Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It goes beyond that. Mass vaccination is supposed to create herd immunity, so the virus is squeezed out of the entire population. This is an explicit goal of vaccination.
The very use of the word “herd” is an offensive term to refer to community of human beings, but does highlight what your “owners” consider you. However, we are not farm animals, and do not gather in herds. Sheep do, Cows do, but not human beings …. at least not those who would then claim the right of bodily autonomy. A herd of sheep or cows enjoy no such autonomy, as they have no say when it’s time for shearing and slaughter.
As for the premise of “vaccination”, it originated from an old wive’s tale, and popularized by a “doctor” who had no formal medical training. The very epitome of what one might today be labeled a “quack”. I’ll not get into the 150 years of fraud perpetrated thereafter, as that is an entire topic all of its own.
Now, when it comes to the topic of pregnancy and bodily autonomy, we have a unique situation. Under no other circumstances do we claim the right to terminate the life of another, without cause, and only in very strict and specific circumstances such as self defense is such action deemed legitimate and permissible. It has never been acceptable to take the life of another human being without cause, simply because you want to, or find some benefit in doing so. That has long been considered murder. And no one has the right to murder.
Consequently, it is a gross misappropriation of the concept of bodily autonomy when attempting to apply it to abortion, because it is terminating the life of another human being. And because that is true, there should certainly be the same principles applied in terms of taking the life of any human being … that is, only in strictly defined cases of self defense.
So you're all about "coercion" when it's "coercion" you agree with. Got it.
You: "I think it's totally unobjectionable if employers want to mandate a two-years-out-of-date flu shot; why doesn't anyone believe me when I insist I'm for bodily autonomy?"
You: "I think it's totally unobjectionable if employers want to mandate a two-years-out-of-date flu shot; why doesn't anyone believe me when I insist I'm for bodily autonomy?"
LOL
Freedom of choice is not freedom from consequence.
I'm supporting freedom of choice from both sides - you're not.
Coercion to not be allowed to mandate others do things to their bodies that they don’t agree with. Yes, I am against that.
What happens if your body becomes a source of infectious disease that can endanger others? Are you willing to make an exception in that case? I’m not referring to Covid-19 specifically, but to diseases in general.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
