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]
.

Some Novus Ordo heretic is now going to teach us moral theology? Anyway, to continue:
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 -- intrinsically evil actions -- that make the cell lines available…
.
No, you mean that
made the cell lines available. This guy is changing the sequence of events here in order to make his argument work. He's talking as though you go in to a Walgreen's for your COVID shot, and the pharmacist says, "Okay, sir, let me go out and abort a baby for you so I can use his corpse to make your vaccine. Please have a seat right there and I will call you when we are ready." No one is being killed in order to produce this vaccine.
That's just for starters.
This entire argument suffers from two problems: 1. It confuses a cause-and-effect relationship with a condition sine qua non, and 2. it reverses cause and effect.
1. The abortion is not the cause of a vaccine. If anything, it is a condition
sine qua non. Since the two can be hard to distinguish, this one is a little understandable. For example, dousing a house with gasoline and throwing a match in will burn the house down. The gas and match are the cause, and the burning house is the effect. The effect flows necessarily and nearly always from the cause. On the other hand, as I said on a previous page, having a bread knife is a condition sine qua non to making a sandwich. The knife itself is not the cause of the sandwich, but it is required in order to make the sandwich. If someone makes you a sandwich with a knife that you know is stolen, are you sinning by eating the sandwich? Of course not. But wait, the sandwich would not exist if the knife had not been stolen. Does that not prove that it is a sin to eat the sandwich? Aren't you willing the crime? No, you are just eating a sandwich. You didn't steal anything, and it's not wrong to eat a sandwich. In the same way, the fact that cells of aborted children are used in the making of a medicine does not make the person receiving the medicine guilty of sin, even if the vaccine would not exist if the child had not been aborted.
2. It reverses cause and effect. It is correct to say that one may not posit an evil cause in order to draw a good effect from it. One cannot kill a baby in order to create a vaccine. However, neither the person receiving the shot nor the person who developed the vaccine killed the baby. The most that could be claimed is that the abortion is the cause of the vaccine. The vaccine is not the cause of the abortion, as our heretical friend cited above claims. Even that, however, is false. If an abortion were a cause of a vaccine, there would be vaccines popping into existence every time a baby was aborted. Cause and effect are intrinsically linked. Rather, the cause of the vaccine is the doctors who developed it. They only used material resulting from a crime they did not commit.
And I'm still waiting for someone to explain how it is immoral to use the body of a murder victim for medical research, much less for someone to receive medication developed using research performed on a murder victim. The idea is unheard-of before it was popularized by conservative Vatican 2 heretics.