Do only hypocrites object to testing vaccines using aborted fetal tissue?

Some hold that it is immoral to test vaccines using aborted fetal tissue, and that this moral taint makes it impossible for them to take the vaccine (especially considering that the need for it is not grave).  

One argument against those with this position (not, notice, an argument saying it is moral to test using aborted fetal tissue) is that many if not most of the drugs we use are tested this way.

I have been one of the more aware observers on the issue of aborted fetal cells in the production of medical products. I don't say I'm an expert -- I am not. I just say that I am what could be called a "high-information" reader on the topic.

And I had not known that this was the case. (*see UPDATE below)

I think it safe to say that most people don't know that vaccines or any other medical product is tested (leaving aside other steps) using aborted fetal cells.

Therefore, it is not correct to state or even imply some sort of double standard on the topic. I'd say it's information that is only now becoming known. 

The position that there is some sort of hypocrisy in refusing such vaccines while taking, say, a heart medication is an example of the "tu quoque" logical fallacy. 

You know who indulges in this fallacy on a regular basis? Fr. James Martin, SJ. He often faults Catholic institutions for dismissing employees in "same-sex marriages" on the basis of the same institutions allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to continue to be in their employ.

The two instances (vaccines and irregular unions) differ in this way: No one, as I say, in the general public knew until very recently that most medicines are tested using aborted fetal products, while many Catholic institutions do wink and nod at divorced and remarried couples. 

But in both cases, the appropriate response (and the one that anyone committed to following Our Lord's teachings on the Commandments is ready to give) is simply to conclude that something is also very wrong in the prior case.

We have been too lax in allowing the divorced and remarried to hold positions where they present a bad example and present a scandal, especially to young people. Only a person bent on the destruction of the common good would say, "Oh, right, we've broken God's Commandment in one way, therefore let us go ahead and break it in some other ways as well!"

Likewise, the proper conclusion to draw from this discovery that aborted fetal cells are used broadly in medical production is to begin holding our medical system accountable and to require changes in how medications are tested, derived, and produced -- certainly not to say that our previous ignorance now makes this heinous activity acceptable.

On the contrary. Vaccines represent a challenge, a line we will not cross, when we can call a halt to a practice we oppose. We can seize this opportunity and then begin to address the rest. My husband called for us to do this when we were able, and sadly, the opportunity passed. Nevertheless, better late than never. 

And you know, Providence is actually making it easy for us. We have very little to lose by refusing this vaccine. As far as any risk is concerned, the odds are overwhelmingly in our favor.**

____

*UPDATE: Please read this article by Dr. Brian Kopp to understand how Fr. Matthew Schneider LC uses spurious methods to arrive at the conclusion that most objecting to the aborted fetal tissue use are hypocrites: Not so fast. The Very Misleading Article By a Priest on Drugs And Abortion Testing

"The author simply searched an over the counter or prescription medication name plus “Hek 293” cells and if they came up positively associated in medical or scientific literature, he claimed they too were “ethically tainted” and all us pro lifers had to abandon the use of those drugs too, if we were going to oppose fetal stem cell tainted Covid vaccines on those grounds.

"However, when he researched these medications, he failed to distinguish those that were tested on, developed with and/or manufactured with fetal cells before or during their initial introduction, from those that, for academic reasons, years later were tested on fetal stem cell lines." 

The article goes on to show how most of the medications cited by Fr. Schneider LC do not meet the criterion of taintedness. 

**Manufacturers of the vaccines do not recommend them for those at risk; those not at risk are... not at risk. I'm not going to argue about this, as it's all a matter of record and can be read in their own material (as opposed to the propaganda put out by the so-called experts who have a vested interest in our overlooking what the manufacturers themselves claim for their products). In addition, every medical intervention, including vaccination, carries risks. The key is to evaluate relative risk.