My Body... My Choice..

submitted by useless_aether from (imgoat.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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

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

That law applies to health and child care workers, people who come in to contact with many kids or sick people every day. You say they're trying to go after everybody, the facts just don't support that.

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

Sigh, my only point is it's not about the children alone. They absolutely are moving towards forcing vaccines across the board. First is the chatter, and encouragement; I hear vaccine ads on the radio all the time, I see 'get your flu shot here', signs everywhere(pharmacies, grocery stores). From there, look at the number of professions that require vaccines; they're numerous, but allow 'exemptions', but it's a hoopfest, you better be ready to jump through the hoops, or you get stuck getting the jab, or losing your job; one link I provided already leans towards revealing this, as in searching some things for this thread, I found many lawyer's sites, that at the very least have part of their practice in fighting for these exemptions....... If they're having to fight them with such regularity, as to advertise, and advise for free on their sites, then it stands to simple logical reasoning that it's a real issue.

Here's a similar link regarding the military: https://www.health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/Health-Readiness/Immunization-Healthcare/Clinical-Consultation-Services/Exemption-Guidance <<<--- it looks like deferring vaccines can restrict duty; fine(joining without duress, and wanting to serve without vaccines, one should take the duty they can get). However, and it's not a stretch, if the draft was put into use, and you had no reason for exemption other than not wanting one, you'd be forced to take the shot. Under draft, and forced.