Let me ask you guys this, If i told you there was a way to prevent AID's, Hep C, Herpes, Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea and nearly all STD's, and there is Zero side effects, None.
Should it be enforced ?
And if this prevention was to be subscribed to all adults too, and if some adults don't want to comply, should they be put in a special place or another city where those who don't comply can live together with out the herd immunity from this prevention?
(it dosn't matter what the prevention is, it is hypothetical, im just interested in your answers, and how it might relate to the quoted reply's above.)
Abstinence? ;)
Actually, now I think about it, abstinence does have a side effect - childlessness. So let's go with the enforcement of a maximum limit of one sexual partner per person per lifetime, Of course, it wouldn't 100% prevent all the diseases you list since a lot of them are blood-borne as well, but it'd surely cut the infection rates down!
Humble Minion - medical genius. Can I have my Nobel prize now please?
In all seriousness, I suspect the above question was a bit of a gotcha, intended so you could go "Hah, abstinence!" at people when they didn't twig. But there is a very fundamental difference, in that exposing yourself to STDs is a voluntary thing. An adult can make the choice, by abstinence, to completely 100% protect themselves against STDs, and can reduce it to very near zero by using condoms and being generally a bit careful. There is no equivalence for stuff like measles, polio, diptheria, typhoid, etc which you (or your 6 month old baby) can catch by merely being near someone who is infected and from which you have no real practical means of defence or even prevention.
And yes, there is an exception in the case of rape, in which case people CAN contract STDs despite all precautions they might take. But we DO lock people up who transmit STDs that way, after all...
It is interesting, their right to freely choose to not have a Vax is still supported by the government, but that right has consequences in that they are denied school by the state.
I think it is an interesting conundrum for the government, do you deny a child education because they or parents choose to freely with in there rights to reject a vax?
Im not against vaxs, i do have some concerns, not relating to autism or mercury, but concerns about drug companys selling vaccines that give mild protection to disease's where getting hit by a car is more likely to occur than the disease they are vaccinating against, under the guise of "you can never be too sure" Risk V Cost V Award is something bio ethicist i hope look after for us.
Sometimes the risk isnt that great if the cost is denying other services which could save more lives etc..
Anyway, i have a question for some of you, who seem to have the opinion that Herd immunity, our health etc.. is paramount above all things, i know non of you said it, but some of the comments would lead me to think you might even support forced vaccination? To protect the children and the community at large?
Here is what some of you said:
If for no reason other than economics.
The cost of a vaccine costs a whole lot less than someone in ICU with vaccine preventable illness.
It's not a debate, there is mountains of evidence that shows both un-vaccinated children are a risk to the community in terms of disease and that there is no link between vaccination and autism. They are both fact.
yes, because they still pose a risk to vaccinated kids. Herd Immunity is the only way to go.
kids that are not vaccinated should not be excluded from school.
They should all have to go to the same one.
Let me ask you guys this, If i told you there was a way to prevent AID's, Hep C, Herpes, Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea and nearly all STD's, and there is Zero side effects, None.
Should it be enforced ?
And if this prevention was to be subscribed to all adults too, and if some adults don't want to comply, should they be put in a special place or another city where those who don't comply can live together with out the herd immunity from this prevention?
(it dosn't matter what the prevention is, it is hypothetical, im just interested in your answers, and how it might relate to the quoted reply's above.)
Last time I checked kids weren't dying of STDs at school.
I think most people would want vaccinations for any of the nastiest illnesses humans can get.
It is interesting, their right to freely choose to not have a Vax is still supported by the government, but that right has consequences in that they are denied school by the state.
I think it is an interesting conundrum for the government, do you deny a child education because they or parents choose to freely with in there rights to reject a vax?
Im not against vaxs, i do have some concerns, not relating to autism or mercury, but concerns about drug companys selling vaccines that give mild protection to disease's where getting hit by a car is more likely to occur than the disease they are vaccinating against, under the guise of "you can never be too sure" Risk V Cost V Award is something bio ethicist i hope look after for us.
Sometimes the risk isnt that great if the cost is denying other services which could save more lives etc..
Anyway, i have a question for some of you, who seem to have the opinion that Herd immunity, our health etc.. is paramount above all things, i know non of you said it, but some of the comments would lead me to think you might even support forced vaccination? To protect the children and the community at large?
Here is what some of you said:
If for no reason other than economics.
The cost of a vaccine costs a whole lot less than someone in ICU with vaccine preventable illness.
It's not a debate, there is mountains of evidence that shows both un-vaccinated children are a risk to the community in terms of disease and that there is no link between vaccination and autism. They are both fact.
yes, because they still pose a risk to vaccinated kids. Herd Immunity is the only way to go.
kids that are not vaccinated should not be excluded from school.
They should all have to go to the same one.
Let me ask you guys this, If i told you there was a way to prevent AID's, Hep C, Herpes, Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea and nearly all STD's, and there is Zero side effects, None.
Should it be enforced ?
And if this prevention was to be subscribed to all adults too, and if some adults don't want to comply, should they be put in a special place or another city where those who don't comply can live together with out the herd immunity from this prevention?
(it dosn't matter what the prevention is, it is hypothetical, im just interested in your answers, and how it might relate to the quoted reply's above.)
Last time I checked kids weren't dying of STDs at school.
I think most people would want vaccinations for any of the nastiest illnesses humans can get.
Also all of the diseases mentioned are not overly rapidly progressing. There is time to diagnose and treat (even for HIV now). Polio, measles, diphtheria, HiB, tetanus are all rapidly progressing diseases, by the time they are diagnosed they are (maybe with the exception of measles but even in some cases it still is) life threatening.
Last time I checked kids weren't dying of STDs at school.
I think most people would want vaccinations for any of the nastiest illnesses humans can get.
STD's are not nasty illness's? WTF?
And what is the difference? kids will be adults, you have to create a safe world for them, if we can prevent AID's and STD's we should, surely?
I'll say it again, I think most people would want vaccinations for any of the nastiest illnesses humans can get.
It is easy to "choose freely" when the harm that accompanies that choice affects another, namely a child that is not in a position to choose freely. If you wish to argue that consenting rational adults can choose freely about self autonomous issues, I'll back you to the hilt, whatever that may involve, but please don't tell me that society should agree to allow ignorant people to override the interests of their babies to satisfy some ideological or religious claptrap.
That makes little sense? Why should a child or a adult be any different? they both require protection form disease? And the herd immunity still applys in general society, adults get sick, children can get sick from adults.
Your post implicitly supports the right of parents to deny vaccination protection to their children and your original opening line is misleading in that it states "their right to freely choose to not have a Vax" which is patently not the issue. The parents are choosing for their child, not themselves. That's the point. It is a basic tenet of our society that parents have the right to make decisions about their children, providing those decisions do not actively threaten or harm those children. The jury is well and truly in on this issue, to deny your own child a vaccination places that child at undue risk. Vaccinations don't prevent all people from getting sick but they limit risk and disease and to deny this is foolish and harmful. To impose a potentially harmful decision on a child is unacceptable. The only exception is of course the rare child who faces unnecessary medical risk because of a pre-existing condition. They are the "exceptions" that prove the harm minimisation rule for children.
I've decided that I think Aaronjohns1 is an absolute ■■■■, on just about every subject I can think of.
Look, I don't normally like to see people get flamed on the net, but I'm willing to make exceptions.
I thought he was a corner regular poster who was at times funny, now I'm not so sure.
I've decided that I think Aaronjohns1 is an absolute ■■■■, on just about every subject I can think of.
Only if it's a subject that can have a fundamentist christian ethos inserted into it.
In fairness, even though he clearly loves the devil's avocado stance, most of his arguments are fairly cordial and respectful, which is more than I can say about me... Or you. :lol:
I've decided that I think Aaronjohns1 is an absolute ■■■■, on just about every subject I can think of.
Only if it's a subject that can have a fundamentist christian ethos inserted into it.
In fairness, even though he clearly loves the devil's avocado stance, most of his arguments are fairly cordial and respectful, which is more than I can say about me... Or you. :lol:
And I don't care. I don't see the point in treating morons with respect.
I've decided that I think Aaronjohns1 is an absolute ■■■■, on just about every subject I can think of.
Only if it's a subject that can have a fundamentist christian ethos inserted into it.
In fairness, even though he clearly loves the devil's avocado stance, most of his arguments are fairly cordial and respectful, which is more than I can say about me... Or you. :lol:
How is anything i said fundie? i was just showing that if you take the comments by those who are hard supporters of vaccinations that most of them wont support what they claim when it gets down to a set of logical circumstances.
ie: of people dont have sex outside marriage there would be NO STD's.
It is perfectly cogent.
Edit: u did not say i was findie, only that i was interested init...which i am..but nothing i said here is fundie, it is ligical extension of hard support for vaccination.
Are you saying sex outside marriage is how STIs are contracted?
Surely you jest.
I've decided that I think Aaronjohns1 is an absolute ■■■■, on just about every subject I can think of.
Only if it's a subject that can have a fundamentist christian ethos inserted into it.
In fairness, even though he clearly loves the devil's avocado stance, most of his arguments are fairly cordial and respectful, which is more than I can say about me... Or you. :lol:
How is anything i said fundie? i was just showing that if you take the comments by those who are hard supporters of vaccinations that most of them wont support what they claim when it gets down to a set of logical circumstances.
ie: of people dont have sex outside marriage there would be NO STD's.
It is perfectly cogent.
Edit: u did not say i was findie, only that i was interested init...which i am..but nothing i said here is fundie, it is ligical extension of hard support for vaccination.
Are you saying sex outside marriage is how STIs are contracted?
Surely you jest.
Well to be honest if a bloke and women only have sex with each other their whole lives they would avoid any chance of an STD.
Most won't do that though so therefore STD's are going to occur.
I've decided that I think Aaronjohns1 is an absolute ■■■■, on just about every subject I can think of.
Only if it's a subject that can have a fundamentist christian ethos inserted into it.
In fairness, even though he clearly loves the devil's avocado stance, most of his arguments are fairly cordial and respectful, which is more than I can say about me... Or you. :lol:
How is anything i said fundie? i was just showing that if you take the comments by those who are hard supporters of vaccinations that most of them wont support what they claim when it gets down to a set of logical circumstances.
ie: of people dont have sex outside marriage there would be NO STD's.
It is perfectly cogent.
Edit: u did not say i was findie, only that i was interested init...which i am..but nothing i said here is fundie, it is ligical extension of hard support for vaccination.
Are you saying sex outside marriage is how STIs are contracted?
Surely you jest.
Well to be honest if a bloke and women only have sex with each other their whole lives they would avoid any chance of an STD.
Most won't do that though so therefore STD's are going to occur.
He stated outside of marriage, which is ridiculous.
Anyway, use a condom, use your brain, limit the risks.but many STIs are treatable, and unlikely to kill you. If we had vaccinations, I'm sure people would be lining up for them for their kids.
I happen to know someone who decided against vaccinating their daughter because of scary chemicals, autism, even some crap about shaken baby syndrome being because of vaccines. When I and a few other tried to convince her the potential risks she was putting her own child under she then managed to discover homeopathy (which is even more bat shit crazy) and sees that as a viable alternative to the 'nasty' pharmaceutical vaccines. The more you challenge someone on their beliefs the further down the track they can run.
empirical, specifically targeted medical programs against highly contagious and unselective viruses and bacteria are in no way analogous to trying to enforce sexual choices on sentient beings for an entire lifespan. it is not in any way a "logical extension", either practically or 'morally'.