My goal is to protect children from disease. My belief is that protecting children against disease and death NOW is a moral imperative more important than obsessing over the 50+ yr old origin of cells used to make vaccines. The Catholic Church agrees w/ me. @Right_to_Life doesn'thttps://twitter.com/Right_to_Life/status/1006551994037915648 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @gorskon @Right_to_Life
More than that. At least in part, the Catholic Church's position is because one of the
#vaccines in question - rubella - is against an infection that targets the unborn in particular. Fighting against the vaccine's use risks bringing back rubella, which kills and harms newborns.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Your interlocutor may not have considered its support for the bill through. Here is a pro-life view on the use of these
#vaccines.https://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/you-can-be-the-pro-life-parent-of-a-fully-vaccinated-child/ …2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Again, we don't take a position on their use, but people should be informed. Is there any reason to stop people from being informed other than deceiving them into doing something they would object to if they had proper informed consent?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
It's pretty easy to get that information. The language of the bill is not designed to inform, but to cause an emotional response and scare people away. If it wanted to inform, it would add an explanation on cell lines. It's not. We both know this bill is designed to deter.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
You could take the following the position: we are all in favor of people knowing what is and is not in
#vaccines. But since we value life, including of the unborn, we are against using emotionally manipulative language and partial information to scare people from using them.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
How is it emotionally manipulative? Please explain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
"Fetal Tissue" is a term designed to evoke emotions, and is very, very far from "cell lines descended many times, and far removed, from cells taken from fetal tissues in the 1960s". It's designed to make people think there are fetal parts in the vaccine, and that's misleading.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
We do a pretty good job of explaining it: https://rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html … How it will be explained exactly is up to the MDHHS. Let's say the MDHHS gives out information explaining the source very accurately, would you then support this bill?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Right_to_Life @gorskon
I agree that your description of cell lines is accurate, even if some of the opening paragraphs are problematic. I would not support the bill as it is. It's emotionally manipulative, and I'm troubled that you do. It's okay to trick and harm people for the goal?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Apparently, yes it is, the same way anti-GMO activists want GMO "labeling" bills in the name of "informing" consumers in order to scare them into not buying anything with GMOs in it. The tactic is the same.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.