AmericanPapist Comments
Thomas, you're going to have to explain why you think using vaccines derived from research done on embryos can EVER be licit.
I don't see how it can be, but I may have misunderstood you. Let's see some of that bioethical prowess of yours.
This is what I suspected his opinion might be and that it has in fact shifted from the bills that he supported. I puts him in the same camp as what Gov. Romney supported. Though they are both still wrong.
The they are going to die anyway could be used for those about to be executed. Though I am sure they don't want to harvest the organs of prisoners that are just going to be discarded.
AmPap can answer for himself, but it is standard moral theology that, at some point, the use of things derived from evil is not forbidden. You see that basic principle, right? It's just a matter of applying it to the facts of a case.
I figured this would provoke a healthy debate.
Jeff & Mike Austen:
The stem lines McCain is referring to, I believe, are derived from already-dead embryos. Some of these cell lines are dozens of years old, in fact. Embryonic stem cell lines have been used in the manufacture and creation of widely-used vaccines.
There has been an intense debate about whether Catholics may use vaccines which have been derived from or in some way associated with aborted embryos and the cell lines derived from them. A "rigorist" approach might hold that a Catholic may never do so. I think it is possible for a Catholic to choose to use such a vaccine if there would be grave results from not using it (for instance, high risk of deadly infection to infants).
However, in terms of legislation and public witness for the dignity and inviolability of human life, *absolutely* no embryos should be killed for scientific research, and research which uses stem cell lines originally obtained from embryos should be phased out in favor of alternative treatments.
Jeff: to re-apply your example and illustrate my point:
McCain supports using the organs of already-dead persons who were killed many years ago for scientific research, and absolutely opposes the killing of future persons *and* the use of the organs of persons killed in the future.
(gruesome, but hopefully helpful.)
reactions?
Yes Ed, I understand the basic principle of many material degrees of separation from evil make us less morally responsible. But having the "knowledge" that a vaccine was derived from human embryos yet fail to do anything about it (even after using it) has some moral repurcussions.
Thomas, technically, those already dead embryos deserve a proper burial if they are still distinct enough to have research done on them. The only time this burial is not in order is if the person has willingly donated their body for scientific research. In the case of an embryo, this point is obviously mute.
NB: my comment was Mike, not Jeff. Mike's position was phrased too broadly. Jeff's, I would probably agree ON THE FACTS, but it leaves my principle in place.
Thomas,
You seem to be conflating issues. In my mind, there are three issues:
1. Whether to fund embryo creation for the express purpose of research.
2. Whether to fund harvesting existing embryonic humans in cryostasis for purposes of research.
3. Whether to fund existing cell lines created by embryo-destructive means.
In your presentation, you completely ignore McCain's support of #2. #2 is a Catholic non-negotiable and is as immoral as harvesting organs from "PVS" folks, comatose folks and death row folks (as Jester pointed out). Moreover, as long as #2 is supported IVF folks will always over-create embryos (by willing parents) and freeze them so their research buddies can get their hands on them.
Would you please discuss McCain's support on #2, lest other Catholic readers think there are no problems with McCain's stance?
(Obviously, Obama and Billary are worse, but it's a matter of degree and not kind.)
God Bless,
I think CatholicAudio has a good point.
Also, doesn't McCain have some issues with Marriage and Same Sex "Unions" as well? That doesn't seem to be brought up very much.
Yes, being vaccinated with vaccines grown in cell cultures form aborted babies is licit according to a letter from the Vatican in 2005, but doctors MUST campaign against their use and avoid using them if untainted alternatives are available. The drug companies are guilty of grave sin. They are accomplices to murder. In order to obtain a cell culture suitable for growing the virus, the abortion must be arranged in advance so that the tissue is fresh (just as with organ donation).
A beautiful, probably blonde, Swedish girl was aborted because the mother felt she had too many children already. Her tissue was packed in ice and flown to the US and then by car to the lab where it was used to grow the rubella virus. The researcher had contacted the abortionist and asked him to find a baby for the research. You may licitly use the vaccine, but I for, one will not allow my children to be vaccinated with it.
Drug companies continue to use aborted babies for new vaccines. A residue of the DNA from the baby is present in such vaccines, like the chickenpox, hepatitus A, etc. Children of God for Life has the history of tainted vaccines and also a list of them all.
Humans in the fetal stage are used, NOT those in the embryonic stage.
CatholicAudio, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have not noticed the claim in any of the sources I found that frozen embryos would be the source of these new stem lines. Can you post a link that does so or drop it to me in an email?
If it turns out to be the case I will certainly post an update.
Commenting by HaloScan
