In the medicine today inoculation materials for children are used, who are made by humans of cells, who came by an abortion to death.

(kreuz.net) in June 2005 Mrs. Debra Vinnedge post office from the Vatikan received.

Mrs. Vinnedge is a directress of the organization `Children OF God for Life'. this combination is active in the city Largo in the US Federal State Florida.

The letter at Mrs. Vinnedge came from `the papal academy for Leben'. it contained an answer to a letter, which Mrs. Vinnedge had already sent in far June 2003 to Rome.

At that time it had the question posed whether it was morally legitimate, vaccines, which from abortion corpses are won, to begin.

In particular it concerned to Mrs. Vinnedge the question whether parents would be a moral right to set itself against mandatory inoculation of their children with such vaccines to the resistance.

Due to the inquiry of Mrs. Vinnedge, the papal academy for the life gave a study in order. She came to the result that parents should to have themselves to set alternative products against such inoculation material for the resistance and use.

Where the market does not offer alternatives, exist a necessity to protest against the immoral vaccines so that such alternatives were manufactured.

In the meantime a use of the immoral vaccines is legitimate, in order to turn a serious danger away for the own child or for the whole population.

This permission may however so not understood that the production, which is morally legal sale and the use of Impfmitteln, which originate from abortion corpses.

Nevertheless parents such inoculation could not always withdraw themselves their from children. It concerns thereby a passive materiale participation.

This is justified morally as extrema reason - extreme case - from the obligation of parents to provide for the well-being of the own child and the society.

This passive Mitbeteilung is located in the context of a moral obligation, which is expenditure-practiced on the conscience of parents. Parents would be thereby in a dilemma and would have the choice to act either against their conscience or to risk the health of their children or different.

With this condition concern it an unfair alternative, which must be eliminated as fast as possible.

The most well-known and most common vaccine, which is produced from Zellinien, which come from driven off children, is the vaccine approximately Röteln.

Röteln actually is completely harmless teething trouble. Children are inoculated today however nevertheless in order to prevent a transmission of the illness of children on pregnant women.

For the child growing up in the mother body a redness LN infection represents a very dangerous threat, which can leave very often heavy damage.

methusalix †: @bendikt and joseph

Benedikt78: … Interesting here, the research with animal embryonic cells is for a long time legal and one came to no research success.

They may want doubts so for a long time you. Nothing changes in the facts. A straight Swiss company is world market leader in the areas Onkologie and molecular diagnostics. Three times you may guess/advise why. Faith do not have you it same-understandably! But before you do not want to have again something here truely, please please they inform thoroughly; try they please at least to out-get, what herceptin is, or as plasmid functions.

Josefus: Notes too methusalix and Benedikt 78

Quotation methusalix: „however lives save it in any case! “that I mean doubts have.

Quotation Benedikt 78: „The question is… whether one a life to sacrifice is, so that one can save another. That is the most fundamental question at all. If one answers these with, then one must consider oneself whether one would give also its own life, so that somebody else is saved. What there is the answer? “
I think it am also still another fundamental difference whether one sacrifices its own life for others or whether one sacrifices wonderful a strange life for another. Otherwise I agree you.

Benedikt78: The question is…

… whether one is to sacrifice a life, so that one can save another. That is the most fundamental question at all. If one answers these with, then one must consider oneself whether one would give also its own life, so that somebody else is saved. What there is the answer?

One mostly says carelessly, because one does not mean it concerns anything.

In Switzerland there was a vote well one year ago to the embryonic stem cell research. Thus the legal basis should be created for legal research with cells of driven off children. Interesting here, the research with animal embryonic cells is for a long time legal and one came to no research success. Nevertheless the collecting main was supported by the economy. And unfortunately accepted. I was in inside Switzerland one of the few opponents, who arose publicly. The argumentation of the proponents was limited only to financial use - they however not to occupy could - and research successes - which were seized from air.

Although, does how one wants in a society, which does not schatzt the value of the life and individual no more, show that there are ethical doubts against this kind of research?

methusalix †: Perhaps it lies no catholic benediction on it,

but lives save it in any case!

Josefus: no benediction

Independently of use and dangers of inoculation no benediction can be on the use of inoculation material won by murdered embryos.

deusexmachina: @DieFidele

I infer from that you had these teething troubles also actually AS a CHILD - if they are comparatively harmless. I was at that time around the 22, since sieht's out was already less spaßig it only one SUSPICION on Röteln (and at the same time masers & wind smallpox… has man's `never rausgefunden so correctly, even AIDS were in the consideration and only after to fear for weeks impossible…) - however in our term were several pregnant women; I need to outline you their potenzielle endangerment not more near, take I on (if necessary see wikipedia).