Should men have a say in abortion ?

sweetpea said:
Isn't this down to modding of the site? Are your hands tied jimmy boy?
Click to expand...
Good point. No, you're right. We could take a harder line with some of these people. There are pluses and minuses to that, and I have written quite a lot on that topic in earlier threads.

Quality discussions may come about with quality modding. But, it may get a bit lonely round here???
Click to expand...
That's one consideration.
 
billvon said:
Nope. Only if you want to be in public and expose them to potential disease. You should be free to refuse - as long as you then also agree to not be a risk to society by isolating yourself.
Click to expand...
Did you know that the UK has no forced mandated vaccinations? We allow people out in public without them, and they can enrol in schools without proof of having them. We have actually done alright without making them mandatory. It’s achieved by the carrot of “you won’t get sick” rather than the stick of ostracisation.
That said, there are of course arguments for enforcing it in legislation, including the financial benefit of the cost of the vaccine being far cheaper than the cost of treating the disease should it ever arise.

There is certainly a concern that there is a growing number of unvaccinated people in the UK. It is due, it seems, to complacency. No serious outbreak of a disease for a long time means people don’t see the need to get vaccinated (health scares of the side effects of the vaccinations also don’t help) but the only reason we have no serious outbreak is because of the vaccinations. I can imagine it will take one serious outbreak, either in the UK or Europe, to raise the question in our Parliament and for legislation to be put on the books.

Personally I think people should be vaccinated, but I have no issue in it not being mandatory. At the moment. ;)
 
Sarkus said:
Personally I think people should be vaccinated, but I have no issue in it not being mandatory.
Click to expand...
The problem is that for herd immunity to be effective you need a very high proportion of the population to be vaccinated - like 95%+. If you don't make it mandatory, and that percentage dips, then some people in the community will suffer and perhaps die from what is a preventable disease. There's a small tolerance for the 5% or so who are "freeloaders" and who benefit from the vigilance of the remaining 95%. But when more than that 5% decide to roll the dice and rely on the immunity of the rest, whether it be due to complacency or misguided ideological objection, then there will be inevitable outbreaks of infectious disease. And the more freeloaders there are, the more serious the consequences of any outbreak for the society as a whole and its individual members.

It's also worth bearing in mind that, for various reasons, it is likely that a certain percentage of the population are not able to be vaccinated. For example, it can be dangerous to vaccinate infants who are below a certain age. Given this, that 5% tolerance limit for general herd immunity cannot be made up solely of the complacent and the reckless. It is one thing to choose to endanger one's own life, but to also wilfully endanger the lives of innocent children (for example) is something else.

Making vaccination mandatory - particularly for children to participate in child care centres, for instance - is prudent public policy. Why should a government tolerate some recalcitrant parents knowingly putting their own and other people's kids in danger?
 
Sarkus said:
Did you know that the UK has no forced mandated vaccinations? We allow people out in public without them, and they can enrol in schools without proof of having them. We have actually done alright without making them mandatory. It’s achieved by the carrot of “you won’t get sick” rather than the stick of ostracisation.
Click to expand...
That's great. Unfortunately, here in the US, many parents refuse vaccinations because they believe that vaccines CAUSE disease. So we have two sticks instead of a carrot and a stick.
 
Sarkus said:
carrot
Click to expand...
= UK culture
Sarkus said:
stick
Click to expand...
= USA culture

interesting looking at where the thread has gone to
with your comment
who gets vaccinations ?
who gets to choose to be vaccinated or not ?
who gets to choose to have an abortion ?
who gets subjected to dangers of pregnancy ?

Sarkus said:
Personally I think people should be vaccinated, but I have no issue in it not being mandatory. At the moment.
Click to expand...

children are the ones who get vaccinated, yet in opposition to the common USA moral position ... the children do not get to choose

there is moral equity here

personally i am pro children's rights, so making vaccinations mandatory is simple human rights.
but those human rights are stolen and used for personal profit and power games by adults.

it leaves me asking how far down the road has some cultures come from slavery ?

is the average person incapable of having a moral debate to prove their moral position to define why children should be denied vaccinations ?
equally why would a women be denied the right to choose to be pregnant or not ?

"tough luck you don't get to choose" is a common message from the anti-abortionists and the alt-right presented from a position of privileged self entitlement sold as a victim.

its getting a bit old for the 21st century

billvon said:
two sticks
Click to expand...
The Schtick of the stick
spare the schtick and give basic human rights to the child

"children are not real people so they should not be given real human rights"
"women are not men so they should not be given mens rights to control everything"
...
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama said:
Are women equal to men? Are men equal to women?
Click to expand...

is a person equal to a jury of their peers ?
are their peers equal ?
is equalness a peer ?

why is a judge not equal to a peer ?

who is forced to pay for medicaid private company profits ?

should all health insurance be equal in price and product ?

is all life equal ?
 
James R said:
The problem is that for herd immunity to be effective you need a very high proportion of the population to be vaccinated - like 95%+.
Click to expand...
Not for most diseases - you may be thinking about measles, chicken pox, etc.

Models indicate that an effective Ebola vaccine would gain herd immunity at less than 2/3 vaccination percentage - possibly as low as 1/3, for some strains - because it is so fragile and particular in transmission but so quickly and efficiently lethal. Polio herd immunity was gained at around 80%. Tetanus herd immunity is essentially zero regardless of vaccination rate.

Meanwhile, many diseases can be controlled by herd immunity via high vaccination rates in a smaller subset of the population - a subset "herd". Diseases common in, and mostly spread by, children who also respond better to vaccination than adults - but more seriously afflicting the more rare elderly adults who catch them (and being elderly have poor vaccination response) - might be best controlled by high vaccination rates in children only. On the flip side of that one, herd immunity against whooping cough is most efficiently achieved by more intensive vaccination of old people - who spread the disease to children easily without getting very sick themselves, and respond well to vaccination - while ignoring very young children, who get very sick but don't spread the disease easily and respond poorly to vaccination.

And STDs are a separate and complicated pile of vaccination complexities.

Well employed vaccination strategies depend on the disease, and the human culture.

And the vaccine. One of the subplots in the vaccination conflicts has been the quiet removal of mercury compounds from children's vaccines, which was long overdue - an unnecessary and serious risk, that persisted out of unexamined and overlooked inertia even as vaccines multiplied and became standard. Another is the replacement of live virus vaccines with various carefully engineered immunity triggers that cannot reproduce themselves - safer, likely better, more inspirational for research (anti cancer vaccines that trigger immune system attack on existing tumors came from that line) and quite possibly motivated in part by bad experience driven resistance to vaccines in general.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...erejiklian-whether-she-would-have-an-abortion
Marise Payne says question put by Ben Fordham is not appropriate to ask any woman
Click to expand...

Payne was asked by the ABC on Sunday whether the question put by the 2GB host Ben Fordham to Gladys Berejiklian last week was an appropriate question to ask any woman, let alone a female premier.
Click to expand...
The federal minister for women, Marise Payne, says it is not OK for people to be asked about private health issues during live interviews, in a rebuke to a Sydney radio host who asked the New South Wales premier whether she would have an abortion.
Click to expand...
Ben Fordham
https://www.2gb.com/ben-fordham-fac...-reveals-confidential-government-information/
Ben Fordham is facing raids by the Australian Federal Police after he ran a story which revealed confidential Home Affairs information.
Click to expand...

bf_feature-2.png



self appointed abortion inquisitor...
150px-El_cardenal_Francisco_Antonio_de_Lorenzana_%28Museo_del_Prado%29.jpg

"come and have a seat on my Live radio show"

TM-Torture_chair.jpg
 
Last edited:
Capracus said:
Great minds.

Click to expand...

should the state be responsible for its citizens ?

yes = pro choice(not anti abortion) [pro choice must force by law and money and food, shelter, education & housing of the citizen by the state, AS A LAW to enforce the right of the citizen and the citizens adherance to the law] simple ? why is that not simple for the anti-abortionists ?
no = anarchy
notice how many self acclaimed libertarians are in fact anarchists
 
RainbowSingularity said:
should the state be responsible for its citizens ?

yes = pro choice(not anti abortion) [pro choice must force by law and money and food, shelter, education & housing of the citizen by the state, AS A LAW to enforce the right of the citizen and the citizens adherance to the law] simple ? why is that not simple for the anti-abortionists ?
no = anarchy
notice how many self acclaimed libertarians are in fact anarchists
Click to expand...
When a member of a tribe committed a crime, the entire village was held responsible until the culprit was punished.
There was a time in which an entire group of people were punished for the actions of a sole individual. Fortunately, this type of shared responsibility exists in few places now. However, shared responsibility for crime does still exist on some level.
Click to expand...
http://www.actforlibraries.org/society-should-share-the-responsibility-of-crime-prevention/
 
Write4U said:
When a member of a tribe committed a crime, the entire village was held responsible until the culprit was punished.
Click to expand...

unless your alt-right fake libertarian and rich

then you make laws to subjugate and punish the poor while you live above it with wealth and call it "capitalism" or a cult
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top