First protein-based vaccine against COVID authorised for the EU

Desk trauma said:

Would you similarly reject care for hypothermia?

Click to expand...

What are you even asking?

SamanthaAnastasia said:

Well, because it was from an abortion.
Personally I’d be okay if the fetal cell line was from a miscarriage.
It is the sin attached to it.
It becomes an ethical dilemma because it has that sin attached to it even if it was from long ago however it saves so many lives.
Again, let me clarify I am NOT antivax.

Click to expand...

What if someone working on the vaccine is a satanist? Or a murderer? Or someone who desires his neighbours wife?

SamanthaAnastasia said:

What are you even asking?

Click to expand...

Great advancements were made in the understanding and treatment hypothermia via deadly experiments on unwilling humans, would you refuse treatment that grew from that unethically obtained knowledge?

Desk trauma said:

Great advancements were made in the understanding and treatment hypothermia via deadly experiments on unwilling humans, would you refuse treatment that grew from that unethically obtained knowledge?

Click to expand...

Lol oh you’re talking about nazis aren’t you?
The studies from has "all the ingredients of a scientific fraud" and that the data "cannot advance science or save human lives."
Berger, Robert L. (May 1990). "Nazi Science — the Dachau Hypothermia Experiments". New England Journal of Medicine. 322 (20): 1435–40. doi:10.1056/NEJM199005173222006. PMID 2184357

SamanthaAnastasia said:

Lol oh you’re talking about nazis aren’t you?

Click to expand...

Yes or no?

Nithavela said:

What if someone working on the vaccine is a satanist? Or a murderer? Or someone who desires his neighbours wife?

Click to expand...

Well, desiring some else’s wife cannot necessarily be proven so I cannot say.
An individual satanist again I cannot say. It would be the same as someone who is a different religion. I cannot judge.
An actual murderer I suppose would be the most in line with this examination.
That would become an ethical dilemma, yes.
But someone who killed by accident or in war is not a murderer.
Someone who say, did it because they just wanted to and planned it out first degree murder then it would be an ethical dilemma.

Desk trauma said:

Yes or no?

Click to expand...

I suppose you would like me to give you sources stating how the nazi experiments have no scientific value?

here you go:
The Ethics Of Using Medical Data From Nazi Experiments:
“First, it is doubtful that physiological responses of the tortured and maimed victims represented the responses of the people for whom the experiments were meant to benefit. Second, additional doubts about the scientific integrity of the experiments surface when we consider the Nazi doctors' political aspirations and their enthusiasm for medical conclusions that proved Nazi racial theory. Finally, the fact that the Nazi experiments were not officially published nor replicated raises doubts about the data's scientific accuracy.

Doctor Jay Katz of the Yale University School of Law, who emphatically opposed the re-use of the Nazi data, suggests nonetheless that the experiments be republished in full detail so that no one may deny that they occurred. He would then condemn the data to oblivion. Dr. Katz dismissed the Nazi experiments with one phrase: "They're of no scientific value."”
Nazi Science — The Dachau Hypothermia Experiments | NEJM
“This review of the Dachau hypothermia experiments reveals critical shortcomings in scientific content and credibility.”

Your query is flawed and warrants no answer.

SamanthaAnastasia said:

Governmental rights of free speech are different than employment contracts.
Employment contracts can state employees get vaccines or be fired. If it was in their contract or if they work in a right to work state then so be it. That it a choice they must make.
Just as businesses can state “no shoes, no shirt, no service” the same can be said about masks etc.
Freedom of speech doesn’t extent even to internet platforms if they are owned by a company because that service reserves the right to refuse service due to any speech they deem unfit.
However if it was a government website (lol) the story would be much different.
Mind you while I am a librarian and am completely against censorship of any kind, I know the difference between companies choosing what they wish to have in their business or on their platform vs government censorship.
It’s like a bookstore vs a public library.
A bookstore can actively choose only Christian books and that’s fine while a public library (not a school library they get push back all the time it’s a can of worms ugh) doesn’t ban books (though they sometimes get push back it’s very rare.

Click to expand...

I do not think that you understood my point. And the government can and does make regulations when it comes to people. You may have heard of OSHA. Some people forget what the letter "H" stands for in the acronym.

Now you may believe that there is a "sin" attached with abortion, though you would probably be hard pressed to justify that belief. But how many lives does a fetus have to save before the "sin" is gone. The covid vaccines have already saved millions of lives worldwide. The number of fetuses involved could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

SamanthaAnastasia said:

Well, because it was from an abortion.
Personally I’d be okay if the fetal cell line was from a miscarriage.
It is the sin attached to it.
It becomes an ethical dilemma because it has that sin attached to it even if it was from long ago however it saves so many lives.
Again, let me clarify I am NOT antivax.

Click to expand...

I just don’t understand this at all. How is it any different from a scenario such as a murder victim having their organs donated. It’s good coming out a death caused by sin.

Subduction Zone said:

I do not think that you understood my point. And the government can and does make regulations when it comes to people. You may have heard of OSHA. Some people forget what the letter "H" stands for in the acronym.

Now you may believe that there is a "sin" attached with abortion, though you would probably be hard pressed to justify that belief. But how many lives does a fetus have to save before the "sin" is gone. The covid vaccines have already saved millions of lives worldwide. The number of fetuses involved could be counted on the fingers of one hand.

Click to expand...

I literally said in a previous post:

SamanthaAnastasia said:

Well, because it was from an abortion.
Personally I’d be okay if the fetal cell line was from a miscarriage.
It is the sin attached to it.
It becomes an ethical dilemma because it has that sin attached to it even if it was from long ago however it saves so many lives.
Again, let me clarify I am NOT antivax.

Click to expand...

“It becomes an ethical dilemma because it has that sin attached to it even if it was from long ago however it saves so many lives.”
Bro I know it’s saved countless lives.

SamanthaAnastasia said:

I literally said in a previous post:

“It becomes an ethical dilemma because it has that sin attached to it even if it was from long ago however it saves so many lives.”
Bro I know it’s saved countless lives.

Click to expand...

I know that is what you believe, but I do not see sin being "attached" to a fetus. It almost seems as if you are blaming the fetus when you say that. I understand that you oppose abortion. One thing to remember is that abortion is a fact in this world and will continue to be one even if it is made illegal. Today when it comes to later term abortions most are necessary. Pregnancy is a risky time for women and some do not have the ability to carry a fetus to term. Or the fetus can die. Or there can be various other issues. Most abortions occur before a the embryo becomes a fetus. About 80% of them

Even prolife people have to have abortions at times. My sister-in-law had a tubal pregnancy. Those are not only doomed from the very start, they can kill the mother as well. She had to have an abortion, otherwise she may have died as well.

Subduction Zone said:

I know that is what you believe, but I do not see sin being "attached" to a fetus. It almost seems as if you are blaming the fetus when you say that. I understand that you oppose abortion. One thing to remember is that abortion is a fact in this world and will continue to be one even if it is made illegal. Today when it comes to later term abortions most are necessary. Pregnancy is a risky time for women and some do not have the ability to carry a fetus to term. Or the fetus can die. Or there can be various other issues. Most abortions occur before a the embryo becomes a fetus. About 80% of them

Even prolife people have to have abortions at times. My sister-in-law had a tubal pregnancy. Those are not only doomed from the very start, they can kill the mother as well. She had to have an abortion, otherwise she may have died as well.

Click to expand...

Good for you. You don’t. That’s you.
People have different views.

Also, when an abortion is needed in cases such as tubal pregnancy then it becomes life saving procedure.
I also understand that even if it was made illegal women would still continue to have abortions. Even if prostitution is illegal, people still participate in it.
I would never judge any women who has had an abortion even if it was elective.
I know several women who have had several abortions in their life (elective and life saving) and I never ever judge them. Who am I to judge?
All I was saying and am saying is I want medication and vaccines that have no development or testing with fetal cells.
Why is that so wrong to request?
Please stop mansplaining things to me. Especially on women's issues.

SamanthaAnastasia said:

Good for you. You don’t. That’s you.
People have different views.

Also, when an abortion is needed in cases such as tubal pregnancy then it becomes life saving procedure.
I also understand that even if it was made illegal women would still continue to have abortions. Even if prostitution is illegal, people still participate in it.
I would never judge any women who has had an abortion even if it was elective.
I know several women who have had several abortions in their life (elective and life saving) and I never ever judge them. Who am I to judge?
All I was saying and am saying is I want medication and vaccines that have no development or testing with fetal cells.
Why is that so wrong to request?
Please stop mansplaining things to me. Especially on women's issues.

Click to expand...

Please, don't post such nonsense. Pointing out a false attribution by you is not "mansplaining".

Poor reasoning is poor reasoning regardless of gender.

Subduction Zone said:

Please, don't post such nonsense. Pointing out a false attribution by you is not "mansplaining".

Poor reasoning is poor reasoning regardless of gender.

Click to expand...

No you were manspaining things to me, thankyouverymuch.
Have a blessed day.
I bid you farewell.

myst33 said:

Perhaps Paul's rule ("Do not ask about the origin of your food if you have sensitive conscience") could apply here, too.

Seems that Novavax vaccine is currently the best of the bad options for somebody with such dilemma, because there is no abortion link during design, development and production, so the vaccine itself is "clean". Just the testing was probably done also on abortion cells. Which is still a link, but a remote one.

It may also be interesting to know that the abortion cells used in medicine are all from one aborted baby 50 years ago, they are cultivated and multiplied in the lab, they have never been in the body of the "donator" baby. So the usage in medicine neither supports more abortion to be done nor needs more abortion to be done.

The link between todays vaccines and sin is so thin, that it may be probably more ethical than the most things we consume daily.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your view and agree with you.
The grey areas are always the hardest of dilemmas.

N

SamanthaAnastasia said:

No you were manspaining things to me, thankyouverymuch.
Have a blessed day.
I bid you farewell.

Click to expand...

Nope. You messed up. But you can try to pretend that I did if you like.

I find it curious that abortion is typically the only sin that seems to cause this kind of transferred taint. I've never seen anyone object to riding in a Volkswagen because of the horrific origins of the car and the company, or refuse medicine developed by Harvard researchers because of the role of slavery in that institution's founding, or refuse to come to my house for dinner because it stands on land stolen from (quite possibly murdered) Native Americans. Why does only one sin have this effect?

Subduction Zone said:

N

Nope. You messed up. But you can try to pretend that I did if you like.

Click to expand...

Mansplaining is in the eye of the beholder.