Social Media in Opposition
This morning, I woke up and scrolled social media, as so many people do. The two posts below were together, and both are from friends of mine. They are in complete opposition to each other regarding the importance of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. I agree, in part, with both posts. I agree that everyone, who is willing to do so, should get the vaccination. I also recognize that this is an Experimental Use Authorization (EUA) only. Experimental means that NO ONE-not the experts, not the government, not Dr. Fauci, not Facebook-knows the long-term effects of this vaccine.
As someone who IS vaccinated, who chose to participate in the “great experiment” that is happening across the world right now, I do want to note that I made the decision based on a lot of personal factors, including that I am at high risk of death due to age and certain conditions if I get C-19. Also, those that get the vaccination are part of the study that will determine whether it works, what it will do over time, how long it lasts, and more. I am young enough to help show the long-term value or lack thereof, and I am glad to be a part of that. It gives value to my day-to-day life.
Yet, I see that there are a lot of reasons to not get the vaccination. Unlike so many time- and trial-tested vaccines that are given to prevent polio, chickenpox, mumps, influenza, and many others, this vaccine has been authorized for Emergency Use only and has not been tested for possible negative long-term outcomes. People are concerned about how this might affect their ability to conceive, whether mRNA will impact the conception of their child, and in young recipients, how the vaccine might impact their growth and development. These are valid reasons to want to put the brakes on when considering vaccination.
Ethics
Then, too, the ethics of the speedy development of these vaccines weigh heavily on many hearts. As I noted earlier, there are some ethical considerations here as well. People are concerned about the use of aborted fetus cells during the development of the vaccines** and that is also a valid concern. Authentically Pro-Life people are concerned about being complicit through any act that is or can be associated with devaluing life.
So, now you say, well, protecting life is what these vaccines are about, so why is it such a big deal?
One person I know got the Johnson&Johnson vaccine because they felt that it was developed in the manner of a traditional vaccine, which in their mind, meant that the possible negative effects were similar to other vaccines and possibly diminished for long-term effects. I opposed the J&J because my personal research had also shown that they used a traditional method to develop their vaccine. Cells from a line or lines of an aborted fetus were used (Charlotte Lozier Institute) to test during the development of the vaccine. **
I chose the mRNA Pfizer version, which, unfortunately also used cells from those lines, but much later in the process, and in a much less direct way. (Charlotte Lozier Institute)
I also researched the science of this new way to vaccinate and found it to be innovative as a way to protect us from this deadly virus.
Controversial “Freedom”
Freedom. The right to be informed, the right to make decisions, and, frankly, the right to CHOOSE. Contrary to popular belief, being authentically pro-life means believing that all people have the right to choose certain paths in their lives. When those choices impact the right of another human being to make a choice, then choosing must be tempered by weighing the rights of others. It is not the function of the government to mandate experimental medical “care” upon its people. CHOICE often appears to be a matter of perspective, but it is truly very simple. The founders of the United States understood that there were three basic rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. They may have had difficulty recognizing the “humanity” of the people in the country, but they understood that every human has rights.
So, that brings us to today. Yes, being vaccinated against a disease may mean you will survive the disease. Also, receiving a new vaccine against a new disease may mean you will have any number of side effects, known or unknown, in the near or distant future.
“Nurse Jones” decides that a vaccine is too risky and says no. Do we have a right to take their ability to work from them? Being vaccinated doesn’t indicate protection for anyone except the vaccinated person. My vaccination doesn’t protect my friends and family from catching C-19 from me. It only means I (probably) won’t get symptoms (or as severe a case) if I am exposed to C-19, which actually could then be “shed” to others without their knowledge. Therefore, the argument that someone must get vaccinated to protect others is erroneous.
The reason employers and the government want you to get a vaccine has nothing to do with protecting other people. It is about money, about economics. If someone is sick, they can’t work. If they can’t work, someone is losing services, goods, and taxes. If someone is sick, money is being spent to make them well. For this reason, mandating a vaccine in the experimental stage is irresponsible and tyrannical.
Providing a vaccine and encouraging its use is appropriate and for the common good. See the difference?
PS: My own experience has shown that while masks may not be the best way to prevent illness, they do help protect from a lot of germs! Fighting over the use of masks is pointless and a waste of everyone’s energy. Wear them, don’t wear them, and stay out of other people’s faces!
**THERE ARE NO FETAL CELLS IN THE VACCINES!!!!
