3 ms·

The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. There's very good arguments for mandating vaccines against infectious diseases. I think deb

by nkrisc 5y ago

The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. There's very good arguments for mandating vaccines against infectious diseases. I think debating mandated vaccinations with regards to the realistic likelihood of eradicating a disease is a debate that can be had, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The common good must be weighed against individual liberty. Even here in America, the land of the free, we do it all the time. There are countless things I can not do because it would not be in the best interest of society as a whole. In all Western societies, and many others as well, individual liberties are commonly curtailed for the common good. I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others.

TeeMassive 5y ago
Fundamental rights are legal absolutes that can only be negated by other rights or the a threat to the existence of the state itself that is supposed to defend these rights (e.g. war). The problem is, there are no rights to be healthy and not to catch a respiratory disease and the virus doesn't threaten the existence of the state with a 0.05% mortality rate in old and sick people. > I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others. I'm not sure to decide if you're a troll or not.
gruez 5y ago
>The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. What about sodomy? Receptive anal intercourse is an order of magnitude more likely to spread HIV/AIDS[1] than vaginal intercourse. Maybe what happens in the bedroom should be "curtailed for the common good"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission
- abstract_put 5y ago
  I think what the parent comment is suggesting is pregnancy (and sodomy) overwhelmingly impact the people directly involved with it. It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party. I think it's a bit like second hand smoke vs. first hand smoke. I think it's entirely reasonable to object to second hand smoke (refusing vaccinations while insisting on participating in society) in all forms while supporting an individual's right to first hand smoke (pregnancy/sodomy).
  - gruez 5y ago
    >It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party. Consider the prevalence of casual hookups, and how long the incubation period is, I say the chance is pretty high. If anything, the aids epidemic is evidence that it can spread despite requiring intimate contact. That said, for the purposes of this argument I'd be okay with limiting the argument to "ban sodomy for non-married couples" to rule out the "third, unrelated party" element.
- nkrisc 5y ago
  When people start contracting HIV from being in the same room as people with it, then maybe we can have that discussion. Also, just use a condom.

by nkrisc 5y ago

TeeMassive 5y ago

Fundamental rights are legal absolutes that can only be negated by other rights or the a threat to the existence of the state itself that is supposed to defend these rights (e.g. war). The problem is, there are no rights to be healthy and not to catch a respiratory disease and the virus doesn't threaten the existence of the state with a 0.05% mortality rate in old and sick people. > I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others. I'm not sure to decide if you're a troll or not.

gruez 5y ago

>The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. What about sodomy? Receptive anal intercourse is an order of magnitude more likely to spread HIV/AIDS[1] than vaginal intercourse. Maybe what happens in the bedroom should be "curtailed for the common good"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission

abstract_put 5y ago
I think what the parent comment is suggesting is pregnancy (and sodomy) overwhelmingly impact the people directly involved with it. It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party. I think it's a bit like second hand smoke vs. first hand smoke. I think it's entirely reasonable to object to second hand smoke (refusing vaccinations while insisting on participating in society) in all forms while supporting an individual's right to first hand smoke (pregnancy/sodomy).
- gruez 5y ago
  >It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party. Consider the prevalence of casual hookups, and how long the incubation period is, I say the chance is pretty high. If anything, the aids epidemic is evidence that it can spread despite requiring intimate contact. That said, for the purposes of this argument I'd be okay with limiting the argument to "ban sodomy for non-married couples" to rule out the "third, unrelated party" element.
nkrisc 5y ago
When people start contracting HIV from being in the same room as people with it, then maybe we can have that discussion. Also, just use a condom.