Elizabeth Bathory, call your office.

Nazi lampshades.

Don’t forget “Jew Soap,” Phillip.

I’d heard of such products having been marketed in Europe for some years; this is the first I’d heard of it being sold here. I always read the labels on skin products for good measure. Ladies of a certain age: if the source of the collagen isn’t specified, beware!

cminor,

I didn’t know about that one.

But, don’t we do the same by recycling “slaughtered innocence” in blended families from divorced/annulled Catholic marriages – even when they have been held to be valid yet, laity and clergy alike, welcome those who have slaughtered that innocence and those innocents. And those who have been abandoned are openly “slaughtered” for saying the truth, because we are ignored, over and over and over.

I do hope you do not ban me for this Mr. McClarey.

What I say is true, no different than what you said is true. I can name names as well, so can the priests and bishops, but we cannot make them care.

As disgusting and immoral as this is, it’s important to be accurate about the nature of this product.

It is NOT like “Soylent Green” in that it requires a continuous supply of tissue from newly aborted babies. Nor is the use of the product comparable to the atrocities of Elizabeth Bathory, who (according to legend) murdered dozens if not hundreds of young girls in the belief that bathing in their blood would preserve her youthful beauty.

Rather, the product contains a protein extracted from a line of stem cells, continously perpetuated in the laboratory, that originated with ONE aborted child, who likely died many years ago.

A similar situation exists with regard to certain vaccines that were cultivated from fetal cell lines. One commonly used cell line for measles-mumps-rubella vaccine originated with a baby that was aborted more than 40 years ago after its mother was infected with rubella. There are other vaccines, however, that use cell lines from animals.

With regard to the morality of vaccines, Catholic moral theologians are divided. A sampling of their opinions can be found at the Children of God for Life website.

All of these theologians agree that the degree of moral cooperation in abortion incurred by parents who allow their children to receive such vaccinations is extremely remote, given that the original abortion took place long before the PARENTS, let alone the children receiving the vaccinations, were even born.

Most (but not all) are also of the opinion that the need to protect currently living children from disease, particularly if no alternative is available, outweighs the miniscule degree of cooperation involved on the parents’ part. Doctors and researchers, however, have a greater ability and therefore a greater obligation to seek alternatives to these vaccines when possible.

Of course, vaccines against potentially life-threatening diseases are one thing, while cosmetic products which one can easily live without are another. And it goes without saying that the exploitation of even one aborted baby is wrong, no matter how long ago it happened. Plus the fact that the manufacturer would use that as a selling point (probably to promote embryonic stem cell research) is, to say the least, very disturbing. So a boycott of this product is entirely appropriate.

However, let’s be accurate about what is going on here and not give abortion advocates further reason to ridicule the scientific or medical “ignorance” or misinformation of those opposed to their agenda. Also, don’t confuse this with an urban legend that cropped up back in the 1970s claiming that collagen used in cosmetic products came directly from aborted babies.

“I do hope you do not ban me for this Mr. McClarey.”

You have an idee fixe when it comes to your divorce Karl. I’m not going to ban you again yet, but I am placing you on notice that I am not going to allow you to turn threads that have no relation to divorce into arenas where you can vent about how you feel you were ill-treated by the Church. Such comments will be deleted by me in my threads.

Mine was not a “hijack” attempt. It was just to provoke thought. Thank you.

With respect to this comment:

“And it goes without saying that the exploitation of even one aborted baby is wrong, no matter how long ago it happened.”

This is true but is mostly ignored in this case and in other ways in other situations when this same concept can be applied. Such as this should NEVER go without saying, regardless of the circumstances. It can never be stressed enough.

To allow profit from an injustice is commonly accepted by priests and clergy and much more often than not encouraged. This “type” of issue needs to be
adequately addressed but is not. The Catholic Church needs to provide avenues for redress, that is easily actionable through canon law, without expensive canon lawyers, for clergy who encourage such injustices without account. Until such services are available for minimal cost the Catholic Church is actively undermining morality and is sending duplicitous messages. How then can it not expect the same from the faithful?