all 49 comments

[–]HopeThatHalps 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

Such laws apply to children who attend public schools, as a means of preventing public health crisis. It's in no way logically related to abortion.

That being said, "my body my choice" doesn't really address the moral dilemma of abortion in the first place. Why not "my gun my choice" if I decide to shoot you, or "my car my choice" if I run you over?

[–]HeyImSancho 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

My body my choice seems clear in just about any context I can see. It's non threatening to others, as well as to oneself; meaning it shouldn't get the SWAT team called on you, and it also shouldn't result in a 3 day forced stay at a mental facility for 'self harm'.

If you applied the same logic to 'my gun, my choice', or 'my car, my choice', then both have an element of something external that can be used to cause harm, whether to self, or to others, which has a definite stronger possibility to bring in outsiders-cops.

The only other point I think I could make in regards to strength of simply, 'my body, my choice', can you think of an easier, and perhaps shorter, and as concise method of declaring that you, have dominion over your very own body?

[–]HopeThatHalps 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

My body my choice seems clear in just about any context I can see. It's non threatening to others,

If a child has typhoid though, and that child goes to school, that body is a threat to others.

If you applied the same logic to 'my gun, my choice', or 'my car, my choice', then both have an element of something external that can be used to cause harm

In this case it's not internal/external, but that which you have dominion over, which includes your property, too.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

This is the correct take. It's not "My body, my choice." when that choice has the potential to negatively affect others. You don't want to vaccinate you kids? Fine. Don't take them anywhere in public and don't expose them to any other people (especially kids) unless you explicitly tell them your child isn't vaccinated.

There are plenty of immuno-compromised people and unvaccinated children and infants out there (for legitimate medical reasons) who are put at risk every time they encounter an unvaccinated person. It's irresponsible and borderline immoral to take your unvaccinated children anywhere in public.

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

True. Regarding the "my body, my choice", the idea is that the fetus is a person, and you'd be using "your body" to kill a person, the same as if you used "your gun" or "your car". I'm pro-choice personally, but I think "my body, my choice" is a dumb slogan that doesn't address the underlying ethical dilemma.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's a thought-terminating cliché. It doesn't actually mean anything at this point; just "I have my stance on this massive, difficult ethical dilemma, and I'm sticking to it! because I'm right." I mean, I agree with said stance, like you, but…

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But is herd immunity the truth, are there not issues with it?

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Herd immunity isn't "the truth". It's an emergent property of…

I put together a simulation for you, using Nicky Case's Emoji simulation engine. This should explain it. Click next to a group of unimmune people to vaccinate them.

Since the simulation is so small, I put in an unsafe, mostly-effective vaccine; you will see the vaccine making people ill, to a much greater extent than happens in real life. (Orders of magnitude of a higher extent.) The illness is also pretty fatal, but not too fatal to spread to literally everyone in the simulation.

Feel free to share it with other people, if you find it helpful. The code's a bit hackish and sporadic (you can see it by removing the "edit" parameter).

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The problem is getting vaccinations while being immmuncompromised can be dangerous. Most vaccines are safe but the media, pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers seem to polarize the issues. Ther are some vaccines such as lymerix that have been pulled in an ultimatum for their roles in causing harm to people. tens of millions of dollars have been paid to families due to vaccine injury. Vaccines should be safe and effective.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Vaccines, by and large, are safe and effective. Yes, money has been paid out to people who have had adverse reactions to them, but it's ultimately a small number in the big scheme of things. Society as a whole is better with people getting vaccinations.

Also, I've never met or heard of a medical professional who wasn't willing to delay or space out vaccination protocols for young children or those who may have adverse reactions.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The phrase 'my body, my choice'; you're extenuating, or growing the phrase; giving it context in a direction of doom(doesn't have to be). Meaning, you, and apparently many here, think that the govt. is good, and pharmaceuticals are great; surely these moral giants wouldn't lie to us. We should all take a few vaccines, or more because 'authority' stated it would save all of our lives, right?

I comprehend the line of thinking, as it's all over the msm/regular media, and in every grocery store window; get your flu shot here! They paint everything in a very cornered subjective box, while proclaiming it's all by way of objective concern, true concern for each individual and also for the greater good.

BUT, is it? Vaccines first of all are pushed across the entire societal board; not just to the angle of children in school, as posed by comments to the OP. There are people forced to vaccinate for numerous jobs; it's not just about 'the children'. We're all under that gun.

Basically your argument is, 'my body, my choice', is dangerous to all of society, where any non-vaccinated individual comes into contact with any group of people, is this correct?

I'm fairly sure this is your argument, and that of other posters. My question is simple, where do we stop regulating, and telling people how to live? I mean if we go this direction, there are multitudes of personal 'liberties', that could be viewed in the same light as being unsafe to the whole; using the govt. given subjective view of any topic, with information that pushes the goal post more so in our favor in condemning these liberties.

Furthermore, we really can break the argument, to vax, or not vax, into the argument of Safety/security vs. freedom/liberty. What do we get then????

Safety, and security, are great, but they can also be used to mask the realities of life, to cause ignorance to said realities. Life's a crap shoot, you can regulate, legislate, and have authoritative dictates on everyone; yet it won't make people happy, and considering life's a crap shoot, what of the law of diminishing returns?

At some point, we'll be so safe, life will cease to exist as we know it, lol.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The existing laws only apply to children that attend public schools, so afaik if they don't attend public school there is no requirement. I think in general, the notion that laws should always adhere to absolutes never proves to be 100% practical because no man is an island, and in this case we're also talking about kids, dependent minors, who have less individual rights than an adult anyhow.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The op didn't say children, I didn't say children, but between other posters, and yourself, it became about the children. My point is, it's about everyone. Again, there are professions that force vaccines; to opt out, good luck in getting hired, or being included, or treated with dignity, or respect.

The argument I think I keep reading out of many posters in this thread, is 'the individual must make concessions for the greater good of all'; even to the point of putting something into your body to cause change on the molecular level.

That sure doesn't sound like choice, and sounds very much like command and control authoritarianism; communism by extension.

You can take that argument, 'for the greater good', and apply it across the board on so many fronts; limiting so many liberties. People have done it, people are doing it, and they'll keep on doing it.

On that note, there's that old saying, what goes up, must come down, or any variation of that phrase will work for my point. We will regulate to there's not a single 'whit', or 'clue' left in people; we're almost there now for most. In the end, from this quagmire of regulations we actively grovel for, will be absolute stupid chaos.

It will be, because people will allow themselves to give up their common sense, critical thinking skills, and personal responsibility; none of which are necessary for the direction we're headed.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The only laws that currently exist apply to children. Anything else is a red herring.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Let's look at 'laws for children', perhaps state by state, we've got new laws, but there was traditionally always an 'out'. States are trying to make it where there's no 'out' in any way. Like the 'out' they try to steal from the kids in public schools, businesses force similar mandates on employees=healthcare, or related.... Furthermore from there, there are states trying to force adults into vaccines as well.

Forcing the individual to act against what they consider their better nature, better health, for the greater good as determined by the mob; is a sort of fascist authoritarian, and by extension by way of 20th century examples, communist.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

States are trying to make it where there's no 'out' in any way.

Can you give a concrete example?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Both of the links below I think will work; honestly, since google has started 'insuring informed, and correct choices', I'm finding it more challenging to search taboo stuff.

https://www.intellihub.com/mandatory-vaccines-for-adults-leave-it-to-california/

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/labor-employment-law/human-resources-law/forcing-flu-shots-employees-and-health-at-work.html

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is that Levar Burton from "Reading Rainbow"?

[–]friend 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's Kayode Ewumi. The meme is called "Roll Safe".

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks, my friend! :-)

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Well, you obviously shouldn't be using "My Body, My Choice" as a thought-terminating cliché. It's not an argument; merely a summary of one, and that argument doesn't apply in full to vaccines.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Can you clearly explain/detail in your own words why? Using the mantra in this way conveys a clear message to myself. The mantra of 'my body, my choice' has had a clear, and successful campaign, as the adopted slogan for 'pro choice'; why not expand it for greater context, and/or application?

The idea of vaccines, and 'anti-vaxxers' would clearly be an issue of idiots if all data showed vaccines are 'awesome', but most vaccines come with a percentage of side effects, or I should say, X-percent of people will have some adverse side effect. Should they be forced to take it for the 'greater good'? If the vaccines aren't good enough to work on the individual basis, then why would anyone with a shred of common sense be forced into doing something to themselves for the 'greater good', when those pushing the greater good angle admit that something designed to cause change in a single body won't work unless everyone gets it???? That's crazy, and what idiots do.

To myself, I can put in my own words why I think 'my body, my choice', is appropriately reused in this sense. People simply don't trust the vaccines, the real rallying cry should be 'get one, to protect yourself', but instead we hear a looser version of 'force everyone,(as they really don't work) so the by default placebo effect will work.... Screw vaccines, and unless you can show me how 'my body my choice' doesn't work, or is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the abortion crowd, then it works ;)

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

The phrase isn't owned by the abortion crowd. But the "my body, my choice" argument doesn't immediately apply to vaccines.

The smallpox vaccine, using cowpox (an example of an uncontroversially safe, effective vaccine), helps individuals to be individually more immune. This can save individuals from any infection whatsoever. However, the effect is much greater in a population, as the smallpox doesn't get near most people because people aren't surrounded by infected people, and so the effective effectiveness of the vaccine is much higher than the actual effectiveness.

In addition, such a vaccine would allow immunocompromised individuals to benefit from "herd immunity", which is basically "you don't get the illness in the first place, so you can't get ill". This herd immunity is the reason that not having vaccines doesn't have a negative effect on most people… but it'll stab them in the back if lots of people stop having vaccines and diseases are able to spread again.

Vaccines benefit individuals. If a vaccine doesn't benefit an individual, we need a better one; there's very little for which a safe and effective vaccine can't exist.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

You're arguing the phrase doesn't apply because of your viewpoint, which to sum up, is that you're simply pro vaccine. Am I wrong with that assumption?

I mean we can go over multitudes of counter documentation, studies, and opinions by people with the intellectual, as well as the academic achievements, necessary for some people, to be 'authorities' in the subject, that disagree with vaccines. I mean the idea of your last post, is outlining I presume something you read, that states 'cowpox, for smallpox' is a good talking point to win a vaxxer debate? In contrast though, I guarantee there will be someone with decent reasoning why not to ingest such a vaccine.

That's the point, people have differing opinions. The idea of someone individually, or in mass deciding not to do something, is sacred to a free society. If safety for the greater good is more important, than choice, then we're not free. Does the safety aspect outweigh the personal choice in your opinion, and why?

If it's a matter of safety, in your words, what should be done?

I guess on that note though, at this point the phrase, 'my body, my choice' can absolutely seem appropriate, or not(this goes towards your opening post that was a two line 'this doesn't even come close to applying' statement regarding the phrase)?

Also, again with your strong stance towards vaccines being good, and necessary(I presume you feel this way?), you state,"there's very little for which a safe and effective vaccine can't exist'".

What do you say to the person who allowed themselves to be injected, and in turn have an 'adverse event' that may impact their entire lives, for the rest of their life? Do these people in your opinion, in your own words, can these people own the phrase, "my body, my choice", post said event? Meaning they never again have to be jabbed, is that okay?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You're arguing the phrase doesn't apply because of your viewpoint, which, to sum up, is that you're simply pro vaccine. Am I wrong with that assumption?

Yes. "My body, my choice" is a summary of the argument that, since the woman who's pregnant is going to have to carry the baby, they don't have to be forced to do so. It only affects them, so the argument goes, so they mustn't have to if they don't want to.

But what is "carrying a vaccine"? It just isn't analogous. Is it particularly detrimental? And does it harm other people if you take it? What about if you don't? The answers to those questions are "not really", "almost never" and "sometimes fatally", because even the worst, most badly-researched, most corrupt, cheapest vaccines are not literal poison.

But considering that whether "my body, my choice" applies is completely incidental, let's move on.


I mean the idea of your last post, is outlining I presume something you read, that states 'cowpox, for smallpox' is a good talking point to win a vaxxer debate?

No, I've read nothing of the sort. I do know that it was the first vaccine, and it was around before fetal tissue and growing in eggs became a thing. It was literally just pus that made you a little bit ill, and stopped you from getting the often-fatal smallpox later. This technique was crude: it gave people a clear and obvious rash, and made them quite ill. Sometimes they died. There was plenty of opposition. And yet governments permitted and – eventually, once it had been heavily researched – practically mandated it. Why?

Well, this is smallpox. This is cowpox. If you get cowpox, you don't get smallpox. So people voluntarily got themselves infected with cowpox, which quickly caused smallpox outbreaks to slow… and then stop.

And now we don't have smallpox any more. Anywhere.

The idea of someone individually, or in mass deciding not to do something, is sacred to a free society.

This is true. However, I don't recall the majority of people wanting vaccination to no longer be mandatory. You live in a democratic country, where you have to obey laws set by other people. *snicker* That's the theory, anyway. It benefits the majority for you to get vaccinated, and you should get vaccinated. The chances are, you won't suffer adverse effects at all, and if you do? Better than what you're being vaccinated against.

What do you say to the person who allowed themselves to be injected, and in turn have an 'adverse event' that may impact their entire lives, for the rest of their life?

I say "sorry", and then I support research into preventing it from happening again. (I'd say do research, but at this point I'm probably not going to go into medicine.)

How many of these people are there, though? And how many people would have permanent blindness from Rubella, or got meningitis from Mumps, or… well, I'll quote Wikipedia for Measles:

The death rate in the 1920s was around 30% for measles pneumonia. […] One out of every 1,000 measles cases progresses to acute encephalitis, which often results in permanent brain damage. One or two out of every 1,000 children who become infected with measles will die from respiratory and neurological complications.

So, tell me, what's better?

  • Tens of people get complications significantly reducing their quality of life.
  • Tens of thousands of people die.

The only difference is that we cause the former by action, and the latter by inaction.


Just so you know my stance on the matter, I'm all for pushing the vaccine companies to make them safer, and do more research, and actually investigate cases where it's gone wrong instead of just sitting on their ill-gotten millions. But I'll still take the vaccines.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

We got somewhere! You support vaccines, the phrase, 'my body, my choice', can be applied, although many people find it offensive as it's apparently the 'unofficial slogan for abortion', but it still works.

I get your pro vaccine, and pro medicine, but the fact is, there are many people who aren't. I cannot blame them, and support them in their quest out of persecution. The reasons I do, are simple, but vast in examples. Did you know that when doctors have gone on strike, mortality rates fall? There are supposed numerous easy explanations for this, but the truth remains when doctors when in any organized group go on strike, death rates fall. What about diseases that get thrown into generic boxes? Now the most common form of Muscular Dystrophy, 'FSHD', didn't even exist 20 years ago. It was barely acknowledged, so what did they do? They started throwing several other recognized, and differentiated diseases into the FSHD box. Within the last few years, it went from being literally unheard of, to the most 'prevalent' form of MD.... You should see the variety of possible symptoms now that they've thrown all of it together! lol. Again though, it's not a single disease, and you when you find a neurologist willing to talk, they'll tell you the same thing.

A little further away in medical, I could go on, and on about the pharmaceuticals, and the dirty deeds done in that arena. A single drug Seroquel can make my point here; go research that drug, and the guy in charge of it. He manipulated the entire market, fucked around/ literally sleeping with women in positions necessary to get the drug pushed. The drug has adverse side effects, and was entirely mis approved for usages due to this man's need for greed. His punishment was hardly anything, and now is overseeing another drug company in Switzerland. People have their right to not believe, and not be persecuted into actions they aren't comfortable with, or sure of.

On the topics of democracies, as you brought up, I don't know what country you're from, but in the USA, we're supposed to be a Republic; where by our Natural Inalienable Rights(they're real!) are honored. It's not a straight democracy where mob rules; the media, the govt., and the oligarchy in power want us all to believe that fairy tale.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Did you know that when doctors have gone on strike, mortality rates fall?

No, they don't.

What about diseases that get thrown into generic boxes?

Yeah, that sucks, but does it actually affect you? As far as I can tell, that's mostly just a way to get funding through the broken system. Though in the case of FSHD, that might not be the case.

A little further away in medical, I could go on, and on about the pharmaceuticals

Oh, yeah, that whole system sucks. And that's the most relevant one to vaccines… but the issues with the system don't really apply to vaccines. Specifically, the pushing of drugs people don't need, whilst ignoring the side-effects. This doesn't apply to the vaccines they produce, which are technologically unnovel; new vaccines of the same type (e.g. new viral vaccines produced using embryonic stem cell cultures) don't have new side-effects, and these vaccines have been tested enough for me to be certain that a properly-produced vaccine will be safe.

Yes, the US is a constitutional republic, aka a representative democracy. However, bribery.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

first off, I love the link from debunking denialism, abolutely priceless LOL!!!! I should find cheat debate sites, that can make my arguments for me... LOL

If you read your own debunking denialism link, it absolutely does show that mortality rates fall; period. They simply defer to state it was due to elective surgeries being stopped, and so by default doctors are good. I was aware of this, and don't deny the fact, but it doesn't dismiss the fact that on the few occasions of doctors on strike, more people live! LOL

Also, since the article was so pro-AMA, and crapped all over anything alternative, are you familiar with the concept of doctors operating on patients when not necessary, but for profit alone? I was never aware of such things, but a good friend of mine is a perfusionist, but not practicing. The reason he's not? He decided it was a racket, he worked back in Maryland, and stated all the doctors he worked with would do this, he said they'd even trade patients over games of golf; trade them for unnecessary procedures, that would go towards making payments on toys. Now I comprehend what I wrote, may have interest, but it's hearsay. Sure! So here's one article that covers such things; it's out there --->>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/18/unnecessary-surgery-usa-today-investigation/2435009/

Onto vaccines; did this little boy deserve what he got when his parents allowed the vaccine? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parents-shocking-video-baby-suffering-9447899?fbclid=IwAR3Nh4__XyvWmkfP7MpAbonGJ9JpKYFdAuN3ao0YaLdSJFh7--ApFBVq0b0

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's great news! Maybe they'll test them better in future.

I'm still taking them. Think of how many people take vaccines and don't get ill, and don't get the illness.

I put together a simulation for you, using Nicky Case's Emoji simulation engine. This should explain it. Click next to a group of unimmune people to vaccinate them.

Since the simulation is so small, I put in an unsafe, mostly-effective vaccine; you will see the vaccine making people ill, to a much greater extent than happens in real life. (Orders of magnitude of a higher extent.) The illness is also pretty fatal, but not too fatal to spread to literally everyone in the simulation.

You'll also see the immune people catching the illness. You'll see them dying. And yet them being immune is better than the alternative. See how dangerous and ineffective a vaccine can be and still be better than the alternative? Real-world vaccines are safer and more effective than that.

Feel free to share it with other people, if you find it helpful. The code's a bit hackish and sporadic (you can see it by removing the "edit" parameter).

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I should find cheat debate sites, that can make my arguments for me… LOL

Well, many people on this site do do that. But, as you can see from your own ability to cherry-pick the cases where it did fall, it's actually not a very biased source.

it absolutely does show that mortality rates fall; period.

Only in Los Angeles (1976) and possibly Jerusalem (2000). In Jerusalem (1983), possibly Spain (1990), Croatia (2003) and three others, no such fall was found. So, only a quarter of strikes showed a fall in mortality rates.

are you familiar with the concept of doctors operating on patients when not necessary, but for profit alone?

Yeah, I'd heard of that happening in the more backwards countries where that's financially encouraged. But this isn't actually relevant to vaccines, since they're not made by doctors.


The little boy did not deserve what he got. Seizures are not a symptom of meningitis, however febrile seizures do occur in 4% of ½–5 year-olds when they get fevers. This, however, does not look like a febrile seizure; it looks like epilepsy.

I can't think of a mechanism by which Bexsero could cause epilepsy, or even bacterial meningitis, since it doesn't contain the bacteria that cause it. The worst that could happen is an immune response resulting in fever.

But let's go with it, and say that this is a symptom of the vaccine. This child will probably survive. Think of how rare this is, and then think of how deadly bacterial meningitis is. Assuming that this was caused by the vaccine – which is dubious anyway – it's worth it.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Wizz,

No cherry picking, just loved that it was a 'kill shot' site, a site where their only intended goal is to carry the official narrative as the word of some god sent forth to crush any dissent; am I wrong? I don't like that, I want variety of sources to garner my information; to make my own mind up.

Likewise, with either the doctors striking, or the boy sick with 'something', it was my attempt to convey that there are tons of unknowns, uncertainties, and variables where by life isn't a cookie cutter situation. Could a vaccine save your life, or ruin your life? Both are absolute possibilities; it's undeniable. For myself, I lean away from allopathic medicine, and towards hollistic, no denying it.

[–]cmdrrockawesome 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. It doesn't really work because not vaccinating can have a direct negative effect on other people -- often times, some of the most medically vulnerable. It'd be more apt to say "Everyone else's body, my choice" when talking about vaccinating.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Nice script.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Hey! That actually took me a long time to think up, thank you very much!

(Still not a shill. Seriously, are you trying to promote different viewpoints?)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Something.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You used to be working to make Saidit a nice place. And now you're abandoning it for a petty vendetta. Why?

If you don't like what I'm saying, ignore it. It'll go away. In fact, it's the fastest way to make it go away. If you disagree, then feel free to reply with a coherent argument; you might even convince me. But don't turn into the trolls and shitposters you sought to leave behind.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Something.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

*****Couple articles related/relevant to this thread******

Mayor de Blasio declares health emergency orders measles vaccinations https://wcbs880.radio.com/articles/mayor-de-blasio-declares-health-emergency-orders-measles-vaccinations-williamsburg-amid

New York parents are holding 'measles parties' to intentionally infect their children instead of getting vaccinated https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6903821/New-York-orders-mandatory-measles-vaccinations-blasts-misinformation-fueling-outbreak.html

[–]useless_aether[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

New York parents are holding 'measles parties' to intentionally infect their children instead of getting vaccinated https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6903821/New-York-orders-mandatory-measles-vaccinations-blasts-misinformation-fueling-outbreak.html

thats the traditional, proper way to go about it