Covid-19 Vaccines and Christian Ethics

[Josh]

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

I would not agree to start killing people just because my job told me to. We have to draw the line somewhere.

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)

Indeed, other reasons are completely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is Christian ethics. Anyone who accuses you of having other reasons to avoid these vaccines should be ignored, because they are simply trying to denigrate your religious beliefs.

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.

Indeed. But needing a life-saving surgery for a child that may or may not involve some fetal stem cell research is a much, much easier ethical decision than taking a vaccine that is not needed or necessary at all that 100% definitely is developed using fetal stem cells.

Ultimately this comes down to political power and control. There are some people who simply want to be able to force everyone, everywhere to get vaccinated with whatever vaccines they want. It is hard to understand, but some people are very much gripped by evil, dark forces. They hate God, and hate anyone who is against abortion. They want to force this wickedness on the whole planet every way they can.

[RZehr]

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)?

Hmm. What if the government decided that all Pre-1958 models are no longer safe for the public since they were made to unsafe specifications. But with modern live human crash testing that requires 9/10 test dummies to survive, the government will approve certain models. Fidelity Motors sees lots to gain with their near monopoly on '57 Chevys from Havana, so they get that model approved with only 1/10 death. As a '57 Chevy owner, you now can license your car to drive on the road. Now what? License and drive, or park?

I'm not sure what all the similarities to vaccines are or aren't in my scenario.

[Josh]

Hmm. What if the government decided that all Pre-1958 models are no longer safe for the public since they were made to unsafe specifications. But with modern live human crash testing that requires 9/10 test dummies to survive, the government will approve certain models. Fidelity Motors sees lots to gain with their near monopoly on '57 Chevys from Havana, so they get that model approved with only 1/10 death. As a '57 Chevy owner, you now can license your car to drive on the road. Now what? License and drive, or park?

I'm not sure what all the similarities to vaccines are or aren't in my scenario.

Since we're talking about aspirin, it's interesting to note that it is very unlikely aspirin would have been developed and FDA approved if it were discovered from scratch today, let alone approved over-the-counter.

I think it's OK to take the TDAP vaccine. It's not made from fetal stem cells nor tested on them. If it's tested on them in the future, I would continue to be comfortable taking it. (I don't have a blanket anti-vaccine philosophical position.)

If, eventually, the only choices are "your religion must reject 100% of medicine or you must take these fetal stem cell based vaccines", then I guess I'd be stuck rejecting 100% of medicine. I don't understand why Ken thinks that would be a good thing. Do you really want 25% - 30% of the population completely rejecting modern medicine?

[Ken]

Hmm. What if the government decided that all Pre-1958 models are no longer safe for the public since they were made to unsafe specifications. But with modern live human crash testing that requires 9/10 test dummies to survive, the government will approve certain models. Fidelity Motors sees lots to gain with their near monopoly on '57 Chevys from Havana, so they get that model approved with only 1/10 death. As a '57 Chevy owner, you now can license your car to drive on the road. Now what? License and drive, or park?

I'm not sure what all the similarities to vaccines are or aren't in my scenario.

Since we're talking about aspirin, it's interesting to note that it is very unlikely aspirin would have been developed and FDA approved if it were discovered from scratch today, let alone approved over-the-counter.

I think it's OK to take the TDAP vaccine. It's not made from fetal stem cells nor tested on them. If it's tested on them in the future, I would continue to be comfortable taking it. (I don't have a blanket anti-vaccine philosophical position.)

If, eventually, the only choices are "your religion must reject 100% of medicine or you must take these fetal stem cell based vaccines", then I guess I'd be stuck rejecting 100% of medicine. I don't understand why Ken thinks that would be a good thing. Do you really want 25% - 30% of the population completely rejecting modern medicine?

No, I don’t think that is a good thing. But I do think it is the logical end-point to the position you have taken. I’m not painting you into a corner. You are doing that yourself.

[Laurell]

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)?

I'm glad my point came across. From an ethical standpoint, I think you would be fine to drive your grandparents vehicle. Now, you might look like a hypocrite, so that is another matter to consider-- unless you want a giant bumper sticker that says "ORIGINAL PURCHASE, NOT FROM FM!"

It's the same reason I don't use Nestle creamers, they use HEK-293 in testing, but I will use other creamer brands.

I think this whole conversation is a slippery slope though... I try not to buy brands that I know are formulated with slave labor, but what about buying them second-hand? The company isn't getting the money, and I am stimulating the local economy with my thrifting. It's something I think about a lot. There are so many different facets to consider, I honestly think the best answer is self sufficiency/community reliance, but am not yet at the place where I can realistically do that.... I digress...

To summarize: FM and Chevy are offering you fruit of the poisonous tree; your grandparents vehicle is not, but needs to be considered if you want to appear above reproach.

[Laurell]

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.

Ken, I am so curious about this concept that manufacturers are using stem cells on current product lines they are producing (despite development generations ago). I hadn't even considered that until you brought it up in this thread. I know someone linked to a few things earlier, but in general, how do you suggest going about discovering if a company is using stem cells in safety testing? A cursory google search didn't populate much useful information, and so I am wondering where you got this information and how one can stay up to date with it.

I know I mentioned earlier that we generally avoid medications, a lot of it has to do with the origin of manufacturing, but if we ever did end up considering something, I want the resources you are using to help shape my decision.

[Soloist]

Its fascinating that the car analogy is being used again. Was it mentioned somewhere else? or was I the source of the idea?

The Christian was attacked in Russia too over their refusal to participate in Communism. This is the same.

18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

Even if the government mandates it everywhere and makes it where I cannot have a job, I wouldn't conform on the use of fetal cells. If they only demanded to stop the use of medication and become a faith healer, I would, but the government so far doesn't generally respect that in regards to parents and their children.

[Ken]

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.

Ken, I am so curious about this concept that manufacturers are using stem cells on current product lines they are producing (despite development generations ago). I hadn't even considered that until you brought it up in this thread. I know someone linked to a few things earlier, but in general, how do you suggest going about discovering if a company is using stem cells in safety testing? A cursory google search didn't populate much useful information, and so I am wondering where you got this information and how one can stay up to date with it.

I know I mentioned earlier that we generally avoid medications, a lot of it has to do with the origin of manufacturing, but if we ever did end up considering something, I want the resources you are using to help shape my decision.

I linked to one Catholic-oriented article upstream where the author went through the list of the top 20 prescription and top 20 over-the-counter medications and found stem cell research conducted on all but one of them. And then linked to the studies. The exception was some sort of topical medication that wouldn’t have made sense to do stem cell testing on anyway. I don’t know of any sort of centralized database that keeps track of all of this stuff. But it sounds like it is a pretty safe bet that most modern medications that act internally inside cells (ingested or injected) are now tested with stem cells. It is ubiquitous.

They do it because it provides a very easy baseline result that can be compared to others. So, for example, if you test two different medications against the same genetically-identical stem cell lines your results are more controlled and comparable than if you do things like test with mice which are more genetically variable (and also genetically different from humans).

You just have to draw your own line someplace. Some here distinguish between pre-development testing of products and post-development testing of products. I don’t personally understand that distinction. You can probably find something questionable about every single product you ever buy that wasn’t from your local farmer’s market or grown in your own garden. Personally I try to focus on the big decisions like what we do for a living, where we live, who we associate with, how we raise our kids, how we spend our free time, what kind of local charity and volunteer work we do, how we treat the people we actually interact with, and that sort of thing. And I don’t really get caught up in the minutia of everyday decisions that are likely just irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Like whether I shop at Wal-Mart or Kroger. Or whether I buy gas at Exxon or BP. Or whether I use one brand of aspirin or another. I just buy whatever is the cheapest generic at Costco and don’t worry about whether it was made by exploited labor in Burma or whether the company is more or less ethical than some other. When I’m aware of a particular company that is particularly egregious I try to avoid it. Like Purdue Pharma. But otherwise I mostly just live my life.

[Soloist]

I linked to one Catholic-oriented article upstream where the author went through the list of the top 20 prescription and top 20 over-the-counter medications and found stem cell research conducted on all but one of them. And then linked to the studies. The exception was some sort of topical medication that wouldn’t have made sense to do stem cell testing on anyway. I don’t know of any sort of centralized database that keeps track of all of this stuff. But it sounds like it is a pretty safe bet that most modern medications that act internally inside cells (ingested or injected) are now tested with stem cells. It is ubiquitous.

https://cogforlife.org/2021/05/12/lets- ... al-tissue/

Fr. Schneider is referring to the subsequent use of aspirin (already developed, free of any association with abortion) and aborted fetal cell lines in some other experimental application, documented and published many years after aspirin hit the shelves. That does not retrospectively taint the development of aspirin as immoral. Is Henry Ford responsible for drunken driving or John Moses Browning responsible for armed robberies? Of course not. An immoral or irresponsible act subsequent to, and completely unrelated to, the creation of an object used in the commission of the act does not make the creator of that object an accessory or complicit in any way. I researched fourteen of the drugs on his list and found that thirteen of them fall into the same category as aspirin.

Tums, another example from his list, would be laughable if the backdrop were not so serious. Tums is a well-known antacid preparation, nothing more than calcium carbonate and sugar. It reacts with stomach acid to relieve indigestion. The effects of calcium carbonate have been known for ages and the industrial sources of this compound are sea shells, egg shells, limestone and chalk, to name a few. It is also present in broccoli and other green vegetables. It is literally everywhere. Decades ago, the Lewis-Howe Company decided to purify calcium carbonate, mix it with sugar, press it into tablets and sell it as an antacid. They wouldn’t have ‘tested’ (they didn’t) in aborted fetal cell lines for a number of reasons, the most important reasons being 1. The nature of Tums’ therapeutic effect – the neutralization of digestive acids in the upper GI. It does what it does without entering human cells – it reacts with acids in the stomach, producing water and carbon dioxide in the process, and, 2. Testing in aborted fetal cell lines would have been an impossibility since Tums was first produced in 1930. Just like aspirin, it’s quite a bit older than aborted fetal cell lines.

If you object to testing period, you might as well object to any food or medication produced by modern means as it likely all is dependent on one part or another. In the same way, I still would draw a line on slavery and do my utmost to not use products if possible produced by slaves even though I view slavery in a different light then abortion.

[mike]

That's something I never seen.

What I've personally seen is compliance, but maybe us ultra conservatives are much different?

What I've seen is a huge host of people in fear lined up for an experimental unethical vaccine as their thinking this is what is going to save humanity. So when people like you who have had COVID but still go get the shot, to me, you have no message to send the lost in having hope in Christ because you affirm there attempts at appeasing their fear that man will solve their fear.

I'm glad you have not seen this in your area. You are fortunate. In our area, it was commonplace, not limited to plain Anabaptists of course.

I'm sorry you feel that I have no message to send the lost because I got a Covid vaccine. In your opinion, does anyone who goes to the doctor for an illness or preventive treatment also likewise lose their Christian testimony, because they do so in fear rather than having hope in Christ? If not, what makes the Covid vaccine unique in terms of making a Christian lose the ability to reach the lost for Christ?

You had COVID.... Your consent to an unethical vaccine when you had natural immunity is utterly confusing to say the least. The people I know getting the vaccine are unbelievers who are fearful. For a believer to get an unethical vaccine when they have natural immunity sends a message to these fearful unbelievers that we should follow the world and why would they think you have anything to offer to stop their fears if you aren't doing anything different than them?

I understand what you think about the vaccine, and I am not trying to dissuade you from that view even though I do not agree with it. But you did not answer my question.