Abstaining from Vaccination should NOT be a right

[Shell B]

Oh absolutely, absolutely. A single potential carrier in a vast sea of immunized people is not likely to ever contract a specific disease. A large group of people, however, approaches the level of eventuality. (and we're ignoring the possibility of more virulent strains here btw)

And that is my point. Just as sex education is proven more effective than abstinence, vaccination education may prove more effective than attempting to force compliance. With that in mind, most people do get vaccinated, so it may eventually happen, as it has with other diseases, that no one gets the disease, vaccinated or not. Giving people an option is not going to inevitably lead to the medical thriller doom you present.

Here you are trotting out the "gives others smallpox/gives smallpox" thing again.

Huh?

Little no no possibility, when recorded the severity is low and much better overall than simply contracting smallpox out of the blue. People take precautions when they receive vaccinations (and are directed to do so), those who are not vaccinated are taking what precautions?

They don't have to take precautions and you should not be able to make them.

This is anti-vaxxer shit.

Bullshit, though they do have a point. It is their right to refuse. I'm not anti-vaccination. I'm anti-forced medicine of any kind.

No, it isn't, but it is negligence that can very easily lead to massive loss of life.

That is very, very unlikely. Pandemics have never been that deadly. Even the 1918 endemic and the plague were only deadly because of pneumonia, which can now be treated with antibiotics.

You're actually referencing the success of vaccinations (the steady decline of specific infectious diseases in the face of vaccination) in an effort to undermine the argument for mandatory vaccinations?

Yes, I absolutely am. I am arguing that the intelligent use of vaccinations by most of the population will suffice. Quarantining sick individuals prevents spread of infection when it happens and the list goes on.

I have higher expectations of others, clearly.

Yes, I don't see why you have any expectations of people you don't even know.

I don't think that insisting that they receive vaccinations is an unreasonable request.

Wanting them to is not unreasonable. Insisting that they do is overstepping.

Yeah, because we are so totally the world. (I know, I know, cheap jabs).

If you prefer me change that to "you are trying to control everyone," I would be more than happy to do that.

Again, I'm not attempting to control the world, I'm just asking you, Shell, why it is unreasonable of me to attempt to control something that we can control, that is universally beneficial, and cannot seriously be argued to be harmful in any way shape or form, whatsoever.

Because whilst making that argument you are imposing your will on others, which is the precise argument I am sure you make against pro-lifers. It's fucking hypocritical. And, yes, if it has been harmful for even one person, it can be argued to be harmful. Why the fuck do you think sick people shouldn't take vaccinations? They certainly aren't fucking candy. It has to be an informed decision.

Care to make the case for population control as a procedure with demonstrated benefits that solves a specific problem?

Why would I? I have absolutely no desire to impose population control on people. Care to cherry pick what risks to humans you care to regulate by forced medical procedures? Hey, forced sterilizations of people with genetic disorders would eradicate those disorders! Let's do that!! Fuck, yeah. World police!

I would, because that's the situation. It doesn't safeguard against fuck-ups completely but no one claimed that it did.

So . . . those "fuck-ups" are acceptable as long as it is for the greater good? Haha, fuck your right to life and health if it has the slight potential to hurt my right to life and health.

Well, as you said, we have a massive disagreement here, so I thought it might be useful to pick a subject with a hell of a lot of parralels that we were likely to agree on, and then you could show me where the two programs were different, and why those differences mattered. A proxy issue. We decided not to let people drink milk however they wanted it because it represented a massive threat to our health that was costing us tons of money and lives. Not only did we mandate that un-pastuerized milk is not for human consumption, we prevented producers from even selling it legally without express agreement and labeling that it was pet food. So, we told people what they could or could not voluntarily introduce into their system (the foreign substance being milk), what state that substance had to be in before it could be introduced, what a property owner could do with his property (the cows and the milk) and what he could do with the product on the market (economic control). It worked. It was hugely successful. It is hailed as one of the greatest public health programs ever devised or implemented anywhere. Still..there are protesters....

Yeah, if you want to eat something that can kill you, that is your fucking choice. I am also okay with suicide and don't consider it murdering yourself. Sure, it was successful. Is it necessary to force everyone? No.

(unfortunately for my brilliant plan, you figure people should be able to drink milk in the raw...so...probably won't help..lol)

Yep, I do. I wouldn't do it and I certainly wouldn't give it to my children. Do I think people should have a choice what they want to do to themselves . . . yup.

:late edit: As far as why we get into such disagreements, my other option is to waste my time disagreeing with Chippy...I prefer you..lol.

I don't blame you.