Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I do not doubt that the pro-vaxxers and the anti-vaxxers uphold different scriptures as authoritative.'First Ever' Study Comparing Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children Shows Harm from Vaccines?
Hard to design a more biased study it would seem. But I'm sure the anti-vaxers will see it as a perfect double blind study.
I completely agree.Anti-virals just aren't good enough for people to rely upon them as an effective treatment.
Of course.Vaccines are our best defense against a variety of viral diseases,
That's exactly what I said...? It's a preventative measure.and whether you like it or not, they are a preventative measure.
Yup.It protects EVERYONE'S health. The people that get vaccines benefit, as well as the people that can't get vaccines. But it only works if a large enough portion of the population gets vaccinated.
Yup.If more and more people choose not to get vaccinated, even though they physically could, it puts populations on the whole more at risk of epidemics.
Yup.Plus, people seem to not understand that it doesn't take a large portion of the population becoming ill to put the healthy in danger. Anything higher than 5% of a population becoming severely ill would bring the healthcare system to its breaking point, for example.
Yup.That is, an entire country's healthcare system, assuming that it's a first world country that we are talking about. With people becoming more crowded together and mobile, it has never been easier for a pathogen to spread to millions of people.
Sure. But that doesn't meet the standards for a legal mandate that compromises on bodily autonomy. It's an extremely high bar.Think of it as like a civic duty to everyone else in the country as well as yourself.
The introduction of transistor radios?
OK that is a joke, but it is honestly the best idea I can come up with. I was there. Born in 1953. The sanitation system is not significantly different. There were not any new public health measures put in place. In fact one faded away during that time frame. I do remember going to summer mountian camp and there being a short physical a few days before going. That was gone by the mid 70s. Most likely because the Polio vaccine had been effective.
-_- every single baby born in the United States in a hospital has blood drawn from their foot and is tested for multiple genetic diseases automatically. This has resulted in a significant drop in brain damage from certain metabolic disorders. The benefit outweighs the intrusion.I completely agree.
Of course.
That's exactly what I said...? It's a preventative measure.
Yup.
Yup.
Yup.
Yup.
Sure. But that doesn't meet the standards for a legal mandate that compromises on bodily autonomy. It's an extremely high bar.
So far theres not a single claim you've made that has a shred of evidence.I would say I understood the article better; I did not, after all, propagate false claims about "no studies/scientists linking autism to vaccines", or imply erroneously that "vaccinated are [not] carriers".
The conflict of interest the article I linked to - explained more fully here - claims that the WHO secretly acted in such a way that benefited certain corporations, likely involving at least millions of dollars. I consider that tyrannical, and yes, perhaps we have different ideas of what is involved in "tyranny". Whether there is small or great amounts of power applied unjustly, it remains a dictionary definition of tyranny.
I'm sorry, but you do not know me or my situation, so please refrain from speculating about either, as you've done repeatedly in this thread. Your credibility has already worn thin in this thread, as demonstrated by your numerous false claims.
It is a definition of tyranny, as I demonstrated.
False witness. I never claimed any of the above in this thread.So far theres not a single claim you've made that has a shred of evidence.
You state that those with Ebola should be allowed in the community if they want to. Or for that matter anyone with highly virulent infectious diseases. You allow them into child care centres, shopping malls ... You believe coordination of vaccines world wide is a conspiracy linked to WHO
Siddhatta supposedly renounced his kingdom, so he was in no position as the Lord Buddha to order people outside of the city walls.You support the Lord Buddha yet historically he placed contageous people outside of the city walls making your stance somewhat hypocritical. In all Yea you blew your credibility
Dude you now are deliberately falsifying the Buddhas history. That's a new low. He was a prince and as such had governance of his region and it's towns. I recommend you read the four noble truths and be less inclined with your false statementsFalse witness. I never claimed any of the above in this thread.
Siddhatta supposedly renounced his kingdom to become the Lord Buddha, so was in no position to order people outside of the city walls.
Thanks for the conversation, but your credibility is zero after this thread, IMO.
False witness, yet again!Dude you now are deliberately falsifying the Buddhas history. That's a new low. He was a prince and as such had governance of his region and it's towns. I recommend you read the four noble truths and be less inclined with your false statements
So you obviously agree he did exercise quarantining. Look I'm not being disrespectful to Prince Siddatha (now referred to as Buddha). On the contrary I'm very respectful of him n the philosophy. Let's drop it as it's now fallen into semantics. We've stated our positions, frustrated each other, so I'm happy to give you the last word n sorry if I've annoyed the hell out of you.False witness, yet again!
Earlier, you claimed that "the Lord Buddha ... placed contagious people outside of the city walls". Now, you've changed your story to say that the "prince ... had governance of his region ..."
I stated that the "Lord Buddha" was not in any position to order people outside of any walls - something which you claimed. Note my precise use of the term "Lord Buddha", and not "prince Siddhatta" - the Lord Buddha held no temporal powers over his former realm. When he was previously "Prince Siddhatha" he may have had such powers, but the Lord Buddha no longer did.
Prince Siddhatha was not fully enlightened as a samma-sambuddhassa. The Lord Buddha was.
I tend to be very precise in my use of words.
I have no idea if he did or didn't - first, because I never came across that story in any of the tens of thousands of suttas or jatakas; second, because I didn't witness it for myself; and on a related note, even if he did do so (as Siddhattta or during a previous life), it wasn't necessarily an enlightened action, as he wasn't fully enlightened yet.So you obviously agree he did exercise quarantining.
Take care.Look I'm not being disrespectful to Prince Siddatha (now referred to as Buddha). On the contrary I'm very respectful of him n the philosophy. Let's drop it as it's now fallen into semantics. We've stated our positions, frustrated each other, so I'm happy to give you the last word n sorry if I've annoyed the hell out of you.
Giving birth in a hospital is not required by law, and religious exemptions for newborn screenings are allowed. Some states don't even require a religious justification.-_- every single baby born in the United States in a hospital has blood drawn from their foot and is tested for multiple genetic diseases automatically.
I know, it's fantastic.This has resulted in a significant drop in brain damage from certain metabolic disorders.
Certainly, but I can't agree with you that something should be forced on people by law just by virtue of being the best course of action.The benefit outweighs the intrusion.
Doctor: "Would you like your baby screened for a ton of genetic diseases, many of which would result in brain damage if you gave the child a regular diet?"Giving birth in a hospital is not required by law, and religious exemptions for newborn screenings are allowed.
Why? Tons of other things have been forced into law on that premise. Like the fact that meth is illegal. Oh, that's another type of decision that endangers more than oneself; being high on meth makes one more of a potential danger to other people, due to the altered mental state.Certainly, but I can't agree with you that something should be forced on people by law just by virtue of being the best course of action.
Fine, but that has zero legal weight.Doctor: "Would you like your baby screened for a ton of genetic diseases, many of which would result in brain damage if you gave the child a regular diet?"
Parents: "Nah, if the child is going to be stupid due to a genetic disease that can be treated via change in diet, so be it. Tis the will of Cthulhu."
And that's what I call parents that don't deserve to be parents.
Surely you can see the difference between not allowing someone to put a substance into their body and forcing someone to accept a substance into their body. What is your understanding of bodily autonomy?Why? Tons of other things have been forced into law on that premise. Like the fact that meth is illegal. Oh, that's another type of decision that endangers more than oneself; being high on meth makes one more of a potential danger to other people, due to the altered mental state.
Please don't think that having the legal right to refuse vaccinations makes you right about vaccines not being worth the risk. You're still wrong. You just have the right to be wrong and to live your life according to your wrongness.Congratulations to a government that rejected unconstitutional medical tyranny. It takes a search warrant for the law to get into my car trunk. It should take a heck of a lot more for them to get into my body. My 2 kids were never vaccinated (other than my daughter's first AND LAST one), neither were their 5 grandkids EVER vaccinated.
There is some legal precedent to children being taken away from parents that refused to give them the treatment necessary for them to be healthy on the basis of religion or whim.Fine, but that has zero legal weight.
No, because they don't have the opportunity. Why would I hold it against people to not get medical tests literally unavailable to them? That'd be unreasonable and stupid.Though I'm curious, would you say that individuals who live in parts of the world where these screenings aren't offered have a moral obligation to abstain from sex for their entire lives, lest they give birth to a newborn who isn't granted the highest level of healthcare that currently exists?
That it equally violates bodily autonomy to restrict actions to one's own body just as much as it does to demand one do something to their body. Either way, health choices are being made on your behalf without your input.Surely you can see the difference between not allowing someone to put a substance into their body and forcing someone to accept a substance into their body. What is your understanding of bodily autonomy?
Why wouldn't you? Knowing that the tests aren't available to them, choosing to create a child is functionally the same as refusing the tests. The newborn is in the same situation.No, because they don't have the opportunity. Why would I hold it against people to not get medical tests literally unavailable to them? That'd be unreasonable and stupid.
Then you've missed the entire point of where I stand. This is about preventative treatment.There is some legal precedent to children being taken away from parents that refused to give them the treatment necessary for them to be healthy on the basis of religion or whim.
As a fellow Universalist, though not Unitarian, I could say the very same thing concerning your opinion on this topic. So at least we have one thing in common....well OK sorta.Please don't think that having the legal right to refuse vaccinations makes you right about vaccines not being worth the risk. You're still wrong. You just have the right to be wrong and to live your life according to your wrongness.
Just for future reference, Unitarian Universalist does not indicate Christianity, and I am not Christian. But thank you for the kind sentiment.As a fellow Universalist, though not Unitarian, I could say the very same thing concerning your opinion on this topic. So at least we have one thing in common....well OK sorta.Thank GOD that being brothers...and sisters 'in the Lord' doesn't mandate we be twins. and again I say
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?