The AG of my state has lost his mind

[August West]

...what do you say to someone who says that they refuse to vaccinate or mask because God told them not to?

No, I didn't.

[DeusxMac]

PeterB wrote:
And the basic issue -- what do you say to someone who says that they refuse to vaccinate or mask because God told them not to?

You tell them you're sorry, but "because God told them" is not sufficient to allow ALL behaviors.

You may not sacrifice humans
You may not set fire to a nonbeliever's house
You may not run down a public street naked
You may not torture an apostate
Etc.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts
"United States Supreme Court... upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws."

[kj]

As a Christian, I find it super offensive when people use Christianity to manipulate people, as he is clearly doing. Many, many Christians feel the same way.

However:

(... this despite the fact that the Pope has told Catholics that they SHOULD take the vaccine, even though it may have been developed using fetal cell lines, because the church believes in saving lives... which the vaccines do.)

This is a stickier issue. If you read the whole thing, the Pope said it is wrong, but it may be more wrong to hurt others by not getting the vaccine. He says people should advocate for different methods of vaccine development and production as a way to rectify things. I think this is logical and reasonable, but I have a hard time faulting those who take a harder line, although they ought to take all other precautions (and more).

[PeterB]

kj wrote:
As a Christian, I find it super offensive when people use Christianity to manipulate people, as he is clearly doing. Many, many Christians feel the same way.

However:

(... this despite the fact that the Pope has told Catholics that they SHOULD take the vaccine, even though it may have been developed using fetal cell lines, because the church believes in saving lives... which the vaccines do.)

This is a stickier issue. If you read the whole thing, the Pope said it is wrong, but it may be more wrong to hurt others by not getting the vaccine. He says people should advocate for different methods of vaccine development and production as a way to rectify things. I think this is logical and reasonable, but I have a hard time faulting those who take a harder line, although they ought to take all other precautions (and more).

I think the thing with the Pope, and more generally with Christianity, is actually summarized very nicely by this quote from Gov. Edwards:

“If you’re a citizen out there or you’re a parish president or you’re sitting on a school board or whatever, and you’re thinking, ‘Man I just don’t want to do this.’ What public health expert are you consulting? What epidemiologist are you talking to? What data are you looking at?” Edwards asked.

“Did you hear a word that was said up here about what’s happening in Louisiana? Do you give a damn?,” Edwards said at Monday’s news conference. “I’ve heard it said often: Louisiana is the most pro-life state in the nation. I want to believe that. It ought to mean something. In this context, it ought to mean something."

... if you are pro-life, you should strongly support people getting vaccinated, because it saves lives. And I could agree with the Pope that if there are different ways to develop and produce vaccines, it might be preferable to do that. This being said, there are certain things that you can only do with cell lines, and the only way to make scientific/medical progress is to use those. And as pointed out above, medical advances have often been based on a terrible backhistory of exploitation... but we don't refuse to use the knowledge or advances gained, if they'd help cure terrible diseases and save lives.

[kj]

PeterB wrote:
[quote=kj]
As a Christian, I find it super offensive when people use Christianity to manipulate people, as he is clearly doing. Many, many Christians feel the same way.

However:

(... this despite the fact that the Pope has told Catholics that they SHOULD take the vaccine, even though it may have been developed using fetal cell lines, because the church believes in saving lives... which the vaccines do.)

This is a stickier issue. If you read the whole thing, the Pope said it is wrong, but it may be more wrong to hurt others by not getting the vaccine. He says people should advocate for different methods of vaccine development and production as a way to rectify things. I think this is logical and reasonable, but I have a hard time faulting those who take a harder line, although they ought to take all other precautions (and more).

I think the thing with the Pope, and more generally with Christianity, is actually summarized very nicely by this quote from Gov. Edwards:

“If you’re a citizen out there or you’re a parish president or you’re sitting on a school board or whatever, and you’re thinking, ‘Man I just don’t want to do this.’ What public health expert are you consulting? What epidemiologist are you talking to? What data are you looking at?” Edwards asked.

“Did you hear a word that was said up here about what’s happening in Louisiana? Do you give a damn?,” Edwards said at Monday’s news conference. “I’ve heard it said often: Louisiana is the most pro-life state in the nation. I want to believe that. It ought to mean something. In this context, it ought to mean something."

... if you are pro-life, you should strongly support people getting vaccinated, because it saves lives. And I could agree with the Pope that if there are different ways to develop and produce vaccines, it might be preferable to do that. This being said, there are certain things that you can only do with cell lines, and the only way to make scientific/medical progress is to use those. And as pointed out above, medical advances have often been based on a terrible backhistory of exploitation... but we don't refuse to use the knowledge or advances gained, if they'd help cure terrible diseases and save lives.
Hopefully you understand how that's debatable. A lot of people are uneasy with using tech that was obtained by exploitation. Using it sort of implies it's a necessary evil (or worse, for the greater good).

[Janit]

kj wrote:
Hopefully you understand how that's debatable. A lot of people are uneasy with using tech that was obtained by exploitation. Using it sort of implies it's a necessary evil (or worse, for the greater good).

The problem with any of these arguments is in the selective way they can be applied.

Modern techniques of gynecological surgery were developed by experimentation on enslaved women, which has only recently become widely known. How shall we address that? Should all related gynecological surgery be halted?

[DeusxMac]

kj wrote:
Hopefully you understand how that's debatable. A lot of people are uneasy with using tech that was obtained by exploitation. Using it sort of implies it's a necessary evil (or worse, for the greater good).

Is this the meaning of the word as you're using here?

exploitation noun
- the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work
- the fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage for oneself:

[PeterB]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=kj]
Hopefully you understand how that's debatable. A lot of people are uneasy with using tech that was obtained by exploitation. Using it sort of implies it's a necessary evil (or worse, for the greater good).

Is this the meaning of the word as you're using here?

exploitation noun
- the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work
- the fact of making use of a situation to gain unfair advantage for oneself:
I chose the word exploitation in my own post because it seemed to fit -- I was thinking of Tuskegee when I wrote it, but of course it might apply to other medical situations (Henrietta Lacks also comes to mind), and of course it might not apply to some situations too.

Janit is absolutely correct. While some might say it's unacceptable to take advantage of research obtained through morally reprehensible practices, the cost of ignoring the research and knowledge is higher. The best we can do is to try to avoid the practices in future, but sticking our heads in the sand isn't a satisfactory or workable solution. That Henrietta Lacks' family is OK with her cells being used for vaccine research and to find cures for diseases (despite the terrible way in which those cells were obtained) says a lot.

[RgrF]

Unless I'm mistaken, some medical advances developed by barbaric Nazi practitioners during the war era were later found to be acceptable effective and then incorporated into western medical practice.

[p8712]

RgrF wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, some medical advances developed by barbaric Nazi practitioners during the war era were later found to be acceptable effective and then incorporated into western medical practice.

Not many. The rewarming studies were the only medical stuff of value. Everything else will see it as