here i'll clarify- "innocent people getting killed for vaccines" is a stupid way to look at what is a complex moral issue. it's a gross mischaracterization. the treatments, vaccines, and medications that result from research on donated fetal tissue are a side effect rather than the main purpose of elective (or heck let's go crazy and even consider medically necessary) abortions. this research builds things that are objectively good for humanity-i think it's relevant to note that rubella was causing thousands of miscarriages a year prior to the introduction of the vaccine. this is a case of something objectively good being plucked out of something that represents, at best, a moral grey area in the minds of a lot of people. the mechanics and logistics of it are what is causing the outrage. the idea that oh my god these horrible monsters are talking so flippantly about dead baby parts. people are happy to reap the benefits so long as the source of it isn't staring them in the face, but that's true for a lot of things i suppose.
merck has acknowledged that the original cell line was derived from an elective abortion in the late 60s. the vatican has even issued press releases and statements about the dilemma this poses for catholics.
this board is full of people who've tangibly benefited from elective abortions. are we just going to continue ignoring that? even if you're an anti-vaxxer you still live in a country where most people have their MMR vaccines so you have herd immunity working in your favor. the rubella component was developed with tissue from an elective abortion. that cell line is still being used to manufacture that vaccine today. yeah this isn't pleasant poo to read about but could there just be a nanosecond of introspection before you go wagging your finger and claiming the moral high ground in all of this?
eh we heard the exact same stuff about curtis lofton when he became a saint. two down thumper who was supposed to anchor their run defense which would supposedly make up for his inability to cover the pass.
32 teams passed on him in the draft, including the one that eventually signed him. as a UDFA he essentially had his pick of any of the teams in the league because everybody would be coming at him with essentially the same offer. see you say you're not saying or implying anything but then you post something like this:
you're clearly implying that we had a shot at collins but didn't pursue him instead opting for jonathan martin. there's no other way to take that statement so you're better off not trying to weasel out of it. the clear implication is that the panthers could have signed collins but chose not to and jerry richardson blocked it. of course nobody is actually able to definitively prove that but hey it resonates with people of a certain mindset on this site so i guess you have that going for you. for what it's worth, PFT did report that the panthers were among the teams interested:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/07/report-lael-collins-in-dallas-to-visit-cowboys/ you're a mega noob so you do get a pass for not realizing that this was discussed to death on this site during the draft. then right after it when teams were hustling to sign him. then after that when dallas signed him. there's a healthy "jerry richardson only wants a team of choirboys" circle jerk that erupts on this site any time the panthers fail to sign/draft some dude with "character concerns" so if you want that to be your posting gimmick you'll be in good company here.
when i came back from my freshman year of college i had a nasty stained rug from my dorm room that we could have probably wrung an entire case of beer out of. i wanted to throw it away but my dad for some reason thought it would be a good idea to "save" it by lathering the entire thing up with laundry detergent, power washing it, and then leaving it to bake in the sun on a blazing hot summer day in hickory. the next day it smelled like an 8x11 wet dog so we just chucked it in the trash. anyway every inch of one of the buildings i was in this morning smelled exactly like that so that's what offended me today
hey (random huddle user) i'm just letting you know that i have in my possession an extremely embarrassing post of yours from last year that i'm going to show to everyone soon. i may have possibly (read: definitely have) unfairly and deceptively edited it to make you look worse. i'm inviting you to defend yourself under oath from these as-yet undefined accusations. if you choose not to without seeing the content first then that means you're hiding something and everyone will assume that these non-specific things i'm alluding to (they are really, really bad and likely illegal trust me on this) are probably true. in the mean time based on another heavily edited post of yours i have previously shown to everyone i've pulled some strings and the moderation staff is weighing the possibility of banning you even though nobody has proven that you did anything against the site rules/TOS. sound fair?