I don't have time to look up all of the documents and so on

Posted on: September 29, 2021 at 23:34:43 CT

and I think she would be better served not to claim that he is "not following the bible", but I think she has valid religious grounds for rejecting the vaccine.

Generally speaking the biblical grounds would be that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and that Our Lord prohibits the intentional killing of innocent human beings in the fifth of the ten commandments.

Babies were aborted alive, placed in fridge to harvest cell lines used in some vaccines: researcher
'These babies were literally placed into the fridge alive and then stored between one and 24 hours until they could be dismembered.'
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/babies-were-aborted-alive-placed-in-fridge-to-harvest-cell-lines-used-in-some-vaccines-researcher/

As I alluded to above there are several documents from the Vatican of the preceding decades discussing these types of issues and how we are to evaluate them. They discuss things like how to evaluate the various levels of cooperation in evil, mitigating factors and so on.

As I recall there were 3 main factors to be evaluated in assessing the culpability of an individual who participated in the "remote" cooperation in evil. eg. They didn't do the evil action and did not intend for the evil.

Two of the three that come to mind that I think are relevant here are:

1. There must be a proportionally serious reason for doing or not doing actions that are a remote cooperation in any evil.

2. There must be no alternatives that could eliminate or significantly mitigate the serious reason for doing so.

3. ?

Even if all of the above criteria were evaluated in favor of getting a tainted vaccine, each person would be duty bound to diligently work to stop that evil from continuing and to prod those who have done the evil or are propagating it to stop and find moral alternatives.

The above were used in evaluating vaccines like ones for smallpox or polio as I recall.

The Church also teaches that the primacy of a well formed conscience is sacrosanct. People should not be forced or pressured to violate their consciences.

Although others may in good faith come to a different conclusion than she has, I think this woman is on solid ground in making the moral judgment that she must reject the vaccines, especially on the grounds of the use of aborted baby cell lines in their testing &/or development. There is no reason that the pharmaceutical companies must use them and morally licit alternatives are readily available.

I think a reasonable case could also be made that she has evaluated the risks and the benefits of the vaccine and feels that she does not want to take any of them at this particular time on that basis. Whether people disagree I think that she should have the right to make that decision.