What if it was? You are misdirecting. You asked what would happen if we gave up all of the vaccines developed from those cell lines implying some sort of utilitarian argument. When it was pointed out that they are unnecessary, you point at a completely unrelated issue.
Those same cell lines are also used in developing products such as coke, a much less noble and utilitarian pursuit than even the things you suggest justify it.
The point of this discussion is that nobody should be forced to take any vaccine which is made with the cells of aborted fetuses or even one fetus, on moral grounds, and this is separate and apart from the issue of whether the vaccine is helpful or dangerous.
Good question. There are other options such as using cells from fetuses who died as a result of a natural miscarriage instead of being murdered. Or placental cells could be used. There are also other ways of breeding viruses or viral analogs which do the same thing without using human cell lines at all. For example, a Canadian company has developed a process where it uses tobacco plants to create the spike protein. The world would not end without exploiting aborted fetuses.
Obviously they were not aborted for the covid vaccine. But they were aborted, and like ghouls we are using their body parts.
Let's see if you are capable of lateral thinking. Let's assume that Mengele's horrific experiments on twins actually, by a fortuitous chance, yielded crucial information that would help develop a covid vaccine. Perhaps one of the samples he collected from the twins he murdered had some useful genetic material, say a genetic trait that made the person immune to covid. If Mengele had not tortured and killed this child and put one of their organs in formaldehyde we would have never had this precious genetic material. Thus - stay with me - the murder (though for a completely different purpose, and frankly plain quackery on the part of Mengele) led to an an unexpected benefit. Do we profit from that crime by using it for the greater good?
This question has actually been considered by medical ethicists. The Nazis used to conduct experiments on hypothermia by killing Jews by freezing them to death. The research data generated is actually useful and could be used to save patients suffering from hypothermia. The ethical consensus is that this data must not be used because it is the product of murder and it does not matter how much good it might produce.
Now as for the greater good that you propose, that is just a bullshit number. Kids are almost completely free of complications and almost none have died, even using the inflated government statistics. There was a moral panic when a 10 year old died in the US conveniently just as the government started to push the vaxx for children, but when you saw his picture he must have weighed 300 pounds. His parents were disgusting people for letting a 10 year old become a whale, but in that state a cold or flu would eventually have killed him. No need to upend society and turn it into a medical apartheid state.
People who do not know what the vaccines are made of are not morally culpable. Those who know and benefit from the crime are guilty of it.
"One fetus in 1966."
Would it be okay if we used the cells of one murdered Jewish child killed in one of Doctor Mengele's medical experiments? Could we say that it was only one murder and it saved so many lives so we can all have a clear conscience? Would that make Mengele a good man for the good he brought the world (in this thought experiement)?
That is frightening. Some of what they were saying was even intellectually stimulating, with correct allusions to other authors.
I am familiar with Inferkit.com, which can do a pretty good job of writing fiction and press releases, but the website you linked to is impressive. I am assuming that the weapon's grade bots are even better.
Moot because they dropped the mandates and so there is nothing to challenge. But because of this there is no ruling that says they cannot bring them back. And they will, and then get rid of them again just before a court ruling so they can keep doing unconstitutional things without oversight or effective challenge.
He is actually technically right. He did not call them names. He used insulting adjectives. So no perjury.
There is a distinction. For example: he is a misogynist vs. he is misogynistic
I am not defending Trudy. But the lawyer who was examining him should have had better command of the facts and confronted him with what he said, leaving him no wiggle room.