Page 17 of 39

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 9:56 pm
by The Free Joy State
Galloism wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:Actually, women have already been prosecuted in the US for stillbirths (using existing laws). I linked to a study, here on the abortion thread.

There's something exceptionally wrong there.

Yes, there is.

Gormwood wrote:
The Free Joy State wrote:Actually, women have already been prosecuted in the US for stillbirths (using existing laws). I linked to a study, here on the abortion thread.

"I'm sorry for your loss, but you're going to prison you baby killer!"

TBF, they probably didn't even say "Sorry for your loss", but otherwise that seems to be the measure of it.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 9:56 pm
by Galloism
The Black Forrest wrote:
Galloism wrote:Probably not long, but you'd have to prove some kind of intent or reckless endangerment.


The problem is there isn't a generally accepted answer to what caused a miscarriage. States like Georgia and Alabama will take a stance (IMHO) of guilty until proven innocent in these matters. Especially when people find ways to force a termination.....

Which is probably why we shouldn't, just as a suggestion, tell them they were right to restrict women's bodily autonomy to save the life of another.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 9:58 pm
by Kaystein
Why is there discussion about alabama's abortion in a thread about measles in california?

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 9:58 pm
by Galloism
Kaystein wrote:Why is there discussion about alabama's abortion in a thread about measles in california?

A few people here suggested it's ok to use the state to violate a person's bodily autonomy to protect a third party from harm.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:05 pm
by The Aria
Whos to say vaccinations work.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:06 pm
by Gormwood
The Aria wrote:Whos to say vaccinations work.

Science, history and the growing human population.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:07 pm
by The Aria
Gormwood wrote:
The Aria wrote:Whos to say vaccinations work.

Science, history and the growing human population.

What science and history?

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:12 pm
by Kaystein
Galloism wrote:
Kaystein wrote:Why is there discussion about alabama's abortion in a thread about measles in california?

A few people here suggested it's ok to use the state to violate a person's bodily autonomy to protect a third party from harm.


Shouldn't you just quote the people and make a new thread for it, or just move that topic to the alabama abortion thread then?

It doesn't matter if people are professing to be cannibals, I think we should respect the rules somewhat and not be lazy.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:16 pm
by Gormwood
The Aria wrote:
Gormwood wrote:Science, history and the growing human population.

What science and history?

It would be a shock if you never got vaccinated and didn't get infected.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:19 pm
by Galloism
Kaystein wrote:
Galloism wrote:A few people here suggested it's ok to use the state to violate a person's bodily autonomy to protect a third party from harm.


Shouldn't you just quote the people and make a new thread for it, or just move that topic to the alabama abortion thread then?

It doesn't matter if people are professing to be cannibals, I think we should respect the rules somewhat and not be lazy.

It's relevant. If you read back, you'll see why.

I suggest starting here. There's a little before that, but that's where we hit the nail on the head.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:20 pm
by The Black Forrest
Kaystein wrote:
Galloism wrote:A few people here suggested it's ok to use the state to violate a person's bodily autonomy to protect a third party from harm.


Shouldn't you just quote the people and make a new thread for it, or just move that topic to the alabama abortion thread then?

It doesn't matter if people are professing to be cannibals, I think we should respect the rules somewhat and not be lazy.


Hmmmmm no not really. Body autonomy comes up in vaccines all the time. You can't escape the moral argument aspects either. Take smallpox for example. Vaccines eliminated it from the world. The remnant remains in labs. The moral argument? Do we have a right to make a life form extinct by force?

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:21 pm
by The Aria
Gormwood wrote:
The Aria wrote:What science and history?

It would be a shock if you never got vaccinated and didn't get infected.


For some people sure for others no

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:22 pm
by The Free Joy State
The Aria wrote:
Gormwood wrote:Science, history and the growing human population.

What science and history?

A list of vaccine preventable diseases.
How Vaccines Prevent Disease
How Do Vaccines Work
Herd Immunity and Vaccines

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:26 pm
by Galloism
The Black Forrest wrote:
Kaystein wrote:
Shouldn't you just quote the people and make a new thread for it, or just move that topic to the alabama abortion thread then?

It doesn't matter if people are professing to be cannibals, I think we should respect the rules somewhat and not be lazy.


Hmmmmm no not really. Body autonomy comes up in vaccines all the time. You can't escape the moral argument aspects either. Take smallpox for example. Vaccines eliminated it from the world. The remnant remains in labs. The moral argument? Do we have a right to make a life form extinct by force?

I mean, when it comes to making other life forms extinct, haven't we done that a number of times already just in the last couple centuries?

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:27 pm
by Neanderthaland
The Black Forrest wrote:
Kaystein wrote:
Shouldn't you just quote the people and make a new thread for it, or just move that topic to the alabama abortion thread then?

It doesn't matter if people are professing to be cannibals, I think we should respect the rules somewhat and not be lazy.


Hmmmmm no not really. Body autonomy comes up in vaccines all the time. You can't escape the moral argument aspects either. Take smallpox for example. Vaccines eliminated it from the world. The remnant remains in labs. The moral argument? Do we have a right to make a life form extinct by force?

Yeah... no.

This isn't that episode of Dr. Who when he debates if he can wipe out the Daleks. Smallpox isn't a thinking or feeling thing. It's questionably even alive.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:31 pm
by The Black Forrest
Galloism wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
Hmmmmm no not really. Body autonomy comes up in vaccines all the time. You can't escape the moral argument aspects either. Take smallpox for example. Vaccines eliminated it from the world. The remnant remains in labs. The moral argument? Do we have a right to make a life form extinct by force?

I mean, when it comes to making other life forms extinct, haven't we done that a number of times already just in the last couple centuries?


Ahh true. But were those efforts a conscious effort to eliminate them? The case of smallpox would be conscious effort. Granted I am leaving out the arguments of keeping them around as other might still keep them for weapon purposes which wouldn't suit the thread.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:32 pm
by Galloism
The Black Forrest wrote:
Galloism wrote:I mean, when it comes to making other life forms extinct, haven't we done that a number of times already just in the last couple centuries?


Ahh true. But were those efforts a conscious effort to eliminate them? The case of smallpox would be conscious effort. Granted I am leaving out the arguments of keeping them around as other might still keep them for weapon purposes which wouldn't suit the thread.

Well, I'd keep smallpox around in a lab for research purposes - just in case we need it. The HIV thing comes to mind. But that has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with you never know if you might need it after you destroy it.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:33 pm
by The Black Forrest
Neanderthaland wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
Hmmmmm no not really. Body autonomy comes up in vaccines all the time. You can't escape the moral argument aspects either. Take smallpox for example. Vaccines eliminated it from the world. The remnant remains in labs. The moral argument? Do we have a right to make a life form extinct by force?

Yeah... no.

This isn't that episode of Dr. Who when he debates if he can wipe out the Daleks. Smallpox isn't a thinking or feeling thing. It's questionably even alive.


Actually yes. This has been debated in those circles. Small pox is a life form but let's not distract the thread.....

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:35 pm
by The Black Forrest
Galloism wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
Ahh true. But were those efforts a conscious effort to eliminate them? The case of smallpox would be conscious effort. Granted I am leaving out the arguments of keeping them around as other might still keep them for weapon purposes which wouldn't suit the thread.

Well, I'd keep smallpox around in a lab for research purposes - just in case we need it. The HIV thing comes to mind. But that has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with you never know if you might need it after you destroy it.


There is an argument for that as I can think of one or two "cousins" have been seen which freaked people out.

The problem is we are no longer immune to it. If it got out of the lab.....it would be nasty. Vaccine makers couldn't fill the need fast enough.....

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:36 pm
by The Aria


I found it ironic that one of your sources says you need to give vaccines to baby's while another one of your sources says you cant give vaccines to babies because there immunity system cant handle it

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:37 pm
by Galloism
The Black Forrest wrote:
Galloism wrote:Well, I'd keep smallpox around in a lab for research purposes - just in case we need it. The HIV thing comes to mind. But that has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with you never know if you might need it after you destroy it.


There is an argument for that as I can think of one or two "cousins" have been seen which freaked people out.

The problem is we are no longer immune to it. If it got out of the lab.....it would be nasty. Vaccine makers could fill the need fast enough.....

Well, we do need to guard the shit out of it.

(I'm immune to smallpox, but I'm old.)

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:37 pm
by The Black Forrest
The Aria wrote:


I found it ironic that one of your sources says you need to give vaccines to baby's while another one of your sources says you cant give vaccines to babies because there immunity system cant handle it


Which two? Curious to see if you are misreading it.....

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:38 pm
by The Black Forrest
Galloism wrote:
The Black Forrest wrote:
There is an argument for that as I can think of one or two "cousins" have been seen which freaked people out.

The problem is we are no longer immune to it. If it got out of the lab.....it would be nasty. Vaccine makers could fill the need fast enough.....

Well, we do need to guard the shit out of it.

(I'm immune to smallpox, but I'm old.)


When did you get the vaccine? Work in areas where it was still an issue at the time?

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:39 pm
by Neanderthaland
The Aria wrote:


I found it ironic that one of your sources says you need to give vaccines to baby's while another one of your sources says you cant give vaccines to babies because there immunity system cant handle it

It depends on the vaccine and the age of the baby.

Physicians aren't banging rocks together, there's a reason why all these vaccines come with a recommended age. They're given when they're most likely to do the most good.

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:40 pm
by Galloism
The Black Forrest wrote:
Galloism wrote:Well, we do need to guard the shit out of it.

(I'm immune to smallpox, but I'm old.)


When did you get the vaccine? Work in areas where it was still an issue at the time?

At the time, it was a requirement to attend college. Public schools had eliminated it as a requirement, but my chosen college still required it before you could attend, so I got it when I was like... 16 or 17. Something like that.