< 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Abortion and Vaccines

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  7391
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 July 2021 17:20
 
lynmc - 26 July 2021 04:36 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2021 02:22 PM
lynmc - 26 July 2021 12:03 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2021 10:31 AM
lynmc - 26 July 2021 09:58 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 July 2021 09:10 PM
lynmc - 24 July 2021 09:00 AM

Nonsense.  The pregnancy is an issue that only affects the woman (or maybe the father, but he should have obtained the woman’s consent to bear the child before doing anything that might cause pregnancy if he wanted a child).

That argument only begs the question of whether abortion harms the unborn child. Of course, you don’t think so…

A fetus isn’t a child.  Before a certain number of weeks, it isn’t anything differentiate it as a “human being” from other animals, that is, thinking, having imagination, independent action, and so on.  A child is defined as a human being between the ages of birth and puberty.

But I guess you think women should be required against their will to provide their wombs as incubators until such time as the fetus can become a viable child, despite the inherent danger of doing so.

Back to weird’s post, it doesn’t seem that important whether the government interference in people’s lives is prescriptive or proscriptive.

The argument that the fetus/unborn child doesn’t incur any harm because it doesn’t meet your definition of things that can incur harm is just as one-sided and ignorant as the argument that the woman’s right to liberty isn’t violated or doesn’t matter when we proscribe her from receiving an abortion. You and your counterparts are equally wrong.

I still say that prescriptive mandates are more intrusive—hence more onerous—than proscriptive mandates. And I think the fact that proscriptive mandates are “routine,” but prescriptive mandates are few and far between reflects a consensus on that position. Just look at this thread: people have gone out of their way to express opposition to a prescriptive vaccination mandate. Why? Because the difference between not allowing people to do X and forcing them to do X is important.

Forcing a woman against her wish to incubate a fetus, where the risk of harm is much greater than taking the vaccine, meets your definition of prescriptive.  You propose forcing them to do X.

I don’t recall proposing any such thing. You’re putting words in my posts.

Are you or aren’t you in favor of banning abortions, on the flimsy premise that banning abortions is proscriptive and therefore an OK law for governments to pass?

My views on abortion have nothing to do with proscription or prescription. Why would you assume that? Are you conflating the alleged incongruity posed in the OP with the rightness or wrongness of abortion laws?

But since you bring it up, my stand on abortion is that they be prescribed for women who become pregnant while receiving public assistance. Or would that be proscribing pregnant women from receiving public assistance if they refuse to get abortions?

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
26 July 2021 17:43
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2021 05:09 PM
weird buffalo - 26 July 2021 04:14 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2021 02:20 PM
weird buffalo - 26 July 2021 01:50 PM

It literally fits the definition of your prescriptive mandate.  Sorry that you don’t like the definition that you gave earlier.  The law mandates what a doctor has to do.  It is a compelled action, which fully falls within your previous definition of a prescribed mandate.

No, the law doesn’t mandate that the doctor do anything at all. The doctor is not compelled to perform the abortion, nor is she compelled to perform the vaginal ultrasound.

If the law compelled doctors to perform vaginal ultrasounds on all pregnant women regardless of whether they wanted to perform an abortion, and compelled all pregnant women to undergo vaginal ultrasounds regardless of whether they wanted an abortion, that would be an example of a prescriptive mandate.

But as it is, the law is analogous to so-called “vaccine passports:” “You can’t go to the show without being vaccinated” is different than “You have to get vaccinated, period, or you’ll be punished.” And, “You can’t have (or perform) an abortion without a vaginal ultrasound” is different than “You have to have a vaginal ultrasound, period, or you’ll be punished.”

No shit the doctor isn’t compelled to perform the abortion, the law is attempting to discourage abortions.  The law prescribes that the doctor is required to perform medically unnecessary actions prior to the abortion.  You’re starting to get as stupid as these lawmakers.

So in your mind, forcing all pregnant women to undergo vaginal ultrasounds whether they’re getting abortions or not, as well as forcing doctors to perform them under threat of punishment for refusing; and not allowing abortions without a prerequisite vaginal ultrasound, are both examples of “prescriptive-not-proscriptive” mandates?

Mandates like the Kentucky law are indeed routine. Mandates like my hypothetical one are rare. Maybe you don’t like my semantics: prescriptive vs. proscriptive. How about “unconditionally prescriptive” and “conditionally prescriptive?” Whatever. Do you agree that there’s a clear difference and distinction between the two?

Don’t forget the point of all this:

weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 09:01 AM

Am I missing anything about the incongruency of the conservative stance on these two issues?

I assume you agree that there’s a clear difference and distinction between vaccination passports, which you support, and a blanket vaccination mandate, which you don’t. Unless you’re just being capricious, which I don’t think you are. Conservatives aren’t being incongruent because that same distinction exists between “vaginal ultrasound passports” and a blanket vaginal ultrasound mandate.

And yes, obviously the law’s intended purpose is to make abortions harder to get and perform. Why do you think that’s relevant? We both oppose the Kentucky law but support vaccine passports. Is that in and of itself sufficient to claim incongruency?

I don’t think any of your prescriptive/proscriptive conditional or not explains why anyone supports the government intervention in one area, but not the other.  I think it’s a distinction you’ve found that differentiates them to you, but these are not arguments that are used in the broader debate about these topics.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  725
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
27 July 2021 15:32
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2021 05:20 PM
lynmc - 26 July 2021 04:36 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2021 02:22 PM
lynmc - 26 July 2021 12:03 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 July 2021 10:31 AM
lynmc - 26 July 2021 09:58 AM
Antisocialdarwinist - 25 July 2021 09:10 PM
lynmc - 24 July 2021 09:00 AM

Nonsense.  The pregnancy is an issue that only affects the woman (or maybe the father, but he should have obtained the woman’s consent to bear the child before doing anything that might cause pregnancy if he wanted a child).

That argument only begs the question of whether abortion harms the unborn child. Of course, you don’t think so…

A fetus isn’t a child.  Before a certain number of weeks, it isn’t anything differentiate it as a “human being” from other animals, that is, thinking, having imagination, independent action, and so on.  A child is defined as a human being between the ages of birth and puberty.

But I guess you think women should be required against their will to provide their wombs as incubators until such time as the fetus can become a viable child, despite the inherent danger of doing so.

Back to weird’s post, it doesn’t seem that important whether the government interference in people’s lives is prescriptive or proscriptive.

The argument that the fetus/unborn child doesn’t incur any harm because it doesn’t meet your definition of things that can incur harm is just as one-sided and ignorant as the argument that the woman’s right to liberty isn’t violated or doesn’t matter when we proscribe her from receiving an abortion. You and your counterparts are equally wrong.

I still say that prescriptive mandates are more intrusive—hence more onerous—than proscriptive mandates. And I think the fact that proscriptive mandates are “routine,” but prescriptive mandates are few and far between reflects a consensus on that position. Just look at this thread: people have gone out of their way to express opposition to a prescriptive vaccination mandate. Why? Because the difference between not allowing people to do X and forcing them to do X is important.

Forcing a woman against her wish to incubate a fetus, where the risk of harm is much greater than taking the vaccine, meets your definition of prescriptive.  You propose forcing them to do X.

I don’t recall proposing any such thing. You’re putting words in my posts.

Are you or aren’t you in favor of banning abortions, on the flimsy premise that banning abortions is proscriptive and therefore an OK law for governments to pass?

My views on abortion have nothing to do with proscription or prescription. Why would you assume that? Are you conflating the alleged incongruity posed in the OP with the rightness or wrongness of abortion laws?

But since you bring it up, my stand on abortion is that they be prescribed for women who become pregnant while receiving public assistance. Or would that be proscribing pregnant women from receiving public assistance if they refuse to get abortions?

We all get some public assistance.  I, for example, get police protection, roads, courts.  And much of my employment has been work on government contracts.

And now you want to deny a woman a fundamental right, to bear a child if she wishes, because she gets public assistance?  That is almost eugenics, or maybe it’s actual eugenics, I don’t know.

Proscriptive vs prescriptive is a distinction without a difference.  Prescribe an abortion, proscribe a pregnancy or proscribe an abortion, prescribe a pregnancy, it’s the same, government interference in the fundamental rights of the woman to do what she wants, personally, with her own body.


 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  552
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
31 August 2021 13:17
 
weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 09:01 AM

If the government can decide for you whether or not you’re allowed to have an abortion, then it also has the right to mandate whether or not you get a vaccine.

Once you say that the government can force medical treatment that is logically indistinguishable from saying they can deny it as well, and for any reason.

Because when you hand your own sovereignty away, for what you think is a good reason, it’s gone, and you no longer get to decide what a “good reason” is.  That decision will be made by your overseers.

weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 09:01 AM

If the government has the right to mandate medical choices for women, then it has the right to make medical choices for all citizens.

Killing an underdeveloped baby is not as cut and dry ethically as you’re implying here.

If for the sake of argument a baby was born prematurely during the window of time abortions are still allowed, would it be murder if I crushed its skull with a sledgehammer?  What if the umbilical cord was still attached? 

Further still, how can one decide where to draw that line of when you can kill a developing baby and when you can’t?  It is a completely subjective line you are drawing….

I can draw an objective line by saying as soon as a pregnancy can be detected, that baby’s life is as valid as any other human’s life.

You could draw an objective line that says once the baby has exited the vagina, it now is considered a human and its life is valid. 

But anything in between those is not a principled position.  If you’re okay with that, so be it.  To say you can kill it at any time is principled.  To say you cannot kill it any time is principled.

If you appeal to a certain age range of the developing baby in which it’s acceptable to kill it, I don’t see how you can decide where to draw that line.

And I fundamentally don’t see why the arguments you would make to kill an underdeveloped baby couldn’t be extended to a developed one.

Vaccines and abortions are really not similar in the reasons why both are opposed.  A pretty normal viewpoint is that vaccines are an individual choice, and developing babies, because they do not have a voice need to have some kind of protection from being killed.  Since they have no individual choice, we have laws in place to protect them.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
31 August 2021 13:27
 
Quadrewple - 31 August 2021 01:17 PM
weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 09:01 AM

If the government can decide for you whether or not you’re allowed to have an abortion, then it also has the right to mandate whether or not you get a vaccine.

Once you say that the government can force medical treatment that is logically indistinguishable from saying they can deny it as well, and for any reason.

Because when you hand your own sovereignty away, for what you think is a good reason, it’s gone, and you no longer get to decide what a “good reason” is.  That decision will be made by your overseers.

weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 09:01 AM

If the government has the right to mandate medical choices for women, then it has the right to make medical choices for all citizens.

Killing an underdeveloped baby is not as cut and dry ethically as you’re implying here.

If for the sake of argument a baby was born prematurely during the window of time abortions are still allowed, would it be murder if I crushed its skull with a sledgehammer?  What if the umbilical cord was still attached? 

Further still, how can one decide where to draw that line of when you can kill a developing baby and when you can’t?  It is a completely subjective line you are drawing….

I can draw an objective line by saying as soon as a pregnancy can be detected, that baby’s life is as valid as any other human’s life.

You could draw an objective line that says once the baby has exited the vagina, it now is considered a human and its life is valid. 

But anything in between those is not a principled position.  If you’re okay with that, so be it.  To say you can kill it at any time is principled.  To say you cannot kill it any time is principled.

If you appeal to a certain age range of the developing baby in which it’s acceptable to kill it, I don’t see how you can decide where to draw that line.

And I fundamentally don’t see why the arguments you would make to kill an underdeveloped baby couldn’t be extended to a developed one.

Vaccines and abortions are really not similar in the reasons why both are opposed.  A pretty normal viewpoint is that vaccines are an individual choice, and developing babies, because they do not have a voice need to have some kind of protection from being killed.  Since they have no individual choice, we have laws in place to protect them.

I’m glad you think that somewhere in there, you addressed what I was talking about.

 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  552
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
01 September 2021 14:35
 

[.

weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 09:01 AM

I’m glad you think that somewhere in there, you addressed what I was talking about.

I just outlined the entire abortion debate for you and the logic involved.

So that does address your original post.  The argument is not about “saving lives” it’s about the right to explicitly and intentionally kill a developing human being. 

Not taking a vaccine does not either directly or indirectly kill anyone else.  And as soon as you say I have an obligation to take a vaccine to prevent someone else from dying, that also creates an obligation in that person to not make health choices that necessitate my having to take that risk on their behalf.

Otherwise its total nonsense.  It’d be like people who have a severe sensitivity to EMF trying to take away everyone else’s rights to use electronics. 

A small.minority of people have a severe sensitivity to normal human interaction.  As much as that sucks, there is no obligation for me to do anything about it.  And luckily most of those people can simply lose weight, cut the sugar and they no longer have that sensitivity.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
01 September 2021 19:55
 
Quadrewple - 01 September 2021 02:35 PM

[.

weird buffalo - 23 July 2021 09:01 AM

I’m glad you think that somewhere in there, you addressed what I was talking about.

I just outlined the entire abortion debate for you and the logic involved.

So that does address your original post.  The argument is not about “saving lives” it’s about the right to explicitly and intentionally kill a developing human being. 

Not taking a vaccine does not either directly or indirectly kill anyone else.  And as soon as you say I have an obligation to take a vaccine to prevent someone else from dying, that also creates an obligation in that person to not make health choices that necessitate my having to take that risk on their behalf.

Otherwise its total nonsense.  It’d be like people who have a severe sensitivity to EMF trying to take away everyone else’s rights to use electronics. 

A small.minority of people have a severe sensitivity to normal human interaction.  As much as that sucks, there is no obligation for me to do anything about it.  And luckily most of those people can simply lose weight, cut the sugar and they no longer have that sensitivity.

No, you did not address my question from the OP.  I would know.  I’m the one that posed the link between these two issues.  I’m sure you’re going to repeat yourself nearly verbatim.  But as long as you just repeat yourself, there won’t be a need for me to reply.

[ Edited: 01 September 2021 19:57 by weird buffalo]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3851
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
02 September 2021 08:45
 

I think there are too many differences between abortion and vaccinations for me to make a useful comparison.

Not taking a vaccine DOES endanger the lives and health of others.  If everyone had done their part from the beginning, we’d have a much better handle on this pandemic by now.  There would have been fewer lives lost (including non-Covid deaths due to an overwhelmed healthcare system), long-term health issues, and economic distress.

An individual’s claim to civil liberty ends where their (in)actions impact the health and safety of others.  There is no such thing as total liberty/freedom, to do whatever one wants; it’s a matter of degrees.  There are numerous laws and regulations we all have to abide by every day that restrict the ability to harm others.

If we live in a society, with other people, we DO have obligations.  We do not have the right to selfishly put our desires above the very lives of other people.  Yes, people have the right over their own bodies, but no one is suggesting that anti-vaxxers be held down and given the shot.  What the majority of us want and expect is to be protected from them.  And we’re losing patience.  Enough is enough.

[ Edited: 02 September 2021 09:57 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  552
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
02 September 2021 14:32
 
Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

I think there are too many differences between abortion and vaccinations for me to make a useful comparison.

 

Thats the exact point I was making that seemed to fly over OPs head.

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

Not taking a vaccine DOES endanger the lives and health of others.

If that’s true then why shouldn’t someone be forced to take as many as 150 vaccines over a 50 year span?  If you truly believe that then whats forced injections against the killing of innocent life?

If thats true then anyone who tested positive for CoVid should be imprisoned until they test negative.

Why wouldn’t that be the logical outcome?

Maybe you want a softer, more optically palatable form of house arrest?

 

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

  If everyone had done their part from the beginning, we’d have a much better handle on this pandemic by now.

Im sure they have a nice handle on things in Australia wherein some places you get 1 hour of masked outdoor time per day, like an open air prison.

But seriously, where is this Holy Grail of CoVid response?  Is there an actual country you can point to that did things the “right way” in your estimation?

And what country are you living in currently?

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

There would have been fewer lives lost (including non-Covid deaths due to an overwhelmed healthcare system), long-term health issues, and economic distress.

Again, where is the gold standard right now?  Or the closest to it, by your assessment?

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

An individual’s claim to civil liberty ends where their (in)actions impact the health and safety of others.  There is no such thing as total liberty/freedom, to do whatever one wants; it’s a matter of degrees.  There are numerous laws and regulations we all have to abide by every day that restrict the ability to harm others.

Dont people have the freedom to eat whatever they want?  Don’t people have the freedom to sit on their couches all day?

If my existence as human being walking around minding my own business poses a threat to someones life because of tgeir obesity or sugar addiction or laziness, what share of the responsibility do they have for their own health?

Because that level of responsibility is currently 0, even though we have absolute proof across dozens of nations that obesity, high blood pressure, and high blood sugar put your life in danger whrn you get CoVid

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

Yes, people have the right over their own bodies, but no one is suggesting that anti-vaxxers be held down and given the shot.  What the majority of us want and expect is to be protected from them.  And we’re losing patience.  Enough is enough.

Thats very virtuous of you to champion the views of the majority.  I don’t actually know a single person who thinks unvaccinated people should have their basic human rights taken away.  Even though I know plenty of vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike.

I guess Im living in a bubble and this “majority” you speak isnt something you’re making up to justify your thinly veiled threats for not bowing down to your agenda.

You say you wouldn’t force the vaccine on people but what happens when an unjabbed gets injured/incapacitated and goes to the hospital?  Separate but equal hospitals?

If someone has to take a shot to receive emergency medical treatment, that is in effect totally identical to forcing them to take it.

Regardless of whatever word games you want to play…..

 

 
 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
02 September 2021 15:32
 

In the middle of such a dreadful pandemic I just can’t get my head around this pointless discussion about whether COVID-19 vaccines should be or not be mandatory, regardless whether whatever alleged violation of individual rights would occur. It seems clear to me that for the sake of their individual rights and liberties the people are getting to the extreme point of losing their good sense, which is essential aspect for anyone’s sensible judgment and reflection on the deadly stage of this pandemic that the entire world is going through right now.

I’ve stated this in another thread but am going to repeat it here now because I reckon there are some issues about the fight against the SARS-CoV-2 that sure are worth sharing here and abroad, as I think many people still don’t have a clue about them, alas:

I don’t know if my following concern actually has some scientific coherence, but I’m fearing that each novel strains/variants of the SARS-CoV-2 have a stronger probability of carrying even more different spike proteins than the one that is currently elaborated by the cell ribosomes from the individuals vaccinated with today’s COVID-19 vaccines. If my concern proceeds, I expect the laboratories to be already in urgent need of developing mRNA molecules with the specific code for the elaboration of the Delta variant SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein in our cells, as well as that of other variants/strains just beginning to spread. But then it’s not a far-fetched concern either that the pandemic will keep going on indefinitely alive as far as the massive amount of population from the poor nations keep lacking a proper logistics of vaccine distribution, let alone the increasing lack of either people’s acceptance or proper use or even trust in the public health measures to prevent the virus spread. And finally, I just can’t fathom such an incredibly BIG amount of people still not willing to use masks, let alone get the shot… At the point we are now, it turns out preposterous that there still are those people, who as a matter of fact often excuse the dismissal of COVID-19 vaccines on the sole pretext that still only one of the vaccines is officially approved by the FDA—a behaviour that definitively evidences their complete lack of cognitive ability.

This DW’s report released just a few more than 1 week ago that I stumbled upon has a case in point about my aforementioned concerns. Unfortunately still too many people are not conscious of how deadly this virus can potentially become:

How can we live with the constant mutation of the virus? Fears of deadlier COVID variants

[ Edited: 02 September 2021 18:27 by Rick Robson]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3851
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
02 September 2021 17:06
 
Quadrewple - 02 September 2021 02:32 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

I think there are too many differences between abortion and vaccinations for me to make a useful comparison.

 

Thats the exact point I was making that seemed to fly over OPs head.

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

Not taking a vaccine DOES endanger the lives and health of others.

If that’s true then why shouldn’t someone be forced to take as many as 150 vaccines over a 50 year span?  If you truly believe that then whats forced injections against the killing of innocent life?

If thats true then anyone who tested positive for CoVid should be imprisoned until they test negative.

Why wouldn’t that be the logical outcome?

Maybe you want a softer, more optically palatable form of house arrest?

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

  If everyone had done their part from the beginning, we’d have a much better handle on this pandemic by now.

Im sure they have a nice handle on things in Australia wherein some places you get 1 hour of masked outdoor time per day, like an open air prison.

But seriously, where is this Holy Grail of CoVid response?  Is there an actual country you can point to that did things the “right way” in your estimation?

And what country are you living in currently?

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

There would have been fewer lives lost (including non-Covid deaths due to an overwhelmed healthcare system), long-term health issues, and economic distress.

Again, where is the gold standard right now?  Or the closest to it, by your assessment?

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

An individual’s claim to civil liberty ends where their (in)actions impact the health and safety of others.  There is no such thing as total liberty/freedom, to do whatever one wants; it’s a matter of degrees.  There are numerous laws and regulations we all have to abide by every day that restrict the ability to harm others.

Dont people have the freedom to eat whatever they want?  Don’t people have the freedom to sit on their couches all day?

If my existence as human being walking around minding my own business poses a threat to someones life because of tgeir obesity or sugar addiction or laziness, what share of the responsibility do they have for their own health?

Because that level of responsibility is currently 0, even though we have absolute proof across dozens of nations that obesity, high blood pressure, and high blood sugar put your life in danger whrn you get CoVid

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

Yes, people have the right over their own bodies, but no one is suggesting that anti-vaxxers be held down and given the shot.  What the majority of us want and expect is to be protected from them.  And we’re losing patience.  Enough is enough.

Thats very virtuous of you to champion the views of the majority.  I don’t actually know a single person who thinks unvaccinated people should have their basic human rights taken away.  Even though I know plenty of vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike.

I guess Im living in a bubble and this “majority” you speak isnt something you’re making up to justify your thinly veiled threats for not bowing down to your agenda.

You say you wouldn’t force the vaccine on people but what happens when an unjabbed gets injured/incapacitated and goes to the hospital?  Separate but equal hospitals?

If someone has to take a shot to receive emergency medical treatment, that is in effect totally identical to forcing them to take it.

Regardless of whatever word games you want to play…..

(I find it tricky to do quotes within quotes, so will try to respond to your comments in order.)

I don’t know where you get the 150 number.  From what I’ve heard, it’s expected that an annual booster vaccine may be required for an indeterminate number of years.

No one, individuals or governments, are talking about imprisoning (including house arrest) anyone.  What is being considered, and in some places implemented, in regards to ‘mandatory vaccination’ is restricting access of the unvaccinated (for non-medical reasons) from places of employment and public spaces, but not from essential services.

I live in Canada, and despite the relatively low but disruptive anti-mask/vaxxers, we are faring better than many countries in regards to fighting this pandemic, though the Delta variant is making things more difficult.  The regulations regarding masking and vaccination requirements do vary somewhat from province to province, with Quebec and Alberta on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Sure, people have the freedom to eat whatever they want and sit on their couches all day.  They also have the right to grow old which puts them at added risk.  And those suffering from chronic illnesses deserve our protection.  Contagious diseases will always have a particularly bad effect on the unhealthy, but that doesn’t entitle us to sit in judgement and dismiss their lives as less important – that’s not a society I want to live in.  And Covid is impacting and taking the lives of otherwise healthy people; you must know this.

The level of vaccinations in my country (72.5% first vaccine, 65.5% fully vaccinated) indicates that the majority favour vaccination.  (In the U.S. the numbers are lower but that there are still >50% vaccinated.)  There has been increased calls from hospitals, schools/universities, companies, etc., to mandate vaccination (additional testing for medical exemptions) to protect everyone else’s health and to be able to avoid further shutdowns and return to normalcy.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-poll-shows-majority-of-canadians-support-barring-unvaccinated-from/

As indicated above, mandatory vaccination for employment and public spaces would, and is, not applicable in regards to essential services such as patient access to clinics/hospitals.  Our hospital ICUs (Canada & U.S.) are filling up with the unvaccinated suffering from Covid.  And the medical services available to non-Covid patients have been severely affected by the resources needed to care for the unvaccinated.

So the question is:  Am I my brother’s keeper?  I say yes, I think we should be.

[Edit: link added]

[ Edited: 03 September 2021 04:16 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  1920
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
02 September 2021 17:10
 
Quadrewple - 02 September 2021 02:32 PM
Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

I think there are too many differences between abortion and vaccinations for me to make a useful comparison.

 

Thats the exact point I was making that seemed to fly over OPs head.

Absolutely none of what you said went over my head.  You failed to address the fundamental question I asked though.

If we apply a philosophical duty of the government as a sort of standard, the conservative position concerning these two issues is contradictory.  You did not reconcile this.  You talked about other things, but you did no adopt a philosophical standard and apply it the same in both situations equally.

[ Edited: 02 September 2021 17:16 by weird buffalo]
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3851
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
02 September 2021 18:21
 
Rick Robson - 02 September 2021 03:32 PM

In the middle of such a dreadful pandemic I just can’t get my head around this pointless discussion about whether COVID-19 vaccines should be or not be mandatory, regardless whether whatever alleged violation of individual rights would occur. It seems clear to me that in the name of their individual rights and freedoms the people are getting to the extreme point of losing their good sense demanded by a sensible reflection on the deadly stage of this pandemic the entire world is going through right now.

I’ve stated this in another thread but am going to repeat it here now, because I reckon there are some issues about the fight against the SARS-CoV-2 that I’m sure are worth sharing abroad, as I think many people still don’t have a clue about them, alas:
I don’t know if this is scientifically coherent to state, but I’m fearing that each novel strains or variants of the SARS-CoV-2 have a stronger probability of carrying even more different spike proteins than that one currently elaborated by the cell ribosomes from those individuals vaccinated with today’s COVID-19 vaccines. If my concern proceeds, I expect the laboratories to be already in urgent need of developing mRNA molecules with the specific code for the elaboration of the Delta variant SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein in our cells, as well as of other variants/strains beginning to spread. But then this epidemic will keep going on indefinitely alive as the massive amount of population from the poor nations keep lacking a proper logistics of vaccine distribution, let alone the increasing lack of either people’s acceptance or proper use or even trust in the public health measures to prevent the virus spread. And finally, I just can’t fathom such an incredibly BIG amount of people still not willing to use masks, let alone get the shot… At the point we are now it’s definitively a complete lack of cognitive ability to excuse the dismissal of COVID-19 vaccines on the fact that still only one of them is officially approved by the FDA.
This DW’s report released just a few more than 1 week ago that I stumbled upon has a case in point about my aforementioned concerns. Unfortunately still too many people are not conscious of how deadly this virus can potentially become:
How can we live with the constant mutation of the virus? Fears of deadlier COVID variants

Agree.
We not only need to do all that we can to avoid further spread and thus lessen the chance of new variants emerging, but developed countries need to increase vaccine distribution to poorer nations.

 

 
 
Rick Robson
 
Avatar
 
 
Rick Robson
Total Posts:  119
Joined  22-09-2017
 
 
 
02 September 2021 18:39
 
Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 06:21 PM
Rick Robson - 02 September 2021 03:32 PM

In the middle of such a dreadful pandemic I just can’t get my head around this pointless discussion about whether COVID-19 vaccines should be or not be mandatory, regardless whether whatever alleged violation of individual rights would occur. It seems clear to me that in the name of their individual rights and freedoms the people are getting to the extreme point of losing their good sense demanded by a sensible reflection on the deadly stage of this pandemic the entire world is going through right now.

I’ve stated this in another thread but am going to repeat it here now, because I reckon there are some issues about the fight against the SARS-CoV-2 that I’m sure are worth sharing abroad, as I think many people still don’t have a clue about them, alas:
I don’t know if this is scientifically coherent to state, but I’m fearing that each novel strains or variants of the SARS-CoV-2 have a stronger probability of carrying even more different spike proteins than that one currently elaborated by the cell ribosomes from those individuals vaccinated with today’s COVID-19 vaccines. If my concern proceeds, I expect the laboratories to be already in urgent need of developing mRNA molecules with the specific code for the elaboration of the Delta variant SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein in our cells, as well as of other variants/strains beginning to spread. But then this epidemic will keep going on indefinitely alive as the massive amount of population from the poor nations keep lacking a proper logistics of vaccine distribution, let alone the increasing lack of either people’s acceptance or proper use or even trust in the public health measures to prevent the virus spread. And finally, I just can’t fathom such an incredibly BIG amount of people still not willing to use masks, let alone get the shot… At the point we are now it’s definitively a complete lack of cognitive ability to excuse the dismissal of COVID-19 vaccines on the fact that still only one of them is officially approved by the FDA.
This DW’s report released just a few more than 1 week ago that I stumbled upon has a case in point about my aforementioned concerns. Unfortunately still too many people are not conscious of how deadly this virus can potentially become:
How can we live with the constant mutation of the virus? Fears of deadlier COVID variants

Agree.
We not only need to do all that we can to avoid further spread and thus lessen the chance of new variants emerging, but developed countries need to increase vaccine distribution to poorer nations.

 

Absolutely. And for that to happen the pharmaceutical companies and industries certainly should change once and for all their major approach taken during this pandemic which has been focusing mostly (or even solely) on the most profits they can get. And there’s also a tough issue that urges to be resolved about the vaccines manufacturing, commercialisation and distribution which is the vaccine patents—their waive would certainly help many more nations, especially the poor ones. In my point of view, intellectual property and pandemics should not mix at all.

I just edited my previous post you quoted, made to it some pertinent corrections (English is not my mother language) and highlighted some issues I think should be addressed with more emphasis.

[Edited to include the sentence about vaccine patent.]

[ Edited: 02 September 2021 20:29 by Rick Robson]
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  552
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
04 September 2021 13:49
 
Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

I don’t know where you get the 150 number.  From what I’ve heard, it’s expected that an annual booster vaccine may be required for an indeterminate number of years.

 

Assuming 3 shots a year that’s 150 over 50 years.

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

No one, individuals or governments, are talking about imprisoning (including house arrest) anyone.  What is being considered, and in some places implemented, in regards to ‘mandatory vaccination’ is restricting access of the unvaccinated (for non-medical reasons) from places of employment and public spaces, but not from essential services.

 

That’s not what’s going on in Australia.  In a “hotspot” you have 1 hour of masked outdoor time.  And the last I saw they were going to make you check in using FaceTime or some such app when the government requests your location.

They MIGHT be giving the vaxxed 2 hours of outdoor time soon.

So respectfully, you dont seem to be aware of the lengths these sociopathic megalomaniacs are willing to go.

And for all I know, you have no line in the sand wherein you say “This is too far.”

And if you don’t have that line drawn yourself, the politicians and medical establishment will draw it for you.

If they decide thats you being caged animal, that’s what you’ll be.  And apparently you’re okay with that…..you think youre the tool operator when youre really the tool.

Have you not noticed how far the goalposts have been moved in the last 18 months?  Are you okay with that?

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

I live in Canada, and despite the relatively low but disruptive anti-mask/vaxxers, we are faring better than many countries in regards to fighting this pandemic, though the Delta variant is making things more difficult.  The regulations regarding masking and vaccination requirements do vary somewhat from province to province, with Quebec and Alberta on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Okay so if Canada is doing very well or well, how would you say Sweden is faring, and based on what numbers? 

Israel is among the most vaccinated in the world, how would you say theyre faring?

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

And those suffering from chronic illnesses deserve our protection.  Contagious diseases will always have a particularly bad effect on the unhealthy, but that doesn’t entitle us to sit in judgement and dismiss their lives as less important – that’s not a society I want to live in.  And Covid is impacting and taking the lives of otherwise healthy people; you must know this.

Old people have vaccines, they have Vitamin V, D, Zinc, Quercetin, etc.

They have plenty of tools available to them.  And yes, some of them will die.  To live is to die, to live long is to live on death’s door.  I’m delivering you the message of the reality of life on this planet - theres no need to act like I made it this way or that I WANT it to be this way, or act as if my opinion has any effect on that reality.

And no one questioned their right to live long.  Youre questioning my right to my own medical sovereignty and bodily autonomy to move around as I please, committing absolutely zero crimes.  You’re making crimes out of basic human functions.

And it isnt me who is judging anyone’s life as less important, even though you probably deem women and children’s as more important than a male’s in an emergency situation (as you should) and a child’s life as more valuable than an adult’s (as you should).

People who sit around eating junk are deeming their OWN lives as less important.  And many of them feel entitled to force me making sacrifices to keep them safe when they won’t even do the bare minimum maintenance for their own health and safety.

That’s unethical no matter how you look at it or what rhetorical spin you try to put on it.

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

As indicated above, mandatory vaccination for employment and public spaces would, and is, not applicable in regards to essential services such as patient access to clinics/hospitals.  Our hospital ICUs (Canada & U.S.) are filling up with the unvaccinated suffering from Covid.  And the medical services available to non-Covid patients have been severely affected by the resources needed to care for the unvaccinated.

Wait a minute, employment isnt essential?  You cant be serious…..

As for your claims about the hospitals, that is a very broad statement which varies massively from region to region.

I’ll break down my region for you.

My county has 271K people.  268 have tested positive for CoVid at the time of death.  1 in 1,000 people, and there are no statistics available on age, but the average age of death in California is at LEAST 60.

The amounts of deaths and hospitalizations in my county cannot possibly mathematically justify the ridiculous delays on non-CoVid medical procedures.

My coworker has needed hip surgery for the last 16 months.  He’s finally getting it in a couple weeks after jumping through a bunch of hoops (no pun intended).

In other words there must be reasons why they are delaying in my area, but it has nothing to do with lack of hospital beds.  I know this also because a friend of mine is a Nurse’s Assistant at one of the major hospitals and she told me that capacity has not been drastically different from years past.

And if youre asking me why this delay is happening I cant say for sure.  But you dont have to be a genius to see that the #s dont add up, and they’re “official” numbers.

Jan_CAN - 02 September 2021 08:45 AM

So the question is:  Am I my brother’s keeper?  I say yes, I think we should be.

I don’t need a “keeper” and didnt ask for one.  A keeper that takes away my sovereignty is just a slavemaster parading as a do-gooder.  If youre gonna f me in the a, at least buy me dinner first.

 
 
 < 1 2 3 4 5 >  Last ›