Bradley Beal dropping truth bombs

[NCRAVEN]

Correct me if I am wrong but Live Action appears to a journalism for profit - non-profit, which was started by one person. They uncover information which for the most part everyone has access to and specialize in sensationalism more than measured ethics.

There is a place for voices like that but they are not on par with the National Right to Life, the Roman Catholic Church, or other large Pro-Life Christian groups who think about these issues on a deeper ethicial level.

I mean the stuff she writes makes for worthy quotes but from what I have found it doesn't even deal with the issue of whether a Christian should feel it right to take the vaccine. And that is the actual question being discussed.

In contrast the National Right to Life has chapters which take on the tough questions. So does the RC.

btw - I am not RC, but I find it interesting that Lila Rose joined the RC church.


https://rtl.org/educational-material...ines-abortion/

The issue is whether it's ethical to use cells whether directly or cloned from an aborted fetus in the development or testing of a vaccine. I provided her quotes because I think they highlight the point well, that it is not.

[NCRAVEN]

btw - regarding some of the denominations you mention - the difference isn't over homosexuality. That is only the presenting issue that gets the press. The real difference is over things like the authority of Scripture and the divinity of Christ. Among Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians etc... who do adhere to Scripture you will find a pro-life consensus but also a willingness to accept these vaccines.

I listed a few examples, not all the reasons why churches are not infallible.

And I'm glad they except them, but I really don't see why we're deferring to some other group as if because they say so, than it must be okay.

[Ortizer]

Plenty of pro-life organizations are speaking out.

Here’s an example from Live Action, a leading pro life group.

“ The aborted children whose cell lines are used in medical product testing had the right not only to their lives, which were brutally taken, but for their dead bodies to be treated with dignity. It is unethical to salvage their cells & use them for decades of medical experiments.”

“ Many drugs and vaccines are tested using aborted baby cell lines. It's always wrong. Today, countless millions are spent on new "fetal tissue research," using fresh victims.

Medical testing and research CAN be done ethically.

New standards must be set. We must demand better.”

One thing sticking out in that quote to me. Isn't it a single fetal cell line used in all the vaccines? Not saying that makes it right, but if so, it either implies a lack of fact checking at best, or intentional misinformation at worst.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

[NCRAVEN]

One thing sticking out in that quote to me. Isn't it a single fetal cell line used in all the vaccines? Not saying that makes it right, but if so, it either implies a lack of fact checking at best, or intentional misinformation at worst.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Not 100% sure, but I don't believe it's one single cell line used in all. However, the quote says "medical product testing" and "many drugs and vaccines". Not JUT vaccines

And last but not least... she's also right that this is still ongoing.

Were aborted babies kept alive to harvest tissue? The University of Pittsburgh has some explaining to do


Which contrary to the claim " but there is a reason why groups that are dedicated to fighting abortion are silent on this. It does not further the pro-life cause."

This is a huge reason not to be silent on the issue.

[RevBarnes]

I listed a few examples, not all the reasons why churches are not infallible.

And I'm glad they except them, but I really don't see why we're deferring to some other group as if because they say so, than it must be okay.

It is not so much deferring to one group (there is more than one) as acting within a Biblical framework.

In America we make much of the solitaire voice who speaks like a lonely prophet. There is some merit to that. There were lonely prophets in the Bible.

That said, in the Bible and in the history of the church, when there are big issues, leaders and scholars meet together to sort things out together. So in Acts 15, there was a major issue over whether Gentiles could me admitted to the church (and without being circumcised). There was a Council in Jerusalem that met and they decided "yes".

So, I trust collective wisdom more than I trust individuals who promote themselves as being against it. The same is true with science.

And for my money, there are specific dangers in both approaches: being a part of the collective and playing the Lone Ranger. That said, I value the collective that is the Body of Christ. Luther stood up to the Catholics as a lone individual and he was right. Funny thing is: within a generations the Catholic collective had acknowledged.

To put it another way; of course churches are fallible. But individuals are fallible too.

[RevBarnes]

Not 100% sure, but I don't believe it's one single cell line used in all. However, the quote says "medical product testing" and "many drugs and vaccines". Not JUT vaccines

And last but not least... she's also right that this is still ongoing.

Were aborted babies kept alive to harvest tissue? The University of Pittsburgh has some explaining to do


Which contrary to the claim " but there is a reason why groups that are dedicated to fighting abortion are silent on this. It does not further the pro-life cause."

This is a huge reason not to be silent on the issue.

Tissue harvesting is different than using existing cell lines because it is (I believe) taking new lives.

I would have opposed the few abortions that created the initial cell lines, but what we are using now is their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great... grand clones.

[NCRAVEN]

Tissue harvesting is different than using existing cell lines because it is (I believe) taking new lives.

I would have opposed the few abortions that created the initial cell lines, but what we are using now is their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great... grand clones.

[NCRAVEN]

It is not so much deferring to one group (there is more than one) as acting within a Biblical framework.

In America we make much of the solitaire voice who speaks like a lonely prophet. There is some merit to that. There were lonely prophets in the Bible.

That said, in the Bible and in the history of the church, when there are big issues, leaders and scholars meet together to sort things out together. So in Acts 15, there was a major issue over whether Gentiles could me admitted to the church (and without being circumcised). There was a Council in Jerusalem that met and they decided "yes".

So, I trust collective wisdom more than I trust individuals who promote themselves as being against it. The same is true with science.

And for my money, there are specific dangers in both approaches: being a part of the collective and playing the Lone Ranger. That said, I value the collective that is the Body of Christ. Luther stood up to the Catholics as a lone individual and he was right. Funny thing is: within a generations the Catholic collective had acknowledged.

To put it another way; of course churches are fallible. But individuals are fallible too.

This is good and all, and lets assume you are correct.

Than Pfizer shouldn't have had a problem with letting people know that instead of trying to keep it quiet.

THAT is the issue was that started this conversation.

You don't have a problem with cloned cells from an aborted fetus used for medical testing, fine. Others do and this is information that should not have been kept from them. To be honest, I'm a little pissed I didn't know the vaccines I've taken or gave to my kids have had aborted fetus cells either in them or used in their development.

[Greg]

I don't know that it is possible for us to have a conversation about this but I am glad that you are pro-life. God bless.

Thanks, and may God Bless you!

[Greg]

We are not talking bout side effects.

No, you were talking about disclosing unfavorable information and the side effects of drugs is unfavorable information they are required to disclose.

I know you are smart enough to see the corollary.

[blah3]

No, you were talking about disclosing unfavorable information and the side effects of drugs is unfavorable information they are required to disclose.

I know you are smart enough to see the corollary.

If people know about it, its clearly been disclosed. Hell its been discussed on this board prior to this ‘bombshell’ undercover expose.

[NCRAVEN]

If people know about it, its clearly been disclosed. Hell its been discussed on this board prior to this ‘bombshell’ undercover expose.

A) where did Pfizer disciple it?

b)It wasn’t undercover. But what was the “bombshell”as you call it is Pfizer didn’t want the public to know about it.