Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[justme]

whether a product is developed based on fetal cells
or whether a product is tested on fetal cells long after its been developed

the end result is the same.
a person is getting a "better" product because a baby was killed.

i don't see a difference.

i'm learning a lot of things that i didn't know, prior to this.

[Ken]

whether a product is developed based on fetal cells
or whether a product is tested on fetal cells long after its been developed

the end result is the same.
a person is getting a "better" product because a baby was killed.

i don't see a difference.

i'm learning a lot of things that i didn't know, prior to this.

It is actually the same testing. The difference is simply whether the testing occurs before or after the product is brought to market.

Pfizer could easily have skipped this part of the process when they developed the Covid vaccine. It wasn’t necessary for the actual development of the vaccine. All that would have meant was that they would have moved on into the human trial portion of vaccine development with less prior testing for safety.

[Josh]

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.

The testing on fetal stem cells was done before they were brought to market and was required.

The testing done on aspirin or metformin or Tylenol before it was brought to market did not involve fetal stem cells.

Can you understand the difference of those two things?

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.”

Nobody's asked me what my religious stance is on taking aspirin. It's irrelevant. My employer is not forcing me to take aspirin and then offering religious exemptions for people who have a religious not to take aspirin.

Ken, it seems you don't believe any religious objections to COVID-19 vaccines are legitimate; you have conflated that if one doesn't accept Pfizer's vaccine (which is still adminstered under an EUA and was developed in the last year, from scratch) with taking an over the counter aspirin which has existed for over a century.

You don't seem to accept my religious objections. That's fine. You and I aren't the same religion. But what is not acceptable is that you have no respect for other people's religious beliefs; you seem to have decided that any religious objection to taking the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines is de facto illegitimate.

My religious belief is that the development of aspirin in 1899 was not unethical to the point I would not use one. My religious belief is that the development of Pfizer and Moderna in 2020 was unethical.

If the only way I can escape a forced vaccination with an unethical vaccine is to lose access to other drugs like aspirin or Tylenol, I would obviously accept that. But that's currently not being asked or on the table, one random hospital in Arkansas notwithstanding.

[Ken]

No Josh. I honestly don’t understand what the timing of stem cell testing has to do with anything. And why stem cell testing on a product prior to it coming to market is so morally objectionable that someone would quit their job over it, while the identical stem cell testing on a product after it comes to market is of no concern. It is the same companies using the same stem cells to run the same tests, the only difference timing.

As for religious exemptions? I actually have no objection to them on principal.. I think it should be up to employers and employees to come up with acceptable accommodations that meet everyone’s needs including that of the employer to maintain a safe sanitary workplace where Covid doesn’t spread. Which may not necessarily be as easy as people want if it means things like more rigorous testing, PPE, or reassignment of duties as the employer sees fit. And I also think that the majority of so-called religious exemptions being presented today are utterly fraudulent. What percentage? I have no idea, but it is a high percentage. Which is itself problematic and may require that schools and employers and such have to be more rigid than they might otherwise have to be. In other words, all the liars are making it harder for you, and are making everyone else view religious exemptions with immense skepticism and cynicism.

I actually don’t really agree with every single public health measure that have been taken so far during this pandemic. Some of them have been more performative than others. I noticed this year my school abandoned the temperature screening we used to do upon entrance last year, which was largely performative I think. But unlike some here, I do think the public health measures the government has imposed at various levels are all in good faith and largely done by people doing their best to try to figure out how to save lives and respond to a hugely challenging and evolving foe. And I am willing to put up with some level of inconvenience to bring this pandemic to a faster end. So I honestly don’t fuss about being vaccinated, or getting a booster in the future if it comes to that. And I don’t fuss about wearing masks at work or when I go into a store. For the most part live goes on as normal. That stuff is all pretty trivial. The degree to which all of this has been overtly politicized has been shocking to me.

[violet]

It's only trivial until one loses his job and the ability to support his family.

We live in a fallen world. A fallen world that thinks fetal cells are acceptable use in medical and food industry.

I am not sure how one can truly eliminate all of it honestly unless you become an extreme back to the lander.

However, at some point, a person must come to terms with his/her use of certain products in order to live in peace with God.

I suspect that will look different for each one of us. And, I am not going to judge another.

I will say that I am not comfortable with the research done with fetal cells in relation to Covid 19. Therefore, we will not take the vaccine. (of course there are other reasons we are choosing not to as well, but those don't all need to made public)

I am not so sure where I stand on Aspirin and Tums. Honestly, giving them up would not be hard. There are natural alternatives that are easy to get.

Now, what would I do with a 104 fever in a child? I would first take it to God, then decide.

Beyond this with my thyroid meds? Well, I don't have a thyroid. I have five kids. I most likely should continue with that one...unless I become a person who raises pigs, harvests my own thyroid and I learn to self medicate. Could I do this? Yes, I do believe so. Do I want to? I am not sure...best pray about that one too.

Does this make me a hypocrite? Perhaps. But I do suppose we are all hypocrites on some level.

In the end we all have to live with our decisions and stand before God. I will try to honor him the best that I can.

In the meantime, we are a family forced to write a religious exemption. One of my children needs surgery soon and we need our insurance to at least get through this. Then, I guess we will see what God has in store for us.

I don't know if the government will force us to give up our medications in order for us to be ethical in our religious exemption or not. I do know that we wrote what we honestly felt and that someone, most likely a nonChristian, will have to decide if we are honest or not. That in and of itself is also interesting.

We will continue to pray, continue to try to walk a path with God and hope for the best.

[ohio jones]

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.

Finally, an analogy I can understand.

Let's say General Motors is crash testing the safety of the redesigned '23 Silverado using live humans instead of crash dummies. Humans that are live before the test, that is, not necessarily after. That seems like an ethical problem that might drive us to avoid that vehicle and buy one from another automaker that is more pro-life.

At the same time, another company (let's call them Fidelity Motors) is importing '57 Chevys from Havana and rehabbing them for the US market. They also do crash tests with live humans, and since those antiques are unsafe at almost any speed, few survive.

Should what FM is doing, or for that matter what GM is doing, keep me from driving my '57 Chevy (let's pretend I have one that my grandparents bought new)?

[Ken]

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.

Finally, an analogy I can understand.

Let's say General Motors is crash testing the safety of the redesigned '23 Silverado using live humans instead of crash dummies. Humans that are live before the test, that is, not necessarily after. That seems like an ethical problem that might drive us to avoid that vehicle and buy one from another automaker that is more pro-life.

At the same time, another company (let's call them Fidelity Motors) is importing '57 Chevys from Havana and rehabbing them for the US market. They also do crash tests with live humans, and since those antiques are unsafe at almost any speed, few survive.

Should what FM is doing, or for that matter what GM is doing, keep me from driving my '57 Chevy (let's pretend I have one that my grandparents bought new)?

To make the analogy more apt, you should also be taking the 64-year old bottle of Aspirin manufactured in 1957 that you found in the dusty back corner of the medicine cabinet that is 50-years expired. And not a new bottle of aspirin manufactured in 2021 by a company that has been engaged in ongoing product testing with stem cells.

[violet]

guess I should begin to look into pig farming then. And refuse surgery for my child. (in case you cannot figure it out, I am being both sarcastic and snarky)

but, someone also pointed out that one cannot even have a surgical procedure without some components being tested with fetal cells.

I find it beyond sad that we cannot avoid it unless we totally leave society in general.

actually, it disgusts me.

[Josh]

To make the analogy more apt, you should also be taking the 64-year old bottle of Aspirin manufactured in 1957 that you found in the dusty back corner of the medicine cabinet that is 50-years expired. And not a new bottle of aspirin manufactured in 2021 by a company that has been engaged in ongoing product testing with stem cells.

Are you able to document that all aspirin manufacturers are doing "ongoing product testing" with stem cells?

Most generic medicines are imported from overseas and just undergo minimal chemical testing. If someone is doing experimental research on aspirin, that is of no concern to me if I take aspirin for a headache. We're talking about uses of aspirin well defined since 1899, the chemical itself hasn't been changed since 1899, and ongoing stem cell research is irrelevant.

The only reason you're trying to make it relevant is because you seem to think people like me should be forced to take vaccines invented in 2020 that definitely were tested and developed using fetal stem cells.

[Josh]

guess I should begin to look into pig farming then. And refuse surgery for my child. (in case you cannot figure it out, I am being both sarcastic and snarky)

but, someone also pointed out that one cannot even have a surgical procedure without some components being tested with fetal cells.

I find it beyond sad that we cannot avoid it unless we totally leave society in general.

actually, it disgusts me.

I would not go this far; as I pointed out earlier, most common medicines were NOT developed with fetal stem cells. Drugs like metformin (or even insulin available today) isn't made using fetal stem cells (although research is ongoing right now to find a way to generate human insulin from fetal stem cells).

As society progresses into more and more acceptance of abusing fetal stem cells, it will be harder and harder to have ethical surgical procedures done. Right now this is an area of concern for me around things like surgical implants.

But anyone claiming that ALL medications including aspirin means accepting fetal stem cells is simply straight-up lying and trying to mock the principled stance those of us who are against abortion are taking. Don't listen to them for moral guidance.