Posted on 07/18/2005 10:22:11 AM PDT by NYer
LARGO, FL, July 18, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Pontifical Academy for Life under the direction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued an "approved" study regarding vaccines derived from aborted fetal cell lines. The study was undertaken in response to a US group called Children of God for Life, which has for years fought for the creation of ethical vaccines which are not 'tainted' by abortion.
In the document published in Medicina e Morale by the Center for Bioethics of Catholic University in Rome and titled, Moral Reflections On Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Aborted Human Foetuses, Vatican officials put the burden of guilt 100% on the pharmaceutical industry, comparing their moral complicity to that of the abortionists themselves.
The 8-page document, which has been anxiously awaited for several years by pro-life parents and physicians nationwide states that, doctors and families "have a duty to take recourse to alternatives, putting pressure on political authorities and health systems...They should use conscientious objection and oppose by all means " in writing, through various associations, mass media, etc, - the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus..."
The document, which can be viewed in full at http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm also supports parents who refuse to use the vaccines, citing that those who have been forced to vaccinate experience "a moral coercion of the conscience ... an unjust alternative choice which must be eliminated as soon as possible."
Debi Vinnedge, Executive Director of Children of God for Life Executive Director, who has battled this issue for years and received the document and letter directly from Bishop Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
"We brought the matter to Canon lawyers at the St. Joseph Foundation prior to sending an appeal on to the Vatican," Vinnedge said. "There is a serious problem when parents are denied the right to abstain from these vaccines in accord with State law, simply because there was nothing from the Vatican directly addressing it."
Vinnedge says the Vatican document, which calls for "rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers" should also spur action on their Fair Labeling and Informed Consent Act, introduced to members of Congress earlier this year. The legislation requires that pharmaceutical companies give full disclosure whenever aborted fetal or embryonic cell lines are used in their products.
Dr Steven White, President of the Catholic Medical Association agreed. "We must demand that the pharmaceutical industry provide accurate information on the origin of all vaccines so that we are able to make informed decisions in accord with our moral conscience - and we must mobilize to support development of ethical alternatives," he said.
MMR vaccination is almost universally required before children enter grade school.
Actually, the linked document explains that all of the vaccines are "allowed by the church" inasmuch as it can be morally permissable for Catholics to use them if there are no alternatives, and a suitably proportionate reason exists. (The document specifically mentions that leaving people susceptible to rubella makes more abortions likely.)
But it also says that parents should be allowed to opt out.
OTOH, the document blasts the pharmaceutical manufacturers for using the abortion-derived cell cultures, and also for not providing alternatives.
A very apropos topic, with school starting soon.
And Gray's Anatomy contains information gleaned from Nazi experiments on Jews during the Holocaust. We don't burn useful textbooks, and we don't destroy useful vaccines simply because of the means by which they were obtained. If the Catholic Church is concerned about this, then they should work to make certain that it doesn't happen in the future, rather than warning parishoners away from currently available vaccines.
Question: when it talks about being "tainted" by abortion, are we saying that the tissues of aborted babies are present in these vaccines or that we object because aborted tissues were used in the development of the vaccines?
>>This vaccination is mandatory as are a host of others.<<
One mere reason to homeschool.
>>One mere reason to homeschool<<
Ooops, even spellcheck failed me.
Make that one MORE reason to homeschool.
Of course, you can't go to school if you don't have your vaccinations.
But if you have AIDS, then you MUST be allowed to go to school, and mingle, in order that your rights not be denied (no matter if you expose others or not).
Or to put it another way - would you like your child vaccinated with toxins from population control cabals that will make them autistic or sterile???
Is it ethical to take orders about your health from high-weirdness Frankenstein pseudo-scientists and quacks pushing toxins and the culture of death on the population?
Aren't children allowed an exemption from vaccines if their parents object on religious or ethical grounds?
Or on a lesser note, if a child has a peanut allergy, my daughter cannot bring a peanut butter sandwich for lunch.
My child eats very little else that can be packed into a lunch but God forbid that someone seperate the child with the allergy.
I thank God everyday for the FReepers that helped convince my hubby that homeschooling is the best thing for my girls.
Re: peanut allergy. That is a very serious allergy and the prohibition against the other children bringing the offensive substances to school is for a valid reason. The "essences" get into the air that the allergic child breathes and can put him/her into the hospital -- or worse, kill him.
My granddaughter was visiting last week, and I had to make my house a "nut free" zone. That is why my office is presently stocked with pistachio nuts. But, my husband and I had to remember to wash our hands after consuming them if we were going to meet our granddaughter for lunch -- as we did several time during her visit.
You would be amazed at how many products are forbidden. If you carefully read the labels of many bakery items you will see that they often state, "producted in a facility that also uses nuts." Those items are forbidden too.
My son-in-law had a horrible experience in his office one day. He is in the publishing business and a traveling editor came in to work on a project. They were working well into the night to meet a deadline and the staff ordered out for food. The lady knew she was allergic to peanuts and informed everyone. THey were ordering CHinese, so they were careful to order all the dishes without nuts. However, they forgot that almost all Chinese food is prepared with peanut oil.
To make a long story short, the visiting editor ate the food and had a reaction and DIED before the para-medics could arrive!
I am simply appalled by this news!
No wonder there are forces in the medical field that want the evil practice of abortion to continue! Big money in it beyond the obvious fees collected from the patient.
One wonders whether many Catholics will see it the same way.
I understand the seriousness of it.
However, the question is, why is it that my child cannot bring peanut butter to school if there is an allergy? Why should she not be allowed to bring a sandwich because of someone else's allergy. (Understand that my child does not eat meat and peanutbutter is the only protein she would get at lunch).
You state that you have nuts in your office and take precautions. If my child had a serious nut allergy, I would isolate him/her, not expect the entire school to take the precautions for me.
Sorry, but to me, restricting the entire school for one child is backward.
bttt
Coleus,Pro-Life bump again.
I don't think you really understand the extent of the problem. Nobody is discriminating against your child. Have you ever smelled a peanut butter sandwich when you walked into a room? That peanutty aroma also contains microscopic oil particles that are DEADLY to someone with a peanut allergy. That is why peanuts are no longer served on airplanes.
Add to the problem that small children have at luch when they "share" with their friends, or eat sloppy and have traces of their sandwich on their faces and hands after lunch that can be transferred to another person or a common surface.
It didn't make sense to me either, until my son exlained it to me. Then I was happy to co-operate.
Concerning your child: you are doing her no favors if you don't introduce a wide range of foods to her. I know. I was a picky eater too. When I got to college I quickly learned that I had to eat what was served or 1) starve, or 2) used hard earned cash to get something else!
I raised 4 kids myself and I know that they can be difficult, but we had one rule (even for the picky ones): eat what is served, or go without.
The only concession we made was to leave the mustard OFF sandwiches for one of them. They all grew up great, are considerate of others, finished college with higher degrees, married good folks, gave us terrific grandchildren, and still love us!
There are other sources of protein besides peanut butter. And you child is still able to enjoy PB before and after school. Better a little sacrifice than being responsible for a classmate's death, or hospitalization.
Think of PB asif it were a gun in the case of an allergic child. Would you think that it was too restrictive if your child was prevented from bringing a loaded pistol to class? (Even if there was no intention to use it.) It's really the same thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.