europeans were better at it. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

That's not to say there weren't injustices, but there is no way to quantify acquiring land "justly", wars will be fought, and land will be gained by the winners and lost by the losers. I didn't fight in the war, nor would I, to gain land. The United States of America is not continuing to unjustly steal land from native Americans. A lot of attempts have been made and are ongoing at reparations for injustice in the past.