Current Affairs Vaccinations (v2.0)

[canuckblue]

I agree with the first part, i’m not anti-vaccine, I’ve always had vaccines and my kids have been vaccinated.

I just think people’s consent is important.

I’m not anti-sex either but I’m quite uncomfortable with someone being forced to have sex against their will. Aren’t you?

The latter is a crime against one individual; the former, simple ignorance that could have wider-ranging implications.

 

[tim cahill]

The latter is a crime against one individual; the former, simple ignorance that could have wider-ranging implications.

I’m pretty sure as things stand it would be a crime to force someone to be vaccinated against their will. Despite the wider ranging implications it shouldn’t ever be compulsory because what goes into someone’s body should be up to that individual.

 

[canuckblue]

I’m pretty sure as things stand it would be a crime to force someone to be vaccinated against their will. Despite the wider ranging implications it shouldn’t ever be compulsory because what goes into someone’s body should be up to that individual.

Funny, I was never asked for my consent when I was vaccinated against measles, etc., when I was five. Where were you then?

 

[tim cahill]

So you don't believe experts/doctors and you hate governments interfering.

You think it should be a free for all then?

These groups are the experts who understand the types of viruses that are out there and do so much research on the potential outbreaks because of mutations in viruses. Without intervention and continuous research and subsequent vaccines it would likely be the case that a strain of something would kill most of us off. That's really what the guts of it is.

You seemingly are ok ignoring them and putting millions at risk just so a few thousand uneducated ignorant folk choose to risk their children's lives because of their freedoms....

The reason we have these groups is too stop the massive outbreaks we have seen in this worlds history.

Some nations and regions in the world still suffer from viruses and they struggle to contain them because of poor decisions by governments, wars and poverty.

I didn’t say I don’t believe doctors/experts.

I just don’t think a state should be given the power to inject something into somebody without their permission.

 

[tim cahill]

Funny, I was never asked for my consent when I was vaccinated against measles, etc., when I was five. Where were you then?

No, but your parents were responsible for you then. I’m sure they gave consent on your behalf. Which is as it should be.

 

[canuckblue]

No, but your parents were responsible for you then. I’m sure they gave consent on your behalf. Which is as it should be.

And parents should not abdicate that responsibility through blind faith or ignorance. Seat belts save lives, would you recommend laws requiring their use (especially by children) not be enforced?

 

[tim cahill]

And parents should not abdicate that responsibility through blind faith or ignorance. Seat belts save lives, would you recommend laws requiring their use (especially by children) not be enforced?

No, but seat belts don’t enter anyone’s body.

 

[canuckblue]

No, but seat belts don’t enter anyone’s body.

But they SAVE LIVES. Good Lord, man, I'm as freedom of choice as the next man, but I also realize there are some things that transcend individual freedoms for the greater good. And vaccinations, like seat belts, are on the list.

 

[tim cahill]

But they SAVE LIVES. Good Lord, man, I'm as freedom of choice as the next man, but I also realize there are some things that transcend individual freedoms for the greater good. And vaccinations, like seat belts, are on the list.

I don’t think we’re going to agree on this. If you are comfortable with the idea of tearing a screaming child out of it’s mother’s arms to inject it with something against her wishes then that’s up to you. Personally, I don’t think the state should have the right to do that.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

No, but seat belts don’t enter anyone’s body.

That's a completely arbitrary distinction though.

Seatbelts aren't a bad analogy actually. They have the outside potential to do damage to the person confined by one, but in far far more cases do good, and save lives (they can even save the lives of people other than the one wearing them - remember that old advert about the unbelted person in the back flying forward and killing the person in the seat in front of them?)

 

[Blue 1]

I don’t think we’re going to agree on this. If you are comfortable with the idea of tearing a screaming child out of it’s mother’s arms to inject it with something against her wishes then that’s up to you. Personally, I don’t think the state should have the right to do that.

Doesn't need to be like that.

Quite simply, no vaccination, no childcare or school for your dear little plague-bearer.

 

[gav1985]

Doesn't need to be like that.

Quite simply, no vaccination, no childcare or school for your dear little plague-bearer.

I think that bit is what would do it. Inconvenience them a little and their ill founded beliefs will be tested. Those who still wish to be neglectful to their child will have to keep them at home away from other children.

I know somebody who is anti vax and also believes there is some magical cancer cure that all the doctors have agreed not to share with us because money.

 

[Blue 1]

I think that bit is what would do it. Inconvenience them a little and their ill founded beliefs will be tested. Those who still wish to be neglectful to their child will have to keep them at home away from other children.

I know somebody who is anti vax and also believes there is some magical cancer cure that all the doctors have agreed not to share with us because money.

Ugh. Those people do my swede in. My brother in law is one. He suffers from schizophrenia and borderline personality disorder though, in fairness to him. The internet exacerbates it, I'm sure.

 

[tim cahill]

That's a completely arbitrary distinction though.

Seatbelts aren't a bad analogy actually. They have the outside potential to do damage to the person confined by one, but in far far more cases do good, and save lives (they can even save the lives of people other than the one wearing them - remember that old advert about the unbelted person in the back flying forward and killing the person in the seat in front of them?)

I don’t think it’s an arbitrary distinction at all. People should have the right to choose what enters their body.
If someone put their hand on your shoulder you might be fine with it or you might not like it but it wouldn’t be that big a deal. Whereas if they put their finger up your bum then I imagine you would wouldn’t argue that it was an arbitrary distinction.

 

[canuckblue]

I don’t think it’s an arbitrary distinction at all. People should have the right to choose what enters their body.
If someone put their hand on your shoulder you might be fine with it or you might not like it but it wouldn’t be that big a deal. Whereas if they put their finger up your bum then I imagine you would wouldn’t argue that it was an arbitrary distinction.

@Bungle, your thoughts?