State forces Mom to medicate child..

[sudden valley gunner]

It still requires demolishing personal sovereignty and self determination.

 

[Tawnos]

It still requires demolishing personal sovereignty and self determination.

Self-determination and personal sovereignty are not unlimited. It diminishes those, not demolishes.

 

[stainless1911]

Reasonably safe vaccinations being mandated sounds a lot like common sense gun control.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Self-determination and personal sovereignty are not unlimited. It diminishes those, not demolishes.

Depends on your point of view. I don't feel they are unlimited but understand the argument that it is then affecting someone elses life, liberty and freedom.

I am just reluctant to fully accept the consequences and the argument you set out as enough of a reason for forced immunizations for everyone. (although personally I have chosen to do so). I just have a hard time forcing someone else to do something because it makes me feel safer. I think drawing a line in the sand is a dangerous thing to do.

 

[Tawnos]

Depends on your point of view. I don't feel they are unlimited but understand the argument that it is then affecting someone elses life, liberty and freedom.

I am just reluctant to fully accept the consequences and the argument you set out as enough of a reason for forced immunizations for everyone. (although personally I have chosen to do so). I just have a hard time forcing someone else to do something because it makes me feel safer. I think drawing a line in the sand is a dangerous thing to do.

The difference is one between making you feel safer and being demonstrably, measurable, substantially, and post-facto verifiably safer. It's not just a feel-good measure, but an actual can-measure response to a known threat, rather than a reaction to mere irrational fear of a threat.

Stainless1911, could you explain how that's true? Perhaps under the context of our legal framework?

 

[Citizen]

The difference is one between making you feel safer and being demonstrably, measurable, substantially, and post-facto verifiably safer. It's not just a feel-good measure, but an actual can-measure response to a known threat, rather than a reaction to mere irrational fear of a threat.

Stainless1911, could you explain how that's true? Perhaps under the context of our legal framework?

Tawnos,

This and your longer post at 11;13pm contain what are sometimes refered to as utilitarian justifications. There can always be found utilitarian justifications to enforce something if one has enough data.

Even if the utilitarian data added up to unarguable support for enforced vaccination, it still omits crucial public policy considerations such as consent, government expansion, safety of the vaccine supply, what policies will grow out of the proposed policies, alternative means of clobbering the organism, whether or not it will come to a situation like the OP, etc., etc., etc.

One particular reason to not enforce vaccinations is the long-recognized violation of conscience. If you enforce it on anti-vaxxers, you are essentially demanding that they take or give their kids something they consider harmful. Imagine your mental anguish if you were forcibly injected with a substance you considered dangerously toxic. Imagine if you were forced to inject your kids. It shocks the conscience.

Shocking the conscience is one of the underlying reasons testimony cannot be compelled from an accused. Yes, it had a different development across several centuries; but it ended up with the idea that forcing the accused to testify was so contradictory to the accused's self-interests, and thus emotionally distressing to the accused, as to shock the conscience.

Persuade, man. Move heaven and earth to persuade if it is so important, but don't force. Will there always be three percent who just will never get it? Sure. But, the human race isn't going to disappear because they don't get vaccinations. Mankind made it all the way to Edward Jenner (first vaccine) without vaccines.

 

[Thos.Jefferson]

Hang on now. You're confusing the federal and state governments here. This is titled "state forces..." and relates to those powers a state government has. Have you gotten lost somewhere? The arguments in Jacobsen deal with a state enacting mandatory vaccination, which is certainly within their purview. Your comment on enumerated powers has no bearing on this discussion, as that is based on what Congress (federal) may do.

I am not confusing anything. When the case came before SCOTUS(who's decision was wrong) Jacobsen automaticly is afforded the Rights protected under the federal Constitution.
The 9th Amendment :"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Surely this article protects the right to self-ownership.

At common law it is a well known fact that a person was either a slave or a freeman. A freeman owns his own body where as a slave is owned by someone else be it a single slave holder or a king/government/state.
I don't know about you but I own my own body. I am not a slave. I am gauranteed a Republican form of government as such ,no majority may take away my Rights.

It as a 4th amemdment violation also as one would have to be siezed in order for them to force one to take the shot.

The very idea of government forcing a citizen to do anything that could possibly, no matter how remote the possability, harm there own personal well being is repugnant the the very ideal of a free society.

The vaccine manufacturers have openly admitted that they use substances such as mercury as a preservative in the vaccines. Mercury is a deadly substance. Now I'm sure you will blather on about some scientific study or some such about the minute amounts but that doesn't change the fact that mercury is a poison and poisons are, well, bad for you.

As the freeman I have the Right to decline introducing poisons into my body and those of my childrens bodies as well.It is no differant than putting a single bullet in a revolver, spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger. If there is one single chance that I or my family could be harmed by taking those shots then NO ONE has the power to compel me,my family or ANYONE else to take them no matter how many other people THINK otherwise.


footnote: Just for kicks, cite the Constitution as to where the Supreme court was granted the authority to judge whether laws are Constitutional or not?

 

[stainless1911]

The difference is one between making you feel safer and being demonstrably, measurable, substantially, and post-facto verifiably safer. It's not just a feel-good measure, but an actual can-measure response to a known threat, rather than a reaction to mere irrational fear of a threat.

Are you talking about vaccinations, or carrying guns?

 

[Trigger Dr]

As a Navy Hospital Corpsman, in 1962 the navy conducted a test of flu vaccines on the officer candidates at MCS Quantico, Va. Of the 100 "subjects" 50 were given the vaccine, and the remaining 50 were given sterile distilled water by injection. Of the 50 receiving the flu vaccine 40% came down with the flu. Of the 50 receiving the water, 3% came down with "flu like symptoms".
I have not had a flu shot since 1963, and have not had the flu since 1963. YMMV

 

[Tawnos]

I am not confusing anything. When the case came before SCOTUS(who's decision was wrong) Jacobsen automaticly is afforded the Rights protected under the federal Constitution.
The 9th Amendment :"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Surely this article protects the right to self-ownership.

At common law it is a well known fact that a person was either a slave or a freeman. A freeman owns his own body where as a slave is owned by someone else be it a single slave holder or a king/government/state.
I don't know about you but I own my own body. I am not a slave. I am gauranteed a Republican form of government as such ,no majority may take away my Rights.

It as a 4th amemdment violation also as one would have to be siezed in order for them to force one to take the shot.

The very idea of government forcing a citizen to do anything that could possibly, no matter how remote the possability, harm there own personal well being is repugnant the the very ideal of a free society.

The vaccine manufacturers have openly admitted that they use substances such as mercury as a preservative in the vaccines. Mercury is a deadly substance. Now I'm sure you will blather on about some scientific study or some such about the minute amounts but that doesn't change the fact that mercury is a poison and poisons are, well, bad for you.

As the freeman I have the Right to decline introducing poisons into my body and those of my childrens bodies as well.It is no differant than putting a single bullet in a revolver, spinning the cylinder and pulling the trigger. If there is one single chance that I or my family could be harmed by taking those shots then NO ONE has the power to compel me,my family or ANYONE else to take them no matter how many other people THINK otherwise.


footnote: Just for kicks, cite the Constitution as to where the Supreme court was granted the authority to judge whether laws are Constitutional or not?

Before I continue down what I can already see will be a fruitless road, why don't you tell me what it means to have "the judicial power of the United States" in your own words?

 

[Tawnos]

As a Navy Hospital Corpsman, in 1962 the navy conducted a test of flu vaccines on the officer candidates at MCS Quantico, Va. Of the 100 "subjects" 50 were given the vaccine, and the remaining 50 were given sterile distilled water by injection. Of the 50 receiving the flu vaccine 40% came down with the flu. Of the 50 receiving the water, 3% came down with "flu like symptoms".
I have not had a flu shot since 1963, and have not had the flu since 1963. YMMV

Link? Citation?

Because I can link to you the studies showing the danger of the flu, and how the flu vaccine has helped reduce things such as flu-caused elderly death, schoolchildren death. These things are largely associated with reducing the dangerous strains, which has been demonstrated in hospitals and healthcare workers for the elderly. Moreover, we have repeatedly demonstrated the efficacy of the flu vaccine against the circulating virus in healthy adults, one big study involving over 63,000 people. This was not the only such study.

So take your risk, you are in the group most likely to be harmed by choosing to forgo science in the name of fear, but hey, flu vaccines aren't mandatory, because they are neither effective at a 95% level nor does the flu kill, cripple, or permanently disfigure a large portion of the people they come into contact with.

 

[Thos.Jefferson]

Before I continue down what I can already see will be a fruitless road, why don't you tell me what it means to have "the judicial power of the United States" in your own words?

That's your rebuttal? Typical.

 

[Tawnos]

That's your rebuttal? Typical.

It's a serious question. Clearly, one you are not prepared or capable of answering, else you'd have gone with something other than appeal to ridicule.

 

[stainless1911]

You did the same thing to me.

 

[VW_Factor]

Why so much ******* and moaning? :uhoh:

 

[jacksavage]

new guy

test

 

[stainless1911]

Welcome.

 

[Tawnos]

You did the same thing to me.

No, I didn't. Perhaps you missed this: "It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim."

I stated numerous reasons your claim about rolling dice was ridiculous, including the known quantities of harm (leg braces, iron lung, etc). Moreover, I stated that they were _likely_ harm. These are objective facts that are used to support the ridicule of your position. Rather than saying, baldly, "that's the best you can do? ha!" I state how many ways it's absurd to claim that vaccines are "rolling the dice" compared to the threat posed by the things vaccines cure. So no, that's not doing the same thing to you.

 

[stainless1911]

Stainless1911, could you explain how that's true? Perhaps under the context of our legal framework?

yes you did.

 

[Tawnos]

yes you did.

Wait, since when is asking a question on your view appealing to ridicule? I asked you to respond how your view makes sense in context of the legal and historical framework. Do you understand what "appeal to ridicule" is?