In the case above, wouldn't the 200th time not contain 0%, but contain an amount that is approaching zero, but never reaches zero. A typical limit problem in calculus?

The amount of fetal material would then get infinitely small, but never completely disappear.

And since God is infinitely good, an infinitely small part of the original material would be infinitely offensive to the Infinite Good.

"Though HEK293 is commonly believed to have been obtained from an aborted human fetus, I received an e-mail a few months ago from Professor Frank Graham, who established this cell line. He tells me that to the best of his knowledge, the exact origin of the HEK293 fetal cells is unclear. They could have come from either a spontaneous miscarriage or an elective abortion." https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63752/

Since there is no way to know for sure, we must err on the side of caution.

Sean, the abortion was from 1972, and you mention multiple cell lines which affect the % of original cells used, but then you conclude there is a “direct causality”?  Makes no sense.  It would only be direct causality if the vaccine was using 100% cells from 1972 or 100% cells from abortion.  Which doesn’t happen.

"Though HEK293 is commonly believed to have been obtained from an aborted human fetus, I received an e-mail a few months ago from Professor Frank Graham, who established this cell line. He tells me that to the best of his knowledge, the exact origin of the HEK293 fetal cells is unclear. They could have come from either a spontaneous miscarriage or an elective abortion." https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63752/

Since there is no way to know for sure, we must err on the side of caution.

A powerful excerpt:

"Stated Fr. Stephen Torraco, Professor of Moral Theology at Assumption College regarding the need for these vaccines:

Saying that something is morally justifiable because I need it as a means to an end, and indeed, a good end (preservation of one’s life) is absolutely identical with the Machiavellian principle that the end justifies the means (or, that evil may be done in order to accomplish good) and, thus, absolutely unacceptable and morally indefensible…. Secondly, precisely because this Machiavellian principle is morally indefensible, one needs to examine the very thing needed in this particular case ¾ cell lines from aborted fetuses. To say that one needs the cell lines of aborted fetuses to preserve one’s life is inseparable from saying that one needs the abortions ¾ intrinsically evil actions ¾ that make the cell lines available… If I need the vaccine (and it is a need that can be satisfied only by an aborted fetus) and if I defend my need, I will the abortion. The person receiving the vaccination may well be living long after the fetus was actually aborted, and had no involvement in and may even have no knowledge of the particular and actual fetus that was aborted. However, the remoteness in time is not sufficient for arguing that there is no act of the will on the part of the recipient of the vaccine.” [54]