(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(July 11, 2015 at 11:38 am)Pyrrho Wrote: In both cases, there is a violation of the integrity of the body of someone against their will. In both cases, there is some (small) risk of serious harm to the individual. In both cases the effects of not doing this are serious for society; that is, for other people (given the hypothetical).
Both cases would fit with the idea that "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins." You don't have the right to cause other people to starve to death, do you?
Sorry. I still don't think that requiring vaccinations for kids who want to attend public schools in any way shape or form equates at all with the government stripping away a person's right to have children by permanently sterilizing their bodies by force.
I have just explained some similarities. Are you saying that there are no similarities?
Of course, it is not exactly the same thing. That is true of everything that has even a slight difference from other things.
(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If the blue underlined line on your post stands alone as its own principle, all kinds of heinous things can be "justified."
Such as? And how so?
(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Just because something being done in a small, relatively insignificant way is acceptable, doesn't mean the super extreme of it is acceptable. I shouldn't even need to argue or further explain this.
You mean you believe that everyone should just take your word for everything and just agree with you no matter what you say? If not, then you do need to argue and explain.
You also have not answered the final question of that post. Do you believe you have the right to cause other people to starve to death? It is a simple 'yes or no' question. But by all means, feel free to explain and elaborate your answer, if you wish.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
