CathInfo.com

But could they keep the baby alive?  That's the question.  If a child can survive the taking of these cells, then murder/abortion is not a result of cell harvesting, but a separate immoral act.

You did not answer my first question:

.
Pax, have you listened to the explanation by Marcella Piper-Terry, posted many times on these boards?  Or the one by Pam Acker, also posted & recommended here?
.
...
.
Listen to and read the copious information folks have provided here in these threads, please.

If you haven't, please explain why you have not.   If, as you claim, you wish you knew more about this vaccine process, why have you not taken advantage of these resources?  

I started this thread a few days ago.  I've not yet had time to listen to hours and hours of videos of people talking about vaccines, which may or may not address the questions I have.  If anyone can point to an article, which I can read much quicker than hours of videos, then I'll get to it.  In the meantime, I'll debate and maybe someone who has done all this research can give me a summary.

From the Walvax-2 article I posted a couple of weeks ago:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/fr-chazal-on-sspxcovid19-vaccinations-article/270/

“Human diploid cell vaccines (HDCVs) have been licensed all over the world. Many studies have demonstrated superior immunogenicity and safety of HDCVs relative to those using any other tissue culture, such as hamster kidney cells or vero cell vaccines.9 The WHO recommends HDCS as the safest cell culture substrate for the production of viral vaccines10 and consequently they have become the preferred cell substrate for vaccine production worldwide.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526020/


If you want to know more about how vaccines are made today then read this article. The most disturbing fact here is that babies are born alive and then experimented on to obtain fresh specimens. 
Sadly this is normal to these Science worshipping monsters. 

[From the article by Fr. Copenhagen]
Although the vast majority if not all of the cells currently used did not physically constitute part of the child’s original body, these cells still belong to the child.

.
This is so bizarre. Cells that were never part of a human body now belong to someone who is dead? How can a dead person own anything? How do you restore property to a dead person?
.

They are a living remnant of the child’s life in this world. If they are not the child’s cells then whose cell’s are they? Is it possible to stretch jargon so far as to say that these are no one’s cells?

.
Huh? I suppose they belong to the lab, but I don't see what this has to do with anything, certainly not with someone who gets an injection against a flu virus.
.

No person donating their tissue for cell culture and knowingly encountering the resultant cells in a lab would identify them as anything other than “my DNA, my cells.”

.
Speak for yourself. I would certainly never say anything so sentimental and bizarre. I would definitely not consider such cells to be my property, or part of my body, which they obviously are not. I would not consider it immoral for anyone to use them for experimental purposes, nor would I care particularly what became of them, since they have no human soul and are not, and never had been, part of my body, and what happens to them has not the slightest effect on me. This entire example is truly weird.
.

The child has been silenced, the parents have forfeited by abortion any right of consent to respectful scientific use of the body, the scientists and patent holders have no right to possess or use the cells: these human remains belong to God, must be respectfully reposed, and it is not for Caesar to say otherwise.

.
Says who? If people want to make claims like this, they need to provide some sort of argument. Otherwise, what is gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied.