Author Topic: Fr. Chazal on SSPX/COVID19 Vaccinations Article (Read 13435 times)

Nadir · « **Reply #75 on:** November 27, 2020, 08:31:54 PM »

Yeti, you have wrong information if you believe that:
The babies whose cells were used to develop vaccines were killed 50 years ago.

You see, not every “designer” abortion yields the desired effect and they need to repeat the atrocity ad nauseam.

Excerpt from
https://cogforlife.org/2015/09/09/new-aborted-fetal-cell-line-emerges-for-vaccine-production/

For decades both the pharmaceutical companies and even some ethicists have insisted that the abortions to produce the cell lines used in vaccines were not done with that intention, that it was only a couple of abortions from the past and that no further abortions would be needed “now or in the future” to produce vaccines.
“This may be the biggest lie ever told to the American public and the world at large,” said Mrs. Vinnedge. “Not only have there been hundreds of abortions directly involved with vaccine research – specifically for that purpose where they altered abortion methods to obtain intact fetal organs , but we are now seeing more and more abortions for fetal research and new cell lines emerging for viral vaccine cultivation.”
While Children of God for Life has been trying to expose these truths for the past 15 years , those warnings are now ringing startling accurate as evidenced with the recent Planned Parenthood videos that have emerged through the Center for Medical Progress, (CMP) showing how live, fully intact fetuses have been harvested for aborted fetal research.

Yeti · « **Reply #76 on:** November 27, 2020, 08:47:21 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson on November 27, 2020, 08:23:37 PM

So if I rob a bank, and leave the money for my family, they should have no qualms of conscience about using the money, so long as enough time passes?

No. That is exactly the same as Ladislaus's analogy with knowingly buying a stolen car. A person who acquires stolen goods, knowing they are stolen, has an obligation to restore them to their rightful owner, and becomes guilty of theft when he refuses to do so. Or you could say he commits the sin of theft when he knowingly buys a stolen article; I guess it amounts to the same thing.

Yeti · « **Reply #77 on:** November 27, 2020, 08:51:14 PM »

Quote from: Nadir on November 27, 2020, 08:31:54 PM

Yeti, you have wrong information if you believe that:
The babies whose cells were used to develop vaccines were killed 50 years ago.

You see, not every “designer” abortion yields the desired effect and they need to repeat the atrocity ad nauseam.

.
Okay, so the baby whose cells were used to develop the COVID-19 -- when was he or she killed?

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #78 on:** November 27, 2020, 09:16:54 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 27, 2020, 08:51:14 PM

.
Okay, so the baby whose cells were used to develop the COVID-19 -- when was he or she killed?

1972

https://www.google.com/amp/s/medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-fetal-cells-1970s-power-medical.amp

Nadir · « **Reply #79 on:** November 27, 2020, 09:50:42 PM »

The PER.C6 cell line is derived from human embryonic retinal cells, originally from the retinal tissue of an 18 week old fetus aborted in 1985 and further developed and prepared as cell line by transfection with defined E1 region of the adenovirus type 5 followed by selection for transfectants with an immortal phenotype.

https://www.gmp-creativebiolabs.com/per-c6-cell-lines_74.htm

Nadir · « **Reply #80 on:** November 27, 2020, 10:37:57 PM »

Quote from: Yeti on November 27, 2020, 08:51:14 PM

.
Okay, so the baby whose cells were used to develop the COVID-19 -- when was he or she killed?

Yeti, I have been trying to find out dates.
Most medical articles do not give the details of the origin of the fetal material. I will keep trying. I am sure I have seen a list on cogforlife but they deal with vaccination in general and many articles deal with a broader range than the Covid one.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #81 on:** November 27, 2020, 11:34:08 PM »

Nadir

confederate catholic · « **Reply #82 on:** November 27, 2020, 11:34:44 PM »

confederate catholic · « **Reply #83 on:** November 27, 2020, 11:35:21 PM »

confederate catholic · « **Reply #84 on:** November 27, 2020, 11:35:57 PM »

Nadir · « **Reply #85 on:** November 28, 2020, 12:32:01 AM »

Quote

You may be shocked that pre Vatican II it was lawful for a nurse to assist at an abortion for certain grave reasons so long as what she was doing could have been done by another ( handing over instruments, patient observation, etc)?

Thank you for posting those pages, Con Cath.

Reposting your statement which you mean to defend with these pages.

But these are not law but theorising on three examples (most of the first was missing) weighing the evil act against the consequences of refusal, which the nurse might find to threaten her conscience and her livelihood.

It is a far cry from any Church teaching which would permit participation in the doing of evil.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** November 28, 2020, 04:17:26 AM »

Sorry, I’ve been busy lately.

I think that there’s been an undue emphasis on intention in moral theology ... just as there has been in dogmatic theology, all due to the rise of subjectivism.

What’s at issue regarding the OBJECTIVE morality of an act is whether the action was a CAUSE of the evil outcome. Intention has only to do with subjective culpability in the internal forum. I’ll elaborate on this more later, but I think this is key to the confusion.

josefamenendez · « **Reply #87 on:** November 28, 2020, 08:49:05 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on November 27, 2020, 06:02:02 AM

OK, if this is true, then pick any kind of organ transplant as a result of a death (not caused to get said organ).

All major transplanted organs have to be "alive" which necessitates a live donor, That would include heart, lungs, intestines etc. Usually kidneys and partial liver transplants might be ok as they usually do not kill the donor, although the probability of compromising their health is great. Why transplant dead organs from a dead donor that can't work? As Nadir said, brain death was invented to allow harvesting of organs from live, compromised patients.
Corneas are harvested from actual dead people because they do not survive on circulating oxygen but derive their oxygen from the external air - hence they are still useful from a dead patient. Skin and bone can also be used from cadavers.
If anyone needs more info I would look into Dr Paul Byrnes' website.

PAT317 · « **Reply #88 on:** November 28, 2020, 09:22:37 AM »

Quote from: PetrusRomasus on November 27, 2020, 06:21:47 PM

Your car theft analogy fails in a number of aspects:

First, the object of the car thieves is not the common good, unlike those of the vaccine scientists.

Simplehomeschooler · « **Reply #89 on:** November 28, 2020, 09:55:37 AM »

Quote from: confederate catholic on November 26, 2020, 03:31:15 PM

If the 1st replication contained 98% of the original material and 20th contained 50% and the 95th contained 20% and the 200th contained 0% then yes this is the case. Virus use the genetic material available to replicate it changes everytime it makes a copy since it is in a new host

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.