Flowchart: should I vaccinate my child?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again, if all vaccinations were voluntarily, it is doubtful that smallpox could have been eradicated.
It is impossible to get 100% of people to agree to anything.
No little kids like getting a vaccination shot.
So this is about parents forcing them or allowing them to be forced.

We are clearly better off because smallpox has been eradicated. I don't see where the end did not justify the means in this case.

[hnumpah]

And since the bombings were never brought up, I never forgot them in the 1st place.  Any effort to bomb, hurt, or anything to damage someone else should be punished to the fullest extent of the law

My Reply #26 today

And unless these laws constitutionality is challenged and they are overturned, they are considered constitutionally valid.

Ball in your court. 

[sirs]

What ball?  Did you miss the ongoing effort of trying to deal with the slaughter of these unborn children, via legislators??

[hnumpah]

Nope, but I was in Pensacola when an abortion provider was shot by an anti-abortion zealot.

[sirs]

And that zealot should be tried & convicted for any such crime.  I'll add that I seriuously doubt said zealot was attempting to convert anyone, as much as their irrational attempt to punish those who they believed were killing unborn children.  Under such a scenario, hardly some attempt to bring one to a religious epiphany

[Plane]

  Has my appeal against murder been too religious?

   I guess it is true that only Christians are worried about lives that aren't their own.

See the part of the previous post about civil law. At present, legal abortion is not defined as murder, regardless of how you characterize it. Neither are legal executions of condemned criminals, justified killngs by police officers in the line of duty, and many justified killings by private citizens in self defense or defense of others. If you disagree with any of those, work within the law to change the law.

   Is the difference between what is murder and what is not , the words chosen to describe the act?

     The law is already contrary to murder , I don't want to change this.

        But I would like the law to describe what is a human being , in a true and reasonable way, thus applying the existing protection to the people not now protected.

       This is the point that keeps Dred Scott coming back into the discussion, the Supreme Court has had some false starts at describing a human being before.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Dred Scott has diddly to do with this, except in your mind.  Dred Scott was not, i repeat NOT a fetus.

[sirs]

Dred Scott was once an unborn child, who then was born.  Point being its how others attempt to dehumanize others, to apparently placate the level of immorality one must embrace to act so hidiously to another

[Xavier_Onassis]

You have no point.  You were once a fetus too, and so fucking what?
Does that make you Dred Scott?

[sirs]

You're really off the reservation here, Professor literal.  EVERYONE born was once an unborn child....WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. 

The reason Dredd Scott is brought into this conversation.....AGAIN.....has to do with the efforts used to dehumanize what are human beings, be they black or unborn, so that others that support the heinous acts made upon them, can somehow ..... sleep better at night, I suppose

[Xavier_Onassis]

This about VACCINATIONS. What the poo does Dred Fucking Scott have to do with VACCINATIONS??? What do vaccinations have to do with abortions?

The fact is that smallpox, a horrible fatal disease was eradicated forever by vaccinating pretty much everyone in sight,m and surely many against their will.
So this is one case in which the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few.

The reason we cannot do the same with other diseases is because smallpox only affects human beings and not other animals. You could catch measles from a chimp or leprosy from an armadillo.

[sirs]

Dred Scott and unborn children are what keep being repeated, as a tangential discussion, when H began disccussing the topic of abortions, or in your case, an overt & transparent deflection attempt.  Putting aside the topic of vaccinations, the reason Dred Scott is referenced when the support of unborn children getting their skulls crushed, is the effort used by those who are perfectly ok with the act, by way of dehumanizing the unborn child by continually referring to them as a fetus.....MUCH LIKE what the south did with slaves, in dehumanzing them, so that they could better rationalize their overt mistreatment of them

As it relates to the topic of vaccinations, while I fully support that children should be vaccinated, it should be the right of the parent to make that decision.  And it should be the right of any school not to accept any child that has not been vaccinated.  Simple as that

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would support the vaccination of a child against smallpox or a similar eradicatable disease even against the will of the parents.

That is what happened in the case of smallpox, and we are much better off because of it.

[sirs]

Good for you

[Xavier_Onassis]

Good for all of us.

Would you prefer having smallpox or violating one kid's ostensible "rights" for fifteen seconds?