>Furthermore I wouldn't even want kids, if they'll be raised by you. They're better of dead or aborted. Ignoring the abortion aspect where theres arguments on

>Furthermore I wouldn't even want kids, if they'll be raised by you. They're better of dead or aborted. Ignoring the abortion aspect where theres arguments on both sides as to whether its killing a person or not, lets look at the rest of that. You are saying that you don't want to live in a world where your choices are forced, but if you had to, you'd kill your kids rather then let them live in it? How is this logically consistent at all? The only thing I'm seeing out of your argument is that you believe you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong, and you can take peoples lives if that is your decisions >My actual position is that life sciences are going to radically change in the next decade or so, anyway. Why bother haranguing people about vaccinations, when five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem, rendering vaccinations as obsolete as brute force quarantines? So just put our heads in the sands and not deal with any issue because "...five years from now, biological agents might very well be a solved problem?". People who didn't make the choice to not get vaccinated are dieing due to others choices _now_, so we should let that keep happening because it _might_ not be a problem in the future? I get the whole individual freedom argument. I even agree with it. However, when your choices start affecting others, you are now guilty of the exact same problem you were accusing others of. You are making choices for other people