Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:12 amI see no ethical difference between taking the Covid-19 vaccine and taking other vaccines. I believe I have been vaccinated for all of the following. For some reason, many people are treating the Covid-19 vaccine as something ethically quite different from other vaccines.
Chickenpox (Varicella)
Covid-19
Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis
Flu (influenza)
Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR)
Polio
Shingles
Yellow Fever
Ethically, most of these aren't made using fetal stem cells (although some are, chickenpox in particular). I don't get those vaccines, and think it quite unethical to do so.
Scientifically, only one of these vaccines lacks testing and FDA approval - Comirnaty is not a vaccine you can go get and isn't planned for release until 2024. The only COVID-19 vaccines available in the U.S. are done so under an EUA.
So, yes, it's quite appropriate to treat some of these differently.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:21 am
Here's an interesting twist. According to at least one source, there's some question whether HEK-293 is derived from an aborted baby or a miscarriage.
Though HEK293 is commonly believed to have been obtained from an aborted human fetus, I received an e-mail a few months ago from Professor Frank Graham, who established this cell line. He tells me that to the best of his knowledge, the exact origin of the HEK293 fetal cells is unclear. They could have come from either a spontaneous miscarriage or an elective abortion. Regardless, the abortions that gave rise to the three cell lines—or in the possible case of HEK293, the miscarriage—happened decades ago. The aborted fetuses are long gone, as are the original fetal cells. There are no fetal body parts or fetal tissue left. Only distinct, new cells derived from the original fetal cells remain.
Suppose we knew for certain that HEK-293 came from a miscarriage rather than an abortion. How much would that change the ethics for those who refuse these vaccines?
I assume that uncertainty does not change the ethics significantly. Does anyone want to suggest that it should?
I would be comfortable with fetal stem cells obtained ethically, i.e., obtained without intentionally killing a baby. However, saying "the origins are unclear" does not make something ethical at all.
However, I have an additional requirement: before I will use things derived from or developed using fetal stem cells, I need an assurance that there will be a strict ban on future use of fetal stem cells derived from abortions. It needs to be 100%, completely illegal to do so, because I do not want to promote and benefit from abortions. Unfortunately, the direction medicine & science is going in is the exact opposite direction; newer monoclonal antibodies in particular need a fairly fresh supply of fetal stem cells (which are currently being touted as cures for COVID and many other diseases).
nett wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:20 am
There is also the issue of the dependence on fetal tissue for the COVID vaccine, and a general credibility crisis due to modern medicine diverging from most Christian values.
I'm ignoring some of the scientific claims you made in order to focus on ethics in this thread. We have discussed the scientific claims in other places, this thread is about ethics. So I am quoting the part of your post that is about ethics.
How different are the ethics for other vaccines? Soloist probably knows this - are other vaccines developed without any use of fetal cells?
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:21 amSuppose we knew for certain that HEK-293 came from a miscarriage rather than an abortion. How much would that change the ethics for those who refuse these vaccines?
I assume that uncertainty does not change the ethics significantly. Does anyone want to suggest that it should?
I would be comfortable with fetal stem cells obtained ethically, i.e., obtained without intentionally killing a baby. However, saying "the origins are unclear" does not make something ethical at all.
I agree that "unclear" just means the ethics are murky. Here's something I find interesting: if HEK-293 could have been created with cells from a miscarriage, that implies that stem cell research can be done with cells from miscarriages rather than abortions, doesn't it? Is there really a need to use stem cells from abortions at all?
nett wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:20 am
There is also the issue of the dependence on fetal tissue for the COVID vaccine, and a general credibility crisis due to modern medicine diverging from most Christian values.
I'm ignoring some of the scientific claims you made in order to focus on ethics in this thread. We have discussed the scientific claims in other places, this thread is about ethics. So I am quoting the part of your post that is about ethics.
How different are the ethics for other vaccines? Soloist probably knows this - are other vaccines developed without any use of fetal cells?
Yes, almost all vaccines were developed without fetal cells. Some are no longer available in non-fetal stem cell versions, though. Most vaccines that are widely used are pretty old.
The only vaccines with no ethical version are Acute Respiratory, Chickenpox, COVID-19, and a specific combined MMR+Chickenpox vaccine.
Some of the ethical versions are becoming very hard to obtain in the U.S., however. The fact an ethical version exists makes it even more important not to take an unethical version.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:55 amI agree that "unclear" just means the ethics are murky. Here's something I find interesting: if HEK-293 could have been created with cells from a miscarriage, that implies that stem cell research can be done with cells from miscarriages rather than abortions, doesn't it? Is there really a need to use stem cells from abortions at all?
The ethics are not "murky" if it's unclear; if you tell me my coffee creamers might be made from an aborted fetus or a miscarried fetus, does it makes the ethics "murkier"? I would argue that not knowing makes it even less ethical.
However you are right that that if it's possible stem cells could be used from miscarriages, car accidents, etc., then there is really NOT a need to use stem cells from abortions at all. That's why I feel it's unethical to use stem cells from abortions. Some newer stem cells lines (such as the one used in the J&J vaccine) are from much newer abortions, which I feel is quite unethical.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:55 amI agree that "unclear" just means the ethics are murky. Here's something I find interesting: if HEK-293 could have been created with cells from a miscarriage, that implies that stem cell research can be done with cells from miscarriages rather than abortions, doesn't it? Is there really a need to use stem cells from abortions at all?
The ethics are not "murky" if it's unclear; if you tell me my coffee creamers might be made from an aborted fetus or a miscarried fetus, does it makes the ethics "murkier"? I would argue that not knowing makes it even less ethical.
I think "murky" is just a more negative and more emotional way of saying "unclear'. I'm not sure what you are reacting against here.
There is nothing "unclear". The established science and consensus for the past several decades was that HEK-293 came from an aborted fetus, and no further details were shared. That's unethical and immoral.
Now it is "murky" that it might be either a miscarriage or an abortion. That doesn't help those of us who don't want abortion out at all.
If I serve you a meal, and tell you the meat might be rabbit, or might be cat, or... might be an aborted fetus, is that "murky"? Would you eat it?
nett wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 9:20 am
There is also the issue of the dependence on fetal tissue for the COVID vaccine, and a general credibility crisis due to modern medicine diverging from most Christian values.
I'm ignoring some of the scientific claims you made in order to focus on ethics in this thread. We have discussed the scientific claims in other places, this thread is about ethics. So I am quoting the part of your post that is about ethics.
How different are the ethics for other vaccines? Soloist probably knows this - are other vaccines developed without any use of fetal cells?
I think that whether you take unproven, dangerous medication just because the government says you have to is absolutely an ethical concern.
Josh wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 10:24 am
If I serve you a meal, and tell you the meat might be rabbit, or might be cat, or... might be an aborted fetus, is that "murky"? Would you eat it?
If you serve a meal and tell us that the meat is an aborted fetus, then a little while later tell us that it might actually be rabbit, would anyone eat it? Probably not, but that's a little closer to what is actually happening here. If it then becomes clear that it is in fact rabbit, we might eat it, if it hasn't gone cold by that time and we still have an appetite.