Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[violet]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-co ... d=msedgntp

The hospital is basically taking Ken's position.

Although, I lean toward Josh's opinion.

I think the hospital is just trying to promote their agenda. I suppose one could skirt around it using Josh's argument, but, who knows. I wonder if this will be the line in the sand for either accepting or rejecting someone's RE.

[Josh]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-co ... d=msedgntp

The hospital is basically taking Ken's position.

Although, I lean toward Josh's opinion.

I think the hospital is just trying to promote their agenda. I suppose one could skirt around it using Josh's argument, but, who knows. I wonder if this will be the line in the sand for either accepting or rejecting someone's RE.

Someone could simply hold a religious position that don’t use vaccines developed with fetal stem cells but don’t care about other medications or chemicals.

It is not my employer’s job to decide my religious beliefs for me.

It’s also not my employer’s business to (a) know if I take an aspirin, or (b) force me to take an aspirin.

[Ken]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as-co ... d=msedgntp

The hospital is basically taking Ken's position.

Although, I lean toward Josh's opinion.

I think the hospital is just trying to promote their agenda. I suppose one could skirt around it using Josh's argument, but, who knows. I wonder if this will be the line in the sand for either accepting or rejecting someone's RE.

Someone could simply hold a religious position that don’t use vaccines developed with fetal stem cells but don’t care about other medications or chemicals.

It is not my employer’s job to decide my religious beliefs for me.

It’s also not my employer’s business to (a) know if I take an aspirin, or (b) force me to take an aspirin.

You also live in an at-will employment state. Employers in Ohio can terminate anyone for any reason that doesn't violate the law, or for no reason at all. And small employers have even more flexibility in this.

And what is this anti-vax religious position that doesn't involve fetal stem cells. Can you articulate it and support it using scripture and religious traditions? Or is it something you are just making up out of thin air?

[Laurell]

And what is this anti-vax religious position that doesn't involve fetal stem cells. Can you articulate it and support it using scripture and religious traditions? Or is it something you are just making up out of thin air?

I'm not sure why type of religious tradition you're asking Josh to come up with here, since fetal stem cells haven't been used until the past generation or two of science.... but I am pretty sure if we walked in the doors of a church in the 1800's and asked if people would like to murder the children in their womb for the sake of science and longevity, they would have something to say.

Also, I didn't get to this yesterday, but you made a mention about how pharmaceutical companies do ongoing testing of drugs, like manufacturers do ongoing safety testing. I understand the connection you are making, but I think it is a little flawed-- using aspirin, a medication that was developed before your grandparents were alive, would be more akin to buying a '57 Chevy than a brand new Silverado. The testing they did for the development of the car currently on the market doesn't affect the car developed a few decades ago.

As an aside, I'm not sure what your experience with pharmaceutical companies is, but in my understanding, they don't care much about anything once the patent runs out. They might do studies while the patent is still in place in order to extend the current patent, but we are talking about drugs developed in the past 20 years here. Otherwise, pharmaceutical companies aren't really doing research on medications as there is no longer a profit to be made and FDA approval is ridiculously expensive.... those types of studies will typically be university studies or government funded research. I honestly do not know the extent of fetal stem cell use in these cases, maybe Soloist or Josh have some input, but it's an unknown to me.

My general philosophy is to just avoid medications overall and maintain a healthy lifestyle to the best of my ability.

[Ken]

And what is this anti-vax religious position that doesn't involve fetal stem cells. Can you articulate it and support it using scripture and religious traditions? Or is it something you are just making up out of thin air?

I'm not sure why type of religious tradition you're asking Josh to come up with here, since fetal stem cells haven't been used until the past generation or two of science.... but I am pretty sure if we walked in the doors of a church in the 1800's and asked if people would like to murder the children in their womb for the sake of science and longevity, they would have something to say.

Also, I didn't get to this yesterday, but you made a mention about how pharmaceutical companies do ongoing testing of drugs, like manufacturers do ongoing safety testing. I understand the connection you are making, but I think it is a little flawed-- using aspirin, a medication that was developed before your grandparents were alive, would be more akin to buying a '57 Chevy than a brand new Silverado. The testing they did for the development of the car currently on the market doesn't affect the car developed a few decades ago.

As an aside, I'm not sure what your experience with pharmaceutical companies is, but in my understanding, they don't care much about anything once the patent runs out. They might do studies while the patent is still in place in order to extend the current patent, but we are talking about drugs developed in the past 20 years here. Otherwise, pharmaceutical companies aren't really doing research on medications as there is no longer a profit to be made and FDA approval is ridiculously expensive.... those types of studies will typically be university studies or government funded research. I honestly do not know the extent of fetal stem cell use in these cases, maybe Soloist or Josh have some input, but it's an unknown to me.

My general philosophy is to just avoid medications overall and maintain a healthy lifestyle to the best of my ability.

Josh claims that someone can come up with a religious position that specifically opposes vaccines, but not other forms of medication. I'm just asking him to articulate what that would be.

I agree with him that anyone can invent any kind of fraudulent religious excuse to do anything or refuse anything. There is honestly no limit to the ridiculous claims that have been put forward by various religions. All one has to do is spend 5 minutes exploring fringe faiths like Scientology or even Mormonism. I'm just asking what sort of serious and credible religious basis there is for rejecting vaccines, but not other medications. And I presume that would mean rejecting ALL vaccines, not just the Covid vaccine.

In any event, Using fetal cell lines to test the effectiveness and safety of medications is common practice, because they provide a consistent and well-documented standard for comparison. I fail to see any difference between say Pfizer, which tested its vaccine for safety earlier in the development stage, and say Bayer, which is testing aspirin for long after the product was developed. It is the same exact process. Claiming that the use of stem cells at one stage in the process is so morally unacceptable that one will quit one's job over the issue, while ignoring the same exact thing in many other medicines because the stem cells were used later in the product development process? That is just baffling to me.

[Josh]

Someone could simply hold a religious position that don’t use vaccines developed with fetal stem cells but don’t care about other medications or chemicals.

It is not my employer’s job to decide my religious beliefs for me.

It’s also not my employer’s business to (a) know if I take an aspirin, or (b) force me to take an aspirin.

You also live in an at-will employment state. Employers in Ohio can terminate anyone for any reason that doesn't violate the law, or for no reason at all. And small employers have even more flexibility in this.

Terminating someone for their religion definitely does violate the law. I'm not sure why you would be in favour of that.

And what is this anti-vax religious position that doesn't involve fetal stem cells. Can you articulate it and support it using scripture and religious traditions? Or is it something you are just making up out of thin air?

Yes. My religion has always had a position against death and abortion, since its founding 2,000 years ago, and for my particular sect, we have always had a position against abortion.

We have never taken a position on fetal stem cells before the last few years because the technology / research didn't exist back then.

As far as my position on other medicines, that's not relevant to the discussion, Ken. You know it's completely intellectually dishonest to act like aspirin or metformin were developed using fetal stem cells. That's the matter at discussion here. We don't want to use "fetal stem cells" at all and avoid them as much as possible. My personal conviction is to not use things that were developed using fetal stem cells, because I am personally opposed to using and benefiting from abortion.

[Josh]

Josh claims that someone can come up with a religious position that specifically opposes vaccines, but not other forms of medication. I'm just asking him to articulate what that would be.

Religious opposition to vaccines is quite common. Religious beliefs against all medications in general is fairly rare. The fact you think someone should be opposed to both is your own personal belief. That's fine for you. But other people have religious beliefs against using things like stem cells specifically with vaccines. (My belief is opposed to all uses of fetal stem cells, but that's not the topic of discussion here. The topic is "Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics".)

I agree with him that anyone can invent any kind of fraudulent religious excuse to do anything or refuse anything. There is honestly no limit to the ridiculous claims that have been put forward by various religions. All one has to do is spend 5 minutes exploring fringe faiths like Scientology or even Mormonism.

Scientology and Mormonism are both religions that are protected under any kind of religious freedom law; scientologists avoid using psychiatry at all, for example. Mormons won't drink coffee or tea. A workplace would need to make reasonable accomodations for that. It is interesting that you call religions that are well established with millions of adherents "fringe faiths".

I'm just asking what sort of serious and credible religious basis there is for rejecting vaccines, but not other medications. And I presume that would mean rejecting ALL vaccines, not just the Covid vaccine.

I don't know, because I don't reject all vaccines. I just reject ones made with fetal stem cells in their development or directly made from fetal stem cells. This includes more vaccines than just the COVID-19 vaccine.

My reasoning for this is that expanded uses of fetal stem cells is resulting in new abortions, beyond the original source of the HEK-293 cells. This is happening right now, so this is why I am taking this stance. (The J&J vaccine uses a newer source of stem cells, for example.)

In any event, Using fetal cell lines to test the effectiveness and safety of medications is common practice, because they provide a consistent and well-documented standard for comparison.

No, it's not. Aspirin and Tylenol are the same formulations they have always been, and it is ridiculous to claim they are regularly tested on stem cell lines. They aren't. You have presented zero evidence for this claim.

I fail to see any difference between say Pfizer, which tested its vaccine for safety earlier in the development stage, and say Bayer, which is testing aspirin for long after the product was developed. It is the same exact process. Claiming that the use of stem cells at one stage in the process is so morally unacceptable that one will quit one's job over the issue, while ignoring the same exact thing in many other medicines because the stem cells were used later in the product development process? That is just baffling to me.

I don't buy aspirin from Bayer, first of all. I don't really care about what research Bayer is doing, but if it is unethical, I would avoid it. If I buy aspirin, it's for the same uses people were buying it for back in 1899.

[justme]

https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... 8&oe=UTF-8

first link: First-trimester human fetal testes/ovaries were cultured and exposed to acetaminophen or ibuprofen (7 d). Second-trimester human fetal testes were xenografted into mice and exposed to acetaminophen (1 or 7 d), or ibuprofen (7 d). To determine mechanism of action, a human GC tumor–derived cell line (NTera2) exhibiting fetal GC characteristics was used in addition to in vitro and in vivo rat models.

another link: A series of studies undertaken in utero in the rat and ex vivo in rat and human fetal testes and in xenografted mouse models have shown that paracetamol and the NSAIDs aspirin and indomethacin can disrupt the testicular endocrine system.

another link:
Design:
We used an in vitro system based on the culture of human fetal testes exposed or not to paracetamol, its metabolite N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-arachidonoylethanolamide (AM404), aspirin, indomethacin, and ketoconazole at 10−4 to 10−7 M.

Setting:
The study was conducted at the University of Rennes I.

Patients/Participants:
Human fetal testes were from pregnant women after induced abortion, between 7 and 12 weeks of gestation (GW).

[Josh]

https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... 8&oe=UTF-8

jm, what I said my stance is is that I don't want to use things that are developed using fetal stem cell lines.

Aspirin was developed, tested, and brought to market in 1899.

It's irrelevant if some random person decides to go and test aspirin using a fetal stem cell 120 years later.

The topic is also vaccines, not aspirin. Certain vaccines are developed using fetal stem cell lines, and did not exist before this research was done.

[Ken]

Someone could simply hold a religious position that don’t use vaccines developed with fetal stem cells but don’t care about other medications or chemicals.

It is not my employer’s job to decide my religious beliefs for me.

It’s also not my employer’s business to (a) know if I take an aspirin, or (b) force me to take an aspirin.

You also live in an at-will employment state. Employers in Ohio can terminate anyone for any reason that doesn't violate the law, or for no reason at all. And small employers have even more flexibility in this.

Terminating someone for their religion definitely does violate the law. I'm not sure why you would be in favour of that.

And what is this anti-vax religious position that doesn't involve fetal stem cells. Can you articulate it and support it using scripture and religious traditions? Or is it something you are just making up out of thin air?

Yes. My religion has always had a position against death and abortion, since its founding 2,000 years ago, and for my particular sect, we have always had a position against abortion.

We have never taken a position on fetal stem cells before the last few years because the technology / research didn't exist back then.

As far as my position on other medicines, that's not relevant to the discussion, Ken. You know it's completely intellectually dishonest to act like aspirin or metformin were developed using fetal stem cells. That's the matter at discussion here. We don't want to use "fetal stem cells" at all and avoid them as much as possible. My personal conviction is to not use things that were developed using fetal stem cells, because I am personally opposed to using and benefiting from abortion.

Neither the Pfizer nor the Moderna vaccines were developed using fetal stem cells. In other words, there is no necessary “stem cell” step in the development or manufacturing process. What Pfizer and Moderna did was test the efficacy and safety of their vaccines using stem cells. Which is the same exact process used to test hundreds of other prescription and over-the-counter drugs. I find it interesting that the same people who claim that the vaccines haven’t been properly tested for safety then object when they are actually tested for safety and effectiveness prior to giving them to humans.

If you want people to respect the sincerity of your religious beliefs, maybe you shouldn’t develop specious ones like you did above where you stated: “ Someone could simply hold a religious position that don’t use vaccines developed with fetal stem cells but don’t care about other medications or chemicals.”

Sure you can invent religious reasons to do or not do just about anything. But that doesn’t mean others have to take you seriously. Right now, today, we have religious leaders who are actually selling religious “exemptions” for profit to people who are using them to fraudulently claim religious exemptions to taking the vaccine. For example

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion ... ium=social

A pastor is encouraging people to donate to his Tulsa church so they can become an online member and get his signature on a religious exemption from coronavirus vaccine mandates. The pastor, Jackson Lahmeyer, is a 29-year-old small-business owner running in the Republican primary challenge to Sen. James Lankford in 2022.

Lahmeyer, who leads Sheridan Church with his wife, Kendra, said Tuesday that in the past two days, about 30,000 people have downloaded the religious exemption form he created.

“It’s beautiful,” he said. “My phone and my emails have blown up.”

The rules around religious exemptions for coronavirus vaccines vary widely as each state or institution often has its own exemption forms for people to sign. Experts on religious freedom claims say that most people do not necessarily need a letter from clergy for a religious exemption.

Some institutions request a signature from a religious authority, but Charles Haynes, senior fellow for religious freedom at the Freedom Forum in Washington, said that those institutions could be on a shaky ground constitutionally. Haynes said that if a person states a sincere religious belief that they want to opt out of vaccination, that should be enough.

“He’s not really selling a religious exemption,” said Haynes, who compared Lahmeyer’s exemption offer to televangelists who sell things like prayer cloths. “He’s selling a bogus idea that you need one.”

Lahmeyer, a father of five, also runs an investment company where he buys and sells real estate. Many pastors across the country have decided not to sign religious exemption forms, Lahmeyer said, so he wanted to give people an opportunity to get one signed. He said that the bylaws of the church, which has been running for 70 years, require that for the church to consider someone an online member, they must stream the services through one of the church’s platforms and donate at least $1 to the church. The charismatic nondenominational church has about 300 in-person members.