CathInfo.com

Zeutin I'm not getting into a ___ contest with someone on the internet. It's a public board, if you want to repost my posts, you are free to. I try to reject feminism and try to especially encourage young women towards  traditional values when I interact with them.  

Again a person doesn't need to be married to recognize feminism.

Tiffany,

You've not been shy about posting details of your disordered life.  Perhaps you should take Our Lord's advice and not judge as the hypocrites do.  It's certainly not the womanly thing to do to accuse others of feminism without first examining your own conscience.

God bless!!!!  :cheers:

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/human-fetal-links-some-vaccines

Of the many lies told by anti-vaccination advocates, this is one of the worst, because it hits on a real moral issue. However, anyone with a modicuм of training in biology will tell you that it is impossible for vaccines (or any other injected medicine) to contain human tissue. The reason is simple: if you are injected with anything containing tissue from another person, your body will immediately recognize it as an invader and begin attacking it. This immune response is often quite radical and can easily lead to death! This is why blood from a donor to a recipient must be carefully matched before the recipient can receive it. Thus, there is no human tissue of any kind in vaccines. Unfortunately, the anti-vaccination movement (and even some naive pro- life groups) will try to convince the uninformed that vaccines contain tissue from aborted babies and that abortions must be continually done to supply this tissue to the "evil" drug companies. This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. Unfortunately, this lie is particularly evil, in that it targets a person's morally correct view that abortion is murder.

For any lie to be successful, there must be a grain of truth in it. This lie is no exception. There is a tangential connection between some vaccines and abortion. The Hepatitis A vaccine, the MMR vaccine, and the chicken pox vaccine all contain viruses (weakened or inactivated) that were grown in human cells. A virus must be given a medium in which to propagate. Many vaccines use viruses that can propagate in several kinds of mammal cells, but some viruses are so specific that they can only propagate in human cells. The viruses used in the above-listed vaccines are that specific. Thus, they must be grown in human cells.

Where do the vaccine companies get the cells for these vaccines? They get them from companies like Coriell Cell Repositories, 403 Haddon Avenu, Camden, New Jersey 08103, 800-752-3805. This company has many cell lines, which are cultures of self-perpetuating cells. Each culture of cells is continually reproducing, making more cells. Those cells are sold to researchers, drug companies, and other medical technology firms. The specific cell lines used in vaccines are the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines1, and they have been supplying medical research of all types for more than 35 years. Where do these cell lines come from? That's where the grain of truth in this lie comes from. Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September,19662 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 19623.

Now that you have learned the facts, we can discuss the moral issues involved. Is it immoral to use these cell lines to make vaccines? The answer is definitely not. You might think that the cell lines are somehow "tainted" because they come from abortions; however, think about it for a moment. Abortion is murder. A person who claims to be a physician purposefully kills an innocent, unprotected person. That is evil, and there is no doubt about it. However, let's consider another murder, shall we? Let's suppose one of your loved ones was shot in a robbery attempt. You rush your loved one to the hospital, but it is too late. Your loved one dies. This is another murder, and it is just as evil.

Suppose that the doctors rush in and tell you that there is a young boy in the next room who needs a heart immediately, or he will die. The doctors have analyzed your loved one's blood and found that your loved one is a perfect match for the dying boy. Would you donate your loved one's heart to the boy? I certainly would. It would be a tragedy that my loved one was murdered, but at least this would be a "silver lining" in that dark cloud. At least my loved one's death would mean that a young boy could live.

The cells that were taken from the two aborted babies more than 35 years ago are much like my loved one's heart. Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus, these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder.

It is important to note that Federal law is quite specific in the matter of donated fetal tissue. The law does not allow for an abortion to be performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the law even explicitly states that the abortion procedure cannot be changed in order to collect the tissue4. It also prohibits the baby's family or the doctor from profiting from the donation5. Thus, these cells were truly donated, just as any organ might be donated. If a person is an organ donor and he or she is murdered, it is not immoral for you to use those organs. Once again, at least something good will come out of the murder if those organs are used.

Now that you know the facts, you can see why I consider this lie so devious. Anti-vaccination advocates play on a person's proper moral indignation about abortion, claiming that if a person gets vaccinated, he or she is supporting the abortion industry. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Whether or not you get vaccinated, the same number of abortions will be performed, as abortions are not necessary to make new vaccines. In addition, you are actually dishonoring the memories of those two precious babies if you refuse vaccination, because you are refusing the one good thing that has come from their murder. At the same time, you are putting your life and the lives of your loved ones in jeopardy by refusing one of the greatest protections that medicine has ever developed! How could anyone call himself pro-life if he dishonors the memory of those who have been murdered while risking the lives of those he loves?

Interestingly enough, a June 9, 2005 statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life (the Vatican's official voice in the area of abortion/right-to-life) comes to essentially the same conclusion. Even though some organizations have mischaracterized the docuмent as condemning the use of such vaccines6, the docuмent, in fact, says quite the opposite. It says that when an alternative vaccine which has no connection whatsoever to abortion is available, parents should use it. There is no question that this is the moral thing to do. In addition, when there is no alternative available, parents should object by demonstration, etc. so as to force manufactures to come up with an alternative.

However, as for actually using the vaccines that have no alternatives, the docuмent clearly says that parents can do so in order to protect their children and the community. The English translation of the docuмent (originally written in Italian) says, "As regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women."7 Note what this official Roman Catholic docuмent says. It says that parents should CONTEST the vaccines so as to force the manufactures to find new ways to make them, but UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, parents can still use the vaccines that have no alternative, because it will allow them to avoid serious risk to their children, and more importantly, to the population as a whole. The moral good done by the vaccine, then, outweighs any moral evil when it comes to actually USING the vaccine. The statement clearly says the MAKING of the vaccine is bad, but the USE of it is not. In fact, the docuмent specifically mentions rubella as something that should be vaccinated against, even though there is no alternative vaccine - "Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles."7

Because some organizations have tried to mischaracterize this statement, the Catholic News Service (CNS) produced an article that quotes Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau, a medical doctor and official at the Pontifical Academy for Life, as saying, "If the health of the child or of the whole population [is at risk], the parents should accept having their kid be vaccinated if there is no alternative." 8 Because some organizations clearly do not like the Roman Catholic church officially saying that the use of these vaccines is morally acceptable, they have asked the Pontifical Academy for Life to change its statement. However, CNS reports that Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau said the docuмent "could not be changed" because it accurately reflected church teaching.8 Despite what you might read, then, even the Vatican supports the use of vaccines that have a tangential relationship to abortion, as long as no alternative vaccines are available.

Quote from: parentsfortruth

Quote from: ggreg

And by the way, I wouldn't give the MMR jab to my children not because I question its connection with autism but simply because I don't think Measles, Mumps or German Measles (Rubella) are particularly dangerous and doing 3 inoculations at once does seem like a money saving exercise.

But, if my wife REALLY wanted to give them inoculations, then I would seek out the most ethical and least risky way of doing it, and take some minor risks for the sake of keeping her happy and feeling like what she thinks actually matters.  She gave birth to them after all.

I would research it on the internet and discuss it with her in bed.  Get her input and go for that option.  That is what successful married couples do.

In the end what do the "risks" matter anyway?  Why are so called Traditional Catholics so afraid of autism or vaccines causing some minor risk of death or other problems?  My son is great.  Love him to bits.  He cannot commit a mortal sin, is assured of salvation, has lots of younger brothers and sisters to look after him when I've gone.  My other children might all disappoint me and lose their souls, but he cannot.

I thought Trads were supposed to welcome the crosses God sends.   :confused1:

Why for the sake of a very slight reduction of risk (even if you buy the whole MMR connection, the chances are less than 1%), would you drive a wedge between yourself and your wife and thereby risk your marriage and your entire family's eternal souls?

That's just short sighted.

So knowing that mercury is poisonous and giving children shots, because we're "supposed to accept crosses that God sends?" A TOTALLY PREVENTABLE THING? Just don't get the shot? Is a virtuous act to POISON your child? "Because we should accept the crosses God sends?" That's warped.

I'm sure if these parents with autism on this board had KNOWN about these things BEFORE the shots, they would NEVER have given them.

There are fetal stem cells in many of these shots, which ALONE is against our religion. THE END does not justify THE MEANS.

There are not fetal stem cells in many of the shots you ignoramus.  How could that possibly be?  You think they liquidize babies and make shots out of them?  Cells injected into people would be attacked by your immune system.  

Some of the vaccines use fetal stem cell lines, from many many years ago.  i.e. Cells that have been grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, grown, cut, frozen, before any vaccines are tested on them.

Yes, originally those cells came from an aborted baby but given that they already exist and the lines exist and the damage has been done and the baby died decades ago the Church has stated that it is OK to have these inoculations.

If you found out that your grandfather took a cutting of a rare and valuable imported tree, trespassed on someone's land in 1901 to do it and that man called the police and had him arrested for trespass and theft, would you go and cut down the 100 year old tree that the cutting grew from because good cannot come from evil acts?

In some way would you be in possession of a stolen rare tree?

The CONcilliar "church" has said that it's "okay." So yeah, you wanna comfort yourself believing that the end justifies the means, then you go right ahead. No pope before these last 6 jokes have even been close to anything like what a true pope would have said. I absolutely reject this.