3 ms·

Being allowed to leave makes a big difference. However, not voluntarily choosing to be part of that community also makes a difference. Also, most vaccinations

Being allowed to leave makes a big difference. However, not voluntarily choosing to be part of that community also makes a difference. Also, most vaccinations occur at the behest of the guardian and not the individual (which is entirely appropriate). For example, say you (and your guardian) were born into a community (a religious state for example) that believed circumcision was required to be a citizen due to its effectiveness warding off disease. You believe it is ok for the state actor to force everybody to be circumcised so long as when the time comes, there is an option to leave the country? The only way I see this as being reasonable is if there is a country that they can go to, and there is no cost incurred the process.

komali2 8y ago
Your example is false equivalence - circumcision is harmful, vaccines are not.
- hndamien 8y ago
  It isn’t a false equivalence since they both violate body rights. You cannot say that all vaccines are not harmful because you cannot speak for future injections. Many people actually believe circumcision isn’t harmful, and the belief is what matters. The WHO actually has a page specifically for dealing with adverse effects of vaccinations. http://vaccine-safety-training.org/immunization-error-related-reaction.html http://vaccine-safety-training.org/immunization-error-relate... Then you have cases like Thalidomide that were medical tragedies, although not vaccine related, we conducted with the best of medical intention. The question is not are vaccines statistically beneficial (they are). It is not, does medicine have a 100% hit rate at not causing adverse effects (it doesn’t and that is ok). The question is, are you violating somebodies body rights by forcing them to undergo a potentially harmful procedure without their consent. Yes, you would be. This is why we don’t force this today.
  - komali2 8y ago
    I never argued for it to be forced - I argued that it would be necessary for inclusion in a community.
    - hndamien 8y ago
      You defended "Should we allow people a choice or establish dictatorship in important social issues?" with the caveat "if a community decides" its not a dictatorship. That is implying, the community gets to decide violation of somebody's body rights else they must leave the community (regardless of whether or not they chose to be part of it, and if there was any cost to leaving.)
hndamien 8y ago
It’s funny that HN doesn’t agree with me, yet civil society does, since we do not have mandatory vaccinations that violate body rights, and we still manage to have herd immunity through education and other incentives.

komali2 8y ago

Your example is false equivalence - circumcision is harmful, vaccines are not.

hndamien 8y ago
It isn’t a false equivalence since they both violate body rights. You cannot say that all vaccines are not harmful because you cannot speak for future injections. Many people actually believe circumcision isn’t harmful, and the belief is what matters. The WHO actually has a page specifically for dealing with adverse effects of vaccinations. http://vaccine-safety-training.org/immunization-error-related-reaction.html http://vaccine-safety-training.org/immunization-error-relate... Then you have cases like Thalidomide that were medical tragedies, although not vaccine related, we conducted with the best of medical intention. The question is not are vaccines statistically beneficial (they are). It is not, does medicine have a 100% hit rate at not causing adverse effects (it doesn’t and that is ok). The question is, are you violating somebodies body rights by forcing them to undergo a potentially harmful procedure without their consent. Yes, you would be. This is why we don’t force this today.
- komali2 8y ago
  I never argued for it to be forced - I argued that it would be necessary for inclusion in a community.
  - hndamien 8y ago
    You defended "Should we allow people a choice or establish dictatorship in important social issues?" with the caveat "if a community decides" its not a dictatorship. That is implying, the community gets to decide violation of somebody's body rights else they must leave the community (regardless of whether or not they chose to be part of it, and if there was any cost to leaving.)

hndamien 8y ago

It’s funny that HN doesn’t agree with me, yet civil society does, since we do not have mandatory vaccinations that violate body rights, and we still manage to have herd immunity through education and other incentives.