Hundreds quarantined for measles in 2 CA universities.

[Farnhamia]

Clearly, we need mandatory vaccinations.

I can't fathom how the idiocy of some people has spread their stupid disease so far over the internet because of social media - then they endanger their own kids' lives and proceed to endanger herd immunity - thus endangering the lives of the people who can't even vaccinate themselves for certain reasons.
Too bad we don't have a vaccine for "stupid". Because you can't cure stupid.

"B-but the state can't infringe on m-my r-right to m-my body!"

It's only in America where something as ludicrous as anti-vaxxer movements can be either in the mainstream, or so loud that it's impossible to tell if they're a fringe minority or not.

Only in America? I think not.

[Galloism]

"B-but the state can't infringe on m-my r-right to m-my body!"

It's only in America where something as ludicrous as anti-vaxxer movements can be either in the mainstream, or so loud that it's impossible to tell if they're a fringe minority or not.

Only in America? I think not.

Glad we're not the only country with something stupid going on.

Clearly, we need mandatory vaccinations.

I can't fathom how the idiocy of some people has spread their stupid disease so far over the internet because of social media - then they endanger their own kids' lives and proceed to endanger herd immunity - thus endangering the lives of the people who can't even vaccinate themselves for certain reasons.
Too bad we don't have a vaccine for "stupid". Because you can't cure stupid.

"B-but the state can't infringe on m-my r-right to m-my body!"

It's only in America where something as ludicrous as anti-vaxxer movements can be either in the mainstream, or so loud that it's impossible to tell if they're a fringe minority or not.

Keep in mind, everything you do, every argument you make, ever, will be used against you later.

[Farnhamia]

Only in America? I think not.

Glad we're not the only country with something stupid going on.

"B-but the state can't infringe on m-my r-right to m-my body!"

It's only in America where something as ludicrous as anti-vaxxer movements can be either in the mainstream, or so loud that it's impossible to tell if they're a fringe minority or not.

Keep in mind, everything you do, every argument you make, ever, will be used against you later.

Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you

[Purpelia]

The problem with americans is that you want all the rights but none of the duties that come with them. That's why when ever someone gives you something you want he is being good (even if it destroys others) but when you have to give something back than it's suddenly infringing on your freedoms. Even when said freedoms are the freedom to own slaves.

Vaccinations are a duty that a citizen should have toward society. It is not a right to be given or taken away.

[Galloism]

Glad we're not the only country with something stupid going on.



Keep in mind, everything you do, every argument you make, ever, will be used against you later.

Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you

Sort of, yes.

But it's why I'm uncomfortable with mandatory vaccinations of adults - it severely undermines the notion of bodily autonomy. If you can be forced to take vaccines, you can be forced to take (or keep) other things in your body, even against your will.

[Purpelia]

Sort of, yes.

But it's why I'm uncomfortable with mandatory vaccinations of adults - it severely undermines the notion of bodily autonomy. If you can be forced to take vaccines, you can be forced to take (or keep) other things in your body, even against your will.

That is because you indeed CAN be forced. And that is a good thing. It is not a bad thing for the state to force people to do things against their will if those things are required to stop the people in question from directly harming others. Because it is your civic duty as a citizen of a nation to do those things.

You can be forced to take treatment for Ebola if you have it rather than going around hugging everyone smearing them with your Ebola blood. You can be forced not to sell fake medicine. You can be forced not to steal, kill, rape or pillage. This is no different.

[Galloism]

Sort of, yes.

But it's why I'm uncomfortable with mandatory vaccinations of adults - it severely undermines the notion of bodily autonomy. If you can be forced to take vaccines, you can be forced to take (or keep) other things in your body, even against your will.

That is because you indeed CAN be forced. And that is a good thing. It is not a bad thing for the state to force people to do things against their will if those things are required to stop the people in question from directly harming others. Because it is your civic duty as a citizen of a nation to do those things.

You can be forced to take treatment for Ebola if you have it rather than going around hugging everyone smearing them with your Ebola blood. You can be forced not to sell fake medicine. You can be forced not to steal, kill, rape or pillage. This is no different.

I mean, the problem is that this directly plays into the hands of the pro life crowd - that you can force women to carry a baby if doing so will prevent her from harming another (the fetus) by having it removed.

And while the first one (Ebola) is a bodily autonomy issue (and one we typically don't force, although we can isolate them from society until they recover or die), the fake medicine, steal, kill, rape, or pillage are not - those are all red herrings. These are about actions you take, not medical procedures within your own body.

[Purpelia]

I mean, the problem is that this directly plays into the hands of the pro life crowd - that you can force women to carry a baby if doing so will prevent her from harming another (the fetus) by having it removed.

Exdept that the fetus is: 1. Not a human and 2. Not a citizen making the very comparison idiotic. You might as well be using it to advocate not stepping on roaches or not killing bacteria. They are after all alive and fully formed at that making them superior biologically speaking to a fetus.

And while the first one (Ebola) is a bodily autonomy issue (and one we typically don't force, although we can isolate them from society until they recover or die), the fake medicine, steal, kill, rape, or pillage are not - those are all red herrings. These are about actions you take, not medical procedures within your own body.

Choosing not to do your civic duty is an action in its own right. It's no different than choosing not to pay taxes or not to pay in a shop when you take things or not to ask for consent before sex.

[Dooom35796821595]

That is because you indeed CAN be forced. And that is a good thing. It is not a bad thing for the state to force people to do things against their will if those things are required to stop the people in question from directly harming others. Because it is your civic duty as a citizen of a nation to do those things.

You can be forced to take treatment for Ebola if you have it rather than going around hugging everyone smearing them with your Ebola blood. You can be forced not to sell fake medicine. You can be forced not to steal, kill, rape or pillage. This is no different.

I mean, the problem is that this directly plays into the hands of the pro life crowd - that you can force women to carry a baby if doing so will prevent her from harming another (the fetus) by having it removed.

And while the first one (Ebola) is a bodily autonomy issue (and one we typically don't force, although we can isolate them from society until they recover or die), the fake medicine, steal, kill, rape, or pillage are not - those are all red herrings. These are about actions you take, not medical procedures within your own body.

Not really, the “pro life” crowd are hypocrites and anti-science they don’t need precedent to continue with their BS. Where as vaccines are a societal issue, one that can lead to wide spread suffering and death if not kept at high enough percentages.

[Vistulange]

That is because you indeed CAN be forced. And that is a good thing. It is not a bad thing for the state to force people to do things against their will if those things are required to stop the people in question from directly harming others. Because it is your civic duty as a citizen of a nation to do those things.

You can be forced to take treatment for Ebola if you have it rather than going around hugging everyone smearing them with your Ebola blood. You can be forced not to sell fake medicine. You can be forced not to steal, kill, rape or pillage. This is no different.

I mean, the problem is that this directly plays into the hands of the pro life crowd - that you can force women to carry a baby if doing so will prevent her from harming another (the fetus) by having it removed.

And while the first one (Ebola) is a bodily autonomy issue (and one we typically don't force, although we can isolate them from society until they recover or die), the fake medicine, steal, kill, rape, or pillage are not - those are all red herrings. These are about actions you take, not medical procedures within your own body.

A person carrying a contagious disease has become a threat to other individuals within his society by virtue of carrying a contagious disease. There are three ways to deal with this: Quarantine this individual until the disease has run its course, for good or for ill; or cure him by force. If he consents to either, then there's obviously no problem; but if he does not consent to either, there will be forcing involved one way or another. This is in spite of him being ill, and it being his own illness. The third way is to pre-empt contagious diseases by vaccinating every member or at least a majority of a society, providing herd immunity and giving the disease a minimum of hosts on which it can proliferate and spread.

Sensible people do not make the same arguments for non-contagious diseases, no matter how serious they may be, as they literally cannot harm other members of the society. However, diseases such as measles, smallpox, etc. are serious public health issues and are by no means restricted to the individual. The question is, in what way would we want to compel individuals in order to protect public health - do we quarantine them after an infection is caught, do we cure them after an infection is caught, or do we vaccinate them for what I assume is a fraction of the cost, before an infection is caught, and moreover, prevent further infections?

EDIT: It occurred to me that there is a fourth option - "do nothing". This is also feasible, though unless a vast majority of a society's population is vaccinated, it will most likely lead to massive public health problems - the severity of which will depend on the disease at hand - and other interconnected problems which come due to, you know, a large segment of the population being sick.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Glad we're not the only country with something stupid going on.



Keep in mind, everything you do, every argument you make, ever, will be used against you later.

Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I'll be watching you

Totally not ominous in the slightest.

Although it may just be a prediction of cognative and logical dissonance causing such irreconcileable feelings for the opposing viewpoints.

Some vaccines, especially experimental ones, are optional.... unless you get a job that requires it in the same manner you're required to wear PPE and wash your hands.

Transcended ant-vax: refusal to wash hands while working at Burger-King?

[Galloism]

I mean, the problem is that this directly plays into the hands of the pro life crowd - that you can force women to carry a baby if doing so will prevent her from harming another (the fetus) by having it removed.

Exdept that the fetus is: 1. Not a human and 2. Not a citizen making the very comparison idiotic. You might as well be using it to advocate not stepping on roaches or not killing bacteria. They are after all alive and fully formed at that making them superior biologically speaking to a fetus.

Whether it is or isn't is super important to the argument - over 30 states recognize, at least by indirect implication, the personhood of the fetus. Whether it's a citizen or not is also irrelevant - we recognize murders even of non citizens.

And while the first one (Ebola) is a bodily autonomy issue (and one we typically don't force, although we can isolate them from society until they recover or die), the fake medicine, steal, kill, rape, or pillage are not - those are all red herrings. These are about actions you take, not medical procedures within your own body.

Choosing not to do your civic duty is an action in its own right. It's no different than choosing not to pay taxes or not to pay in a shop when you take things or not to ask for consent before sex.

Theres a big issue here with positive vs negative requirements.

When you work to make a certain amount of money, or take certain other actions you are required to pay taxes as a consequence. A voluntary positive action leads to another one. You can't be forced by the state to work - that's slavery. Taking a positive action leads to additional required actions, but you aren't forced to take that action.

If you take an item from a shop, you are required to pay for it. A voluntary positive action leads to another required one. You are not forced to take the item - that's compulsory consumerism.

If you take the voluntary action of having sex, you are required to secure consent. A voluntary action requires another action. But you can't be forced to have sex - that's rape.

Compared with compulsory vaccinations of adults, using your examples, that's far more like state sanctioned slavery, compulsory consumerism (it explicitly is this as is, for the record), and state sanctioned rape than being required to pay taxes, pay for goods you take, or getting consent. Each of those is predicated on some other action to be required as an ancillary, while mandatory vaccination is just a consequence of being alive.

[Galloism]

Where as vaccines are a societal issue, one that can lead to wide spread suffering and death if not kept at high enough percentages.

As you're no doubt aware, based on the presumption that fetuses are human (which is accepted at least by implication in over 30 state laws), abortion has led to the deaths of millions.

You're handing ammunition to your enemies, and they will use it against you.

Did you know that a federal court of appeal blocked Trump from cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities... based on the Supreme Court ruling that defended the states against being required to adopt the medicaid expansion mandated under the Affordable Care Act?

[Galloism]

I mean, the problem is that this directly plays into the hands of the pro life crowd - that you can force women to carry a baby if doing so will prevent her from harming another (the fetus) by having it removed.

And while the first one (Ebola) is a bodily autonomy issue (and one we typically don't force, although we can isolate them from society until they recover or die), the fake medicine, steal, kill, rape, or pillage are not - those are all red herrings. These are about actions you take, not medical procedures within your own body.

A person carrying a contagious disease has become a threat to other individuals within his society by virtue of carrying a contagious disease. There are three ways to deal with this: Quarantine this individual until the disease has run its course, for good or for ill; or cure him by force. If he consents to either, then there's obviously no problem; but if he does not consent to either, there will be forcing involved one way or another. This is in spite of him being ill, and it being his own illness.

True - and for extreme extant threads to the population, we have allowed quarantine historically. It is not a violation of bodily autonomy, but a limitation on the right to travel. We do find right to travel to be important, but we generally deem it to be less important than bodily autonomy. After all, we can imprison people from crimes, but we can't medically experiment on them.

Well, anymore. We stopped that decades ago.

The third way is to pre-empt contagious diseases by vaccinating every member or at least a majority of a society, providing herd immunity and giving the disease a minimum of hosts on which it can proliferate and spread.

We could, but again, that's talking about a bodily autonomy violation based on a hypothetical future harm. That's a pretty extreme position. We could, after all, justify putting mind altering drugs in the water to pacify the population in the same vein - to prevent all of them from committing violent crimes against their neighbors. Statistically, some will, just as statistically some unvaccinated people will become a danger to others, but most won't, just as most unvaccinated won't.

It's a pretty terrifying prospect however - to say that the government can violate your body based on the statistical probability that you might become a threat in the future.

Sensible people do not make the same arguments for non-contagious diseases, no matter how serious they may be, as they literally cannot harm other members of the society. However, diseases such as measles, smallpox, etc. are serious public health issues and are by no means restricted to the individual. The question is, in what way would we want to compel individuals in order to protect public health - do we quarantine them after an infection is caught, do we cure them after an infection is caught, or do we vaccinate them for what I assume is a fraction of the cost, before an infection is caught, and moreover, prevent further infections?

From a principled standpoint, quarantining is the safest option in the interests of society.

EDIT: It occurred to me that there is a fourth option - "do nothing". This is also feasible, though unless a vast majority of a society's population is vaccinated, it will most likely lead to massive public health problems - the severity of which will depend on the disease at hand - and other interconnected problems which come due to, you know, a large segment of the population being sick.

I mean, if the percentage of vaccination drops to a level that it starts causing such things, we'll probably have to do something, but I'm not sure if violating the bodily autonomy of everyone based on some notion of statistics is the thing. We'd have to be in true crisis for that to be an acceptable option. IE, facing the end of society if we don't.

[Vistulange]

"B-but the state can't infringe on m-my r-right to m-my body!"

It's only in America where something as ludicrous as anti-vaxxer movements can be either in the mainstream, or so loud that it's impossible to tell if they're a fringe minority or not.

Not to make this an abortion debate but it feels ironic.

It really is quite ironic, but I'm not going to say something I don't believe in simply out of fear that it may give ammunition to a cause I do not support. In an abortion thread, we can discuss the ideas of state intervention into one's body in the context of abortion - I do not do that, since a) abortion has been discussed ad nauseaum and b) my opinions regarding abortion are incredibly mixed - but this is regarding vaccines, and I absolutely support mandatory vaccination in the context of contagious diseases.

Then again, I'm not an American. I'm putting forth my arguments outside of an American context, but instead trying to do so in a generalised manner.

A person carrying a contagious disease has become a threat to other individuals within his society by virtue of carrying a contagious disease. There are three ways to deal with this: Quarantine this individual until the disease has run its course, for good or for ill; or cure him by force. If he consents to either, then there's obviously no problem; but if he does not consent to either, there will be forcing involved one way or another. This is in spite of him being ill, and it being his own illness.

True - and for extreme extant threads to the population, we have allowed quarantine historically. It is not a violation of bodily autonomy, but a limitation on the right to travel. We do find right to travel to be important, but we generally deem it to be less important than bodily autonomy. After all, we can imprison people from crimes, but we can't medically experiment on them.

Well, anymore. We stopped that decades ago.

The third way is to pre-empt contagious diseases by vaccinating every member or at least a majority of a society, providing herd immunity and giving the disease a minimum of hosts on which it can proliferate and spread.

We could, but again, that's talking about a bodily autonomy violation based on a hypothetical future harm. That's a pretty extreme position. We could, after all, justify putting mind altering drugs in the water to pacify the population in the same vein - to prevent all of them from committing violent crimes against their neighbors. Statistically, some will, just as statistically some unvaccinated people will become a danger to others, but most won't, just as most unvaccinated won't.

It's a pretty terrifying prospect however - to say that the government can violate your body based on the statistical probability that you might become a threat in the future.

Sensible people do not make the same arguments for non-contagious diseases, no matter how serious they may be, as they literally cannot harm other members of the society. However, diseases such as measles, smallpox, etc. are serious public health issues and are by no means restricted to the individual. The question is, in what way would we want to compel individuals in order to protect public health - do we quarantine them after an infection is caught, do we cure them after an infection is caught, or do we vaccinate them for what I assume is a fraction of the cost, before an infection is caught, and moreover, prevent further infections?

From a principled standpoint, quarantining is the safest option in the interests of society.

EDIT: It occurred to me that there is a fourth option - "do nothing". This is also feasible, though unless a vast majority of a society's population is vaccinated, it will most likely lead to massive public health problems - the severity of which will depend on the disease at hand - and other interconnected problems which come due to, you know, a large segment of the population being sick.

I mean, if the percentage of vaccination drops to a level that it starts causing such things, we'll probably have to do something, but I'm not sure if violating the bodily autonomy of everyone based on some notion of statistics is the thing. We'd have to be in true crisis for that to be an acceptable option. IE, facing the end of society if we don't.

The fundamental difference is that crime, violent or non-violent, has other deterrents and countermeasures in place to counteract it imposed by society and state. These deterrents, punishments, whatever you want to call them, work on the principle that a sound individual is responsible for his own actions. Based off of that, in a modern justice and law enforcement system, mind-altering drugs in the water supply to prevent crime would generally not be considered to be a first line of defence against crime.

On the other hand, a sound individual has very little control in practical terms regarding his contact with contagions. A person can be careful - hopefully not to the extent of being obsessive about it - and still get sick. The first line of defence against many, many contagions is a vaccine. It's not in the same ballpark of adding mind-altering drugs into the water supply, I would wager.

[Thermodolia]

But their freedom!

But my brain cells and blood vessels!

Obviously we don’t need those anymore

[Thermodolia]

Clearly, we need mandatory vaccinations.

I can't fathom how the idiocy of some people has spread their stupid disease so far over the internet because of social media - then they endanger their own kids' lives and proceed to endanger herd immunity - thus endangering the lives of the people who can't even vaccinate themselves for certain reasons.
Too bad we don't have a vaccine for "stupid". Because you can't cure stupid.

"B-but the state can't infringe on m-my r-right to m-my body!"

It's only in America where something as ludicrous as anti-vaxxer movements can be either in the mainstream, or so loud that it's impossible to tell if they're a fringe minority or not.

France, Italy, and UK too. Actually France has the highest non-vaccination rates in all of Europe

[Duhon]

But my brain cells and blood vessels!

Obviously we don’t need those anymore

Obviously I won't need it after I die of stroke, but what about you?

[Free Arabian Nation]

But my brain cells and blood vessels!

Obviously we don’t need those anymore

I mean, yeah.

How else do you think we're able to survive NSG?

[Galloism]

"B-but the state can't infringe on m-my r-right to m-my body!"

It's only in America where something as ludicrous as anti-vaxxer movements can be either in the mainstream, or so loud that it's impossible to tell if they're a fringe minority or not.

France, Italy, and UK too. Actually France has the highest non-vaccination rates in all of Europe

Incidentally, even though mandatory bodily autonomy violations bother me based on principled views on human rights, we do need to sell vaccinations a lot better.

They’re fucking sorcery, really really good sorcery.

Someone needs to make some memes of Gandalf giving the hobbits vaccines before their trip to Mordor.

[Vistulange]

"B-but the state can't infringe on m-my r-right to m-my body!"

It's only in America where something as ludicrous as anti-vaxxer movements can be either in the mainstream, or so loud that it's impossible to tell if they're a fringe minority or not.

France, Italy, and UK too. Actually France has the highest non-vaccination rates in all of Europe

I should probably note at this point that I wasn't referencing vaccination rates, but instead how vocal and conspiracy-addled the American anti-vaccination crowd is.

[Dooom35796821595]

Where as vaccines are a societal issue, one that can lead to wide spread suffering and death if not kept at high enough percentages.

As you're no doubt aware, based on the presumption that fetuses are human (which is accepted at least by implication in over 30 state laws), abortion has led to the deaths of millions.

You're handing ammunition to your enemies, and they will use it against you.

Did you know that a federal court of appeal blocked Trump from cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities... based on the Supreme Court ruling that defended the states against being required to adopt the medicaid expansion mandated under the Affordable Care Act?

That seems more like a state vs federal issue, rather then a mandatory vaccination opening the door for a ban on abortion. After all isn’t Roe v Wade the federal case legalising abortion nationwide? On that same basis, federal law making vaccination mandatory would sit along the same lines, making it a federal issue rather then a state issue.

Also, the lack of border control between states, and the fact the CDC is a federal institution would support the fact that vaccination is a nationwide issue, and not something states can legislate on individually.

[Galloism]

As you're no doubt aware, based on the presumption that fetuses are human (which is accepted at least by implication in over 30 state laws), abortion has led to the deaths of millions.

You're handing ammunition to your enemies, and they will use it against you.

Did you know that a federal court of appeal blocked Trump from cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities... based on the Supreme Court ruling that defended the states against being required to adopt the medicaid expansion mandated under the Affordable Care Act?

That seems more like a state vs federal issue, rather then a mandatory vaccination opening the door for a ban on abortion. After all isn’t Roe v Wade the federal case legalising abortion nationwide? On that same basis, federal law making vaccination mandatory would sit along the same lines, making it a federal issue rather then a state issue.

Yes - it was based on the idea that people have a right to choose their own valid medical procedures and that choice can’t be restricted by the state.

Oops.

Also, the lack of border control between states, and the fact the CDC is a federal institution would support the fact that vaccination is a nationwide issue, and not something states can legislate on individually.

Of course - but the underpinning principle of Roe v. Wade is as binding on the fed as it is on the states.

[Dooom35796821595]

That seems more like a state vs federal issue, rather then a mandatory vaccination opening the door for a ban on abortion. After all isn’t Roe v Wade the federal case legalising abortion nationwide? On that same basis, federal law making vaccination mandatory would sit along the same lines, making it a federal issue rather then a state issue.

Yes - it was based on the idea that people have a right to choose their own valid medical procedures and that choice can’t be restricted by the state.

Oops.

Also, the lack of border control between states, and the fact the CDC is a federal institution would support the fact that vaccination is a nationwide issue, and not something states can legislate on individually.

Of course - but the underpinning principle of Roe v. Wade is as binding on the fed as it is on the states.

Well since children are normally the ones who need vaccination and they don’t have the right to choose, their parents do, it could be legislated as a child welfare issue, therefore not affecting bodily sovereignty.

[Galloism]

Yes - it was based on the idea that people have a right to choose their own valid medical procedures and that choice can’t be restricted by the state.

Oops.



Of course - but the underpinning principle of Roe v. Wade is as binding on the fed as it is on the states.

Well since children are normally the ones who need vaccination and they don’t have the right to choose, their parents do, it could be legislated as a child welfare issue, therefore not affecting bodily sovereignty.

THAT is a stronger and less problematic position. We already recognize children as having a duty of care that vaccination could fall under.