Saints' Discussion Forums

Forums => Pro-Life News & Talk => Topic started by: Shin on September 19, 2014, 10:09:21 AM

Title: Vaccines Impairing Health, & Morality Regarding Vaccine Origins
Post by: Shin on September 19, 2014, 10:09:21 AM
El Carmen de Bolivar (Colombia) (AFP Excerpt)

First their hands and feet feel cold. Then they go pale and cannot move. Some convulse and fall to the floor. In El Carmen de Bolivar, near the port of Cartagena, dozens of teenagers have experienced similar symptoms. Some have even lost consciousness.

"They vaccinated me in May and I started fainting in August. My legs became heavy and I couldn't feel my hands anymore. When I woke up, I was in the hospital," recalled 15-year-old Eva Mercado. She passed out seven times in a month.

For most of the families affected in this town of 67,000, there is no doubt about what is causing the problem. They place the blame squarely on a vaccination campaign against HPV, one of the most common STDs, which can trigger cervical cancer.

Title: Re: Vaccines Impairing Health
Post by: Shin on September 19, 2014, 10:15:05 AM
This reminds me of an article entitled 'The Morality of using Vaccines derived from Fetal Tissue Cultures'

A few excerpts from it:

Catholics troubled by the morality of using vaccines derived from fetal tissue cultures should be mindful of the ancient axiom: Bonum ex integra causa, malum ex quocumque defectu.  (Goodness arises from an integral cause, evil arises from any defect whatsoever)

What does this axiom mean?  It means that the moral goodness or evil of an act can be determined by a thoughtful assessment of the act itself, as well as its attending circumstances.  A good act, attended by good circumstances, is said to have an integral cause, and thus can be safely performed by Catholics;  but however admirable an act may be in other respects, if even one of the circumstances is gravely evil, the act cannot be recommended to Catholics.


Let’s use a specific example to illustrate: an immunization against Measles, Mumps and Rubella using the MMR II vaccine.  Since the moral object of any act is the exterior act as proposed by reason, in this case, the moral object of the act of immunizing a child with MMR II is to give him an inoculation with this vaccine so as to induce an immune response – so that he will be immune to measles, mumps and rubella.  This – in itself – is a good moral object.

he circumstances which surround the MMR II vaccination must now be considered. The circumstances are those things that “stand around” an act, and qualify it in some manner.  There are 7 circumstances: who, what, where, by what aid, why, how and when.   (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Malo,q. 2, a. 6.)  If all the attending circumstances are good, or indifferent, then that act is good; that act arises from an integral cause.  If one or more of the attending circumstances are evil, then there is a defect, and the act itself is evil.

For this particular act, that of immunizing a child with MMR II, the circumstance which deserves close scrutiny is “by what aid.”  “By what aid” refers to the instrumental cause, or agent of the act, in this case the MMR II vaccine, a product produced using fetal tissue, obtained from an aborted baby, as a culture medium.


[The article then describe the necessity of restitution in the case of theft, in this case, the theft...]


If a man in bad faith has to restore all the natural products of the property he has unjust possession of, how can the pharmaceutical companies possibly justify their possession of the natural product of a little baby,  the tissue used to culture the vaccine; the same tissue which was – in an act of supreme injustice – carved out of the flesh of a baby?


It is immoral to knowingly use any medical products – vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, stem cells, you name it, which are derived from tissue obtained via abortion or embryonic destruction.

Title: Re: Vaccines Impairing Health
Post by: Shin on September 19, 2014, 10:21:33 AM
Most people will be thinking first of the health consequences rather than the moral calculus of various vaccines, because this is little spoken of.

But what vaccines have the moral problem of being derived from aborted fetal tissues? And in fact have no alternatives?

A memo on the subject from 'Liberty Council' 'A Nationwide Public Interest Religious Civil Liberties Law Firm' begins:

Most people associate vaccinations with the eradication of disease. Vaccinations have been a part of American life for decades. However, many people object to mandatory vaccinations for religious reasons. Oftentimes, these individuals are told that they have no choice and must receive the vaccinations or have their children vaccinated.

You may be surprised to learn that some vaccinations are derived from aborted fetal tissue. Vaccines for chicken pox, Hepatitis-A, and Rubella, which are produced solely from aborted fetal tissue, do not have alternative, ethical versions. Even most physicians who oppose abortion do not realize that these three vaccines are made from aborted fetal tissue. The wife of one of our Liberty Counsel attorneys confronted her family doctor who wanted to inject her son with the chicken pox vaccine. When she told her doctor, who is Catholic, that the chicken pox vaccine contains aborted fetal tissue, he was surprised. The doctor was even more surprised when he skimmed through his medical book and found that she was right. He then proclaimed that he was faced with a dilemma which he must now confront.

In St. Louis County, Missouri, a county law required food handlers to obtain the Hepatitis-A vaccine as a prerequisite for employment.

[Just a note -- This memo is a bit old.]