4 ms·

I'm having trouble seeing the difference between this and the "government mandate" against drunk driving. In both cases, the government is preventing you from

I'm having trouble seeing the difference between this and the "government mandate" against drunk driving. In both cases, the government is preventing you from recklessly endangering the lives of others (in addition to your own). If you are anti-DUI laws, then I have questions about your value system, but I will admit that you're at least consistent.

DamnYuppie 11y ago
How many peoole have died in this country as a result of someone else not being vaccinated?
- gonvaled 11y ago
  Probably thousands (millions?), in times past mostly, because that is when the mass population was not vaccinated. Diseases transmit with much more difficulty if people are vaccinated. Diseases kill some people (let's call them "the weak ones"). If people are vaccinated, diseases do not kill that much (because they do not reach the weak ones). If people are not vaccinated, diseases reach the weak ones, and kill them.
jrs235 11y ago
One mandate requires an individual to take risk against their will? If you don't see the difference between the two mandates above, do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA?
- thedufer 11y ago
  > One mandate requires an individual to take risk against their will? The vaccinations being required provably decrease death rates, which sounds a lot like the opposite of taking a risk. It's also worth noting that this is not a true mandate. Like how DUI laws only apply to people who choose to drive, vaccines are simply the cost of entry to the public school system. > do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA? If you can bypass the law by a simple step like not sending your children to public school, and the abortion/sterilization significantly decreases both the risk of death to the person receiving the operation and the general public, then I suspect I would not be opposed to such a measure. I'm having trouble imagining what that scenario looks like, though.

DamnYuppie 11y ago

How many peoole have died in this country as a result of someone else not being vaccinated?

gonvaled 11y ago
Probably thousands (millions?), in times past mostly, because that is when the mass population was not vaccinated. Diseases transmit with much more difficulty if people are vaccinated. Diseases kill some people (let's call them "the weak ones"). If people are vaccinated, diseases do not kill that much (because they do not reach the weak ones). If people are not vaccinated, diseases reach the weak ones, and kill them.

jrs235 11y ago

One mandate requires an individual to take risk against their will? If you don't see the difference between the two mandates above, do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA?

thedufer 11y ago
> One mandate requires an individual to take risk against their will? The vaccinations being required provably decrease death rates, which sounds a lot like the opposite of taking a risk. It's also worth noting that this is not a true mandate. Like how DUI laws only apply to people who choose to drive, vaccines are simply the cost of entry to the public school system. > do you see a difference between government mandating vaccinations and government mandated sterilization or abortion of certain individuals with certain genes/DNA? If you can bypass the law by a simple step like not sending your children to public school, and the abortion/sterilization significantly decreases both the risk of death to the person receiving the operation and the general public, then I suspect I would not be opposed to such a measure. I'm having trouble imagining what that scenario looks like, though.