(cache) EtheriusがChristie Says Parents Should Have ‘Choice’ on Vaccinationsについて記入したコメント

Should ideally practicing your religion cost someone the life of their child? Doesn't that child deserve protection as well? Should religions be allowed to dictate the life or death of an infant? Do we not have a constitutional right to life as well? If life is so sacred that we try to ban abortions and stop brain dead people from being taken off of life support due to a religious belief, why is the life of an infant or someone with a bad immune system any less sacred? Shouldn't protecting life be more important than getting a shot? I think most religious texts would agree with that assessment. Why is protecting religious beliefs more important than protecting the lives of the vulnerable?

What about people who claim its a belief when they really just believe the bogus study that vaccines cause autism? Should we respect their choices about raising their children when it could mean a death sentence to other children and adults? How do we verify it's a belief when it's just a lifestyle choice?

[+]Etherius スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9 ポイント-8 ポイント-7 ポイント 20 時間前 (4子コメント)

You're asking me a question that has no correct answer, much as I'm sure you would disagree.

Nothing makes an immunocompromised person's life less sacred. No one argues that. The question is how far society must bend to accommodate them. Where their burden ends and ours begins. Antivaxxers will argue that the immunocompromised should not attend any facility as disease ridden as public schools (and they ARE chock full of disease. Giant petri dishes is what they are.). Why is their argument less valid than the argument that unvaccinated kids should stay home?

There are people who are so dangerously allergic to peanuts that even kissing someone who ate a PB&J sandwich could kill them. Is it incumbent upon society to ban peanuts? Sure, there are schools that do... And there are parents who think it's retarded to do so. Why is that so different?

[–]misyo 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 20 時間前 (2子コメント)

I'm asking you questions to make you realize that your assertion that religious beliefs must be respected comes with a cost that many people are not willing to pay. To promote their ideals over the ideals of life is to give one more value than the other. So before you start defending religious beliefs, realize it really isn't that simple. By allowing religious beliefs or personal beliefs to trump vaccination, we are essentially allowing for a certain number of deaths in society for those beliefs to continue.

For the most part, we can see peanuts and people with that allergy can take steps to prevent contact with them and have emergency treatment on hand. We can't see germs and we don't know who is a carrier when someone takes their 6 month old out in public or leaves them in day care. We nearly eradicated measles with vaccinations and hardly any religious groups spoke out against it because they realized the benefit of defeating measles, polio, pertussis, etc to society.

Let's also not kid ourselves, a lot of the people who choose not to vaccinate are doing so because of personal choice, not religious beliefs. The population most likely to not vaccinate are educated wealthy whites, not highly religious groups. They might be claiming religious exemption, but that's because it's the only loophole they can use on a lot of states. A lot of this is also a push back against "the government" and stems from conspiracy theories about government control and this perception of persecution by some groups. The vast majority of those who get an exemption are not due to sincerely held religious beliefs- it's ideological.

[+]Etherius スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9 ポイント-8 ポイント-7 ポイント 19 時間前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]rsh412 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 16 分前 (0子コメント)

The question is how far society must bend to accommodate them. Where their burden ends and ours begins.

Maybe questions like this are why libertarianism never quite catches on with the public. It's really inconsiderate for all those kids with leukemia to burden the rest of society. Seriously dude, fuck off to Galt's Gulch already.

Antivaxxers will argue that the immunocompromised should not attend any facility as disease ridden as public schools (and they ARE chock full of disease. Giant petri dishes is what they are.). Why is their argument less valid than the argument that unvaccinated kids should stay home?

Do you seriously not see why? Because not being vaccinated is a choice and having a compromised immune system is not! You're arguing for a bullshit choice; well, if you want to make that choice, then you should accept the consequences of that action. People diagnosed with cancer had no choice in the matter and don't deserve to bear the consequences of it.

There are people who are so dangerously allergic to peanuts that even kissing someone who ate a PB&J sandwich could kill them. Is it incumbent upon society to ban peanuts? Sure, there are schools that do... And there are parents who think it's retarded to do so. Why is that so different?

Because that kid who is allergic to peanuts doesn't pass his peanut allergy on to others when he's in close proximity to them. The correct analogy would be that another kid sits next to the allergic kid and starts tossing peanuts every where and says "Hey, it's my choice. You shouldn't be here if you're allergic." Just like that kid's needlessly being a dick, people who refuse vaccinations are needlessly being selfish assholes and putting others at risk.

[–]Wiseduck5 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]Etherius -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 5 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Wiseduck5 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Etherius -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]rsh412 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 27 分前 (0子コメント)

There's a first amendment right to practice religion however you please (barring obvious things such as human sacrifice).

So you admit that people can't endanger others' lives based on their religious beliefs. Isn't that exactly what the anti-vax movement is doing? How do you defend "personal belief exemptions" that don't cite any religious objections? They have no First Amendment right which I think is dubious even in the case of religious objections, but definitely doesn't apply to personal belief exemptions. You seem to be reframing the debate as largely a religious one, which we all know is not really the case, and then hiding behind dubious Constitutional arguments. We, as a society (which libertarians are a part of, as much as we'd all prefer otherwise), enforce lots of things for the public good and I can think of few things that are more obviously in the public good than preventing the spread of communicable disease.

[–]Wiseduck5 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 9 時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]Etherius -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 5 時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]Wiseduck5 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Etherius 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]rsh412 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 14 分前 (0子コメント)

[+]Etherius スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6 ポイント-5 ポイント-4 ポイント 5 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Wiseduck5 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1 時間前* (1子コメント)

[–]Etherius -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 1 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]njndirish 9 ポイント10 ポイント11 ポイント 21 時間前 (25子コメント)

[+]Etherius スコアが基準値未満のコメント-15 ポイント-14 ポイント-13 ポイント 21 時間前 (24子コメント)

[–]WoogDJ 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 19 時間前 (15子コメント)

[+]Etherius スコアが基準値未満のコメント-8 ポイント-7 ポイント-6 ポイント 19 時間前 (14子コメント)

[–]jmalbo35 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 19 時間前 (13子コメント)

[+]Etherius スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6 ポイント-5 ポイント-4 ポイント 19 時間前 (12子コメント)

[–]jmalbo35 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 19 時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]Etherius -5 ポイント-4 ポイント-3 ポイント 18 時間前 (8子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]einTier 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Etherius -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 5 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Wiseduck5 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 9 時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]Etherius -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 5 時間前 (5子コメント)

Exactly zero people have died of measles.

Since 2000, there have been about 300 deaths from pertussis.

These are not "Holy shit we need a law that restricts constitutional rights" numbers. You're blowing the problem out of proportion.

Don't forget that the entire reason abortion is legal is because it's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. Given the fact that there is no scientific consensus about when life begins, Pro-lifers would argue that abortion is way more dangerous to a fetus than antivaxxers are to a baby.

You don't get to say "you can do whatever you want with your body, except the stuff I disagree with."

The whole point of constitutional rights is to protect everyone's rights, even when they do things you Jay find objectionable. As long as the general public (immunocompromised people are NOT "general public", just like people with peanut allergies are not "general public") is not at grave risk, people can do as they please.

[–]Wiseduck5 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1 時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]Etherius -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 1 時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]Wiseduck5 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 1 時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Etherius -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 1 時間前 (1子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]krucz36 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 21 時間前 (5子コメント)

[+]Etherius スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11 ポイント-10 ポイント-9 ポイント 21 時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]foolofathestral 11 ポイント12 ポイント13 ポイント 20 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]krucz36 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 20 時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]krucz36 8 ポイント9 ポイント10 ポイント 20 時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]jmalbo35 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 19 時間前* (0子コメント)

π Rendered by PID 17565 on app-93 at 2015-02-03 16:17:54.257257+00:00 running 7e3b839 country code: JP.

conspiratard

See our consolidated MH17 debunking here

調停者