Vaccine and Ingredients

I think that is something that needs to be considered, and people will arrive at different conclusions.

A more direct case with greater moral implications than using cells descended from an aborted child for testing or developing vaccines would be actually using a murdered person's heart to save a child's life. The murder occurred, but would saving the child by transplanting the heart be benefitting from murder?

There are different opinions, and these are interesting moral issues.

Personally I would go further than the vaccines and say organ transplant is OK. I see this as God causing good out of the evil men do. But I understand the objections.

 

I believe technology has increased over the past decade. But this is about our understanding of things and scientific developments.

I think we can look at the infant mortality rate to see that medical technology has advanced over the past 65 years.

But secular governments have always been about politics. These are the same worldly powers the church has resisted for a long time.

 

Murder is murder. The reason I say the distinction matters is the child is benefitting directly from the murder. This is not true with cells distantly related to an aborted child and not directly a part of a vaccine.

The difference is being a sla e owner vs being a distantly descended from a slave owner.

Your position would (I take it) indicate that a benefit from past racism is still an ill gained benefit. This is why people insist on reparations from the fruit of a moral evil.

But another line of thought is that God can make good come out of the evil men do and the present is not morally responsible for the past.

 

I agree. But the principle is the same (evil is evil). And I agree murder is murder.

But insofar as morality is concerned we are talking about participating now via benefit in a past evil. There is a sense whereby all sin is evil and all sin deserves condemnation.

It is inconsistent to say it is immoral to benefit today from one past sin yet it is not immoral to benefit from another.

I do not particularly wrestle with that inconsistency because I do believe God can work good out of the evil that men do. And seeing how thousands of lives were saved through this type of research I am able to glorify God - not in the past sin but in what He has done.

 

If you depend on the government (either to accept or reject) perhaps one's political views will be the determining factor.

But what you need to keep in mind is this has nothing to do with the technology.

The thousands of children alive today because of the medical advancements are alive because God used these scientists and researchers.

I believe parents are less concerned about politics and governments when their children's lives are at stake. They just concentrate on those experts they may have otherwise dismissed because of political leanings.

So maybe the difference between people often has more to do with their view of the virus than the vaccine. What I mean is if people believe covid is dangerous maybe they will be able to set aside their political feelings and honestly consider the vaccines while those who believe the virus just another flu may reject anything if the government in place is not to their political liking.

 

I agree some things are more evil than others. But I'm not sure we can call any evil action a moral action.

Benefiting from evil is benefiting from evil. We may say one evil was more an offense, but the lesser evil is still immoral.

But let's look at the greater evil.

What would you tell the mother of a murdered child who donated the heart of her child to save another, allowing another to benefit from murder?

What would you say to the parents of the child that lived?

Do you believe the parents should have allowed their child to die rather than use the organ harvested from the murdered child?

 

No.

What we were discussing is the cells that are distant descendents of the cells from the tissue of an aborted fetus and the organs of a child who was murdered.

You tie the cells to the original cells that existed decades ago and determine this immoral due to the child being murdered. But the actual organ transplanted is a product of murder as well.

 

Ok. I am not sure I get your reasoning. If you will just walk down two senerios for me. I find this issue rather interesting from a moral standpoint and would love your feedback.

Senerio A

A child is murdered (abortion). Tissue is collected.

Cells are taken from that tissue and cultivated.

Before those cells die others form. Before these die others are formed. This goes on for about 60 years.

Doctors use thes very distant relatives of the cells initially collected in 1962 to develop a vaccine that saves the lives of thousands of children.

Senerio B

A child is murdered (6 years old)
Doctors take that child's heart and use it to save another person.
One life is saved.


Are both senerios equally immoral?