My comments were regarding "fighting back" which is a practical action.  The issue of mask wearing is the perfect analogy, because, as you said it is a "concession".  But it's not involuntary, because you can just stop eating/shopping and avoid wearing one.  You still have a choice.

Some people like wearing the mask.  There is research that it can reduce transmission and contraction of the flu and other illnesses, and mask wearing has been going on in Asia for years.  I personally like wearing the mask, there is a chance it will keep me healthier, and I don't have to be self conscious about the way I look.  For me personally I'll probably be wearing the mask long after they say we don't have to wear it anymore.

The baby was aborted, based on my research elective abortions were not legal in the Netherlands in 1972 when the abortion occurred, so either it was "medically necessary" or a spontaneous abortion "miscarriage".

Sean, coming from someone who finds most vaccines dangerous and morally unacceptable, I wonder if you would hold the same opinion if it was determined that the baby cells that were used actually came from a baby that was not murdered, but was in fact from a baby that died from natural means? I’m trying to play devil’s advocate here.

… If we can't fight back against masks ….

First we must get some facts straight. The aborted unborn baby had to be alive (at least for a moment) in order harvest the live fetal cells for the vaccine line. In fact the harvesting may have been the imminent cause of death because dead fetal cells will not work for vaccine development. I don't know if that changes things or if it is still  morally indifferent to you.
However, what I cannot wrap my mind around is juxtaposing money to live fetal cells. Maybe in some dry, scholarly way,  this comparison would work  although I find the argument is not honest. What is currently present is live cells from a human being , no past tense here. We are not really distanced from the abortion at all, in fact it is a continuation of and participation in the act, procuring and sustaining live cells from a long dead fetus as a commodity, as a product, as a medical 'advancement' but never as a person who could have lived.
 Obviously I m not conversant in the moral theology you are arguing about - l admit that. But now with all of the stem cell technology available, could it not be possible to take the pluripotent activity of these cells and make them not a means to an end but to a beginning? I truly don't like this idea either, but when you are dealing with living cell lines in the present, they probably could be applied either way. it kind of turns the subject on it's head.
Pax was relating on an earlier post re: a relationship to the Eucharist, i can't remember specifically what. But as a crumb of the Sacred Species is all and entirely God; is not a living cell of a child, a child?There are many things to consider- Not theologically based on my part for sure.
 i do find many of these arguments an exercise in hair splitting. There is just so much parsing and analyzing one can do to extract the desired results when sometimes going with your gut (your Catholic trained gut) is the best answer. Either this is evil or it is not.

Sean, coming from someone who finds most vaccines dangerous and morally unacceptable, I wonder if you would hold the same opinion if it was determined that the baby cells that were used actually came from a baby that was not murdered, but was in fact from a baby that died from natural means? I’m trying to play devil’s advocate here.