Author Topic: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines (Read 5274 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #15 on:** December 02, 2020, 08:33:43 PM »

Quote

Also I have to ask that when you quote you don't copy and paste but use the quote function which makes for ease of finding that quote in context and whom you are quoting. e.g. as the above quote as opposed to

I don't understand your point.

ElAusente · « **Reply #16 on:** December 02, 2020, 08:46:44 PM »

In order for material cooperation to be licit, one must apply the same principles as for indirect voluntary. I believe that is the point of the Italian post. However, I am confused as to how double effect could be applied retroactively.

When I consult Prümmer's Handbook of Moral Theology, the four criteria he gives for licit indirect voluntary are: "1. the act is good in itself or at least indifferent; 2. its immediate effect is good; 3. the intention of the agent is good ; 4. the agent has a proportionately grave reason for acting."

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #17 on:** December 02, 2020, 08:47:04 PM »

Quote

Pax, you keep referring to cloning, but I have never heard the word cloning used when people speak of vaccine production. Now I am not so knowledgeable but I wonder if you should be speaking rather of cell culture, which is growing or dividing of the cells, which seems to be what happens with the growth of an in utero child. Maybe someone more knowlegable can answer this.

But an utero child is alive, while the cells taken from a fetal body aren't alive, or not for long. Fetal cells taken from a dead child can ONLY survive if combined with something living (i.e. a virus). Everyone will admit that fetal cells have to be taken from a LIVE abortion victim, so it stands to reason that such cannot survive without a life-force. It's arguable that the virus provides such a life-force.
.
Yes, a dividing of of the cells would mean (to me) a cloning. But i'm not a scientist, I don't know.

Nadir · « **Reply #18 on:** December 02, 2020, 09:20:06 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 02, 2020, 08:33:43 PM

I don't understand your point.

As opposed to

Quote

I don't understand your point.

If I am following a fast moving thread, how would I find the original quote in the case of the second quote, so I can follow the discussion?
I am suggesting that you either use the quote tool or, if you prefer to copy and paste you give the name of the poster you are quoting and the Reply no.

Nadir · « **Reply #19 on:** December 02, 2020, 10:06:04 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on December 02, 2020, 08:47:04 PM

But an utero child is alive, while the cells taken from a fetal body aren't alive, or not for long. Fetal cells taken from a dead child can ONLY survive if combined with something living (i.e. a virus). Everyone will admit that fetal cells have to be taken from a LIVE abortion victim, so it stands to reason that such cannot survive without a life-force. It's arguable that the virus provides such a life-force.
.
Yes, a dividing of of the cells would mean (to me) a cloning. But i'm not a scientist, I don't know.

I hope someone more knowledgable will weigh in on this.

From the moment when the sperm combines with the ovum, the product (zygote) begins to divide into 2, then 4, then 8 cells. This dividing is not cloning. Cloning is the replication identical to the original cell, but in pregnancy the cells are not being cloned. They are dividing to become cells which go to form different organs etc.

You have completely lost me when you say a virus might provide a life force, when viruses are themselves not living.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines (Read 5274 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines

ElAusente

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines

Pax Vobis

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines

Nadir

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines

Nadir

Re: Don Curzio Nitoglia on Abortive Vaccines