Finding the balance between the common good, personal rights and the ability to freely express an opinion that is devoid of hate and malice.

[NSXCIGAR]

2 hours ago, Bijan said:

But if there is an argument to be made for mandates for the covid vaccines it is the desire or need to reduce the number of cases by reducing infections and thus transmissions.

I don't believe the Covid vaccine reduces infection or transmission. It only reduces symptoms. 

The only aspect in which a COVID vaccine mandate could be effective is to force a high-risk individual who for some reason has chosen not to get the vaccine to get one, thus protecting themselves. 

Again, I think comparing COVID and the COVID vaccine to any other virus or vaccine throughout history is a mistake. This particular virus--and the vaccines--are different from other historical events and should be considered as such. Comparing it to smallpox and Polio is apples and oranges. 

I wanted to point that out because at least for me I am considering this topic of mandates as it relates only to COVID and not anything else. Some may be speaking more generally--I am not. 

Also, not sure about chickenpox vaccines but I went to public schools and got chickenpox when I was about 10 or 11. That was in the 80s so not sure if it's now mandated or if I was vaccinated and got it anyway and my symptoms were just reduced.

[cnov]

21 hours ago, clint said:

Are you equating donated organs to cells taken from a murdered baby?

A fetus and a baby are different things.

Calling abortion murder is a touch dramatic, I've never been in the unfortunate position of requiring one, but I imagine it's not easy for those that do. It all comes down to personal choice again though doesn't it?

21 hours ago, Bijan said:

I think the idea is one does not know the cause/source of the death which made the organs available.

If one holds that the the choice to donate the organs makes it moral, then what does one say about the case of organs from a suicide (medically assisted or otherwise), where the person donating the organs is the one potentially murdering or asking to be murdered. And how does that compare to the case of the aborted fetus, where the parents aborts the fetus and donates the cells. And the myriad combination thereof.

And many organs will come from children who can no more consent or choose to donate than can fetuses. It all gets very complicated.

I could do with this sort of translatory assistance in my day to day life if you're available?

Well put.

[joeruby]

On 11/10/2021 at 10:50 AM, El Presidente said:

I am very comfortable with vaccinations.

 I am quite  comfortable with people deciding not to get vaccinated as long as they pay the full cost  of the consequences ($ & health) .  I have two mates of my inner circle who are antivaxxers. Love them both and we have an agreement. They don't bitch to me if shit goes south and I won't bitch to them if I find myself growing a third testical on my forehead.

However, I get really uncomfortable when I see cartoonists being sacked for challenging the status quo. 

Leunig is a talented but very controversial cartoonist.  I like his attitude;

"But my job is to challenge the status quo, and that has always been the job of the cartoonist.”

Hard to argue?

Full Article here

 

I loved the cartoon. 

 

This is not a country speciic thread so don't make it one. 

 

This is a thread about how comfortable we are in the balance between the common good, personal rights and the abiltiy to freely express an opinion that is devoid of hate and malice. 

 

I am still finding my way on this topic and welcome an intelligent discussion devoid of "sides".  If you cannot do that, don't participate. 

Play the ball not the man.  

 

 

As you know, In Australia all taxpayers  pay 2% of their annual income as Medicare levy which pays for our ‘free hospital care’. We should never feel unvaccinated people with Covid should pay any more than vaccinated people  for health care. Just like we don’t discriminated against substance or drug abusers,  smokers or alcoholics  ( also not doing the right thing) and obtaining hospital care.

Officially,  vaccination in Australia is not mandatory but we are just so keen.. We’re heading for 90% fully vaxed, one of the highest rates in the world!

By the way, I ‘choose’ to be fully vaxed, like most fellow Aussies, (Otherwise I’m not allowed to go to work..) 

Whoever sacked Leunig for that brilliant cartoon, telling it as it is, should be sacked imo

[99call]

It's no judgement on anyone, but parts of this discussion I find hugely depressing. 

The paranoia and mistrust of state may be valid in certain countries and to varying degrees. 

The overwhelming scary factor for me, is that the overarching comment from many leading virologists (in the UK anyway). Is that Covid is nothing compared to what possible novel-viruses may be just around the corner.   With that in mind and the sheer number of anti-vax, or vax hesitant people we have in the world.......we will be absolutely ruined should a serious novel-virus hit us in the future.         I know what they will say....."ah well if it's a serious one, then that will be a changeable factor on my judgement call, and my actions will shift and change in accordance to the situation".

The reality is all of these criticisms/judgements on vaccines require time to fester and evolve, with stats and results.    There could and probably will be a virus as some point in the future, that may not afford us that time to stop and think, It will be a simple case of act or die.        I'm sure many will say, "well if I die then so be it, that my choice".  Thats all well good,  but as ever they are likely to take quite a few people with them that don't share their judgement call...............and thats the problem. 

This era or 'army of one' and an almost obsessive desire to curate and orchestrate your own families life as being separate/grafted away entity from wider society, I believe can sometimes be toxic and self defeating.   Collective action and compliance is sometimes a good thing. not always.......but sometimes. 

I wonder how some on this forum feel about the AIDS epidemic and condom use.  Is it valid for those that are at risk (and you could obviously argue everybody is)  to say  "yeah......condoms are not for me......i'm just not convinced they work"

Above everything, I'm just really saddened that people increasingly seem to have little regard in a sense of community, that stretches beyond their direct family. It feels increasingly like lots of people see others (outside of their bubble) as a threat or drain on their resources, rather than an opportunity to meet someone new.....or make a new friend.        Life is feeling more and more like 'The Road'

[Vortigan]

I think we'd all do well to zoom out for a bit, have a good look around to see how societies across the world (The West in particular) are dividing and baring their teeth at one another, marching under a variety of flags, this vaccine being just one of them. I think we'd do well to try and be a little less sideways reactionary and be a little more questioning, vertically. There is much to give grave pause.

[Bijan]

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

I don't believe the Covid vaccine reduces infection or transmission. It only reduces symptoms. 

Cases here went from 4000 a day down to 300 back to 600 now as vaccination rate went from 10% to 90% and measures were generally eased though at first measures were tightened. I think data elsewhere also shows number of people testing positive went down as vaccination went up.

Unless it reduces symptoms to the point that there are none then it must be reducing infections.

 

11 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Also, not sure about chickenpox vaccines but I went to public schools and got chickenpox when I was about 10 or 11. That was in the 80s so not sure if it's now mandated or if I was vaccinated and got it anyway and my symptoms were just reduced.

I am the same. The vaccine didn't exist yet.

First commercially available 1984 not widely used until even later.

Edit: also that vaccine is 70-90% effective at preventing infection and 95% effective at preventing severe disease.

[cnov]

1 minute ago, clint said:

But one does know, at least Christians do, that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby and it's something they are steadfastly against.  Most Christians  believe that medically assisted suicide is also an immoral act but in this case there is at least consent involved,  whereas none exists in an abortion. Still doesn't make it right in a Christian's eyes.

When you say  "many organs will come from children who can no more consent or choose to donate than can fetuses", that the children in question here are murder victims or simply children that met with an untimely death?

The abortion debate as you know has been the most contentious of all social debates and I'd be a fool to think it could be settled here.  I feel for parents that make the choice to murder their baby because I know they will be tortured with the decision for the rest of their lives.  That's why it is such a grave sin.

How many unwanted babies have you adopted so far?

[Bijan]

1 minute ago, clint said:

But one does know, at least Christians do, that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby and it's something they are steadfastly against.

Not all Christians feel this way.

2 minutes ago, clint said:

When you say  "many organs will come from children who can no more consent or choose to donate than can fetuses", that the children in question here are murder victims or simply children that met with an untimely death?

Yes, let us say they are murder victims what then? Would such a Christian enquire and refuse the organs? Let's say the child is murdered by their parents. Again what then?

[MrBirdman]

10 hours ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Again, there's a better scientific case to be made for a healthy 30 year old not to get the vaccine than to get it.

This is simply untrue. As a healthy 36 year old I spoke with three different physicians (one my own, two acquaintances) and all three said unequivocally that there is no reason to delay vaccination and everything to lose. I've read every scientific study I can find of the mRNA vaccines and they all say the same thing. I know people my age who are still suffering from long COVID and people my age are dying - there is no good reason, let alone a better reason, to not get vaccinated. 

[potpest]

But one does know, at least Christians do, that abortion is the murder of an innocent baby and it's something they are steadfastly against.  Most Christians  believe that medically assisted suicide is also an immoral act but in this case there is at least consent involved,  whereas none exists in an abortion. Still doesn't make it right in a Christian's eyes.
When you say  "many organs will come from children who can no more consent or choose to donate than can fetuses", that the children in question here are murder victims or simply children that met with an untimely death?
The abortion debate as you know has been the most contentious of all social debates and I'd be a fool to think it could be settled here.  I feel for parents that make the choice to murder their baby because I know they will be tortured with the decision for the rest of their lives.  That's why it is such a grave sin.

Given that no aborted foetus' were required in the making of these vaccines, is this argument really relevant? The cells exist and are lab grown and have been for 80 years, creating vaccines does not "murder babies", it's a strawman.

[Bijan]

1 minute ago, clint said:

If you think so.  It's a Christian's view that a person becomes a human at the moment of conception. That will never change.

It amazes me the mental gymnastics involved by the "pro choice" crowd to justify the killing of an innocent child.

It is no gymnastics on my part.

To me as a father of a child myself, it is my belief that a baby let alone a fetus doesn't fully became a human being until well after birth. My son was more or less a potato at birth. Now at 2 he is a full human being. This is beyond the position taken by most who are pro choice of course. And probably objectionable to most people.

But now go back to the first trimester and this position is much less objectionable to people in general and this is how the pro choice crowd probably feel in general.

 

[Bijan]

5 minutes ago, clint said:

Are Christians being forced to accept organ donations?

In fairness they are not.

But are they refusing or would they refuse organs which have similar questionable origins.

[Bijan]

5 minutes ago, clint said:

Wow.   Wouldn't know where to start with this one.  

This is more or less how I feel when someone says a single celled zygote much less an embryo much less a fetus during the first trimester is a human worthy of protection in the same sense as you or me.

[MrBirdman]

14 minutes ago, clint said:

Wow.   Wouldn't know where to start with this one.  

Funny, that was my initial response when you posted about there being no proof that viruses cause disease. 

While I’m pro-choice I don’t go as far as Bijan, but can respect that his position is internally consistent. 

[Bijan]

Just now, clint said:

So you have changed your stance from 1 year old potato to first trimester as the standard to which  we define humanity.

Ok well that's progress I guess, moving in the right direction! 😀

Very few people define it at birth. Most define it somewhere during gestation. (That is to say almost all pro choice people wouldn't be ok with aborting a fetus that would be viable if born then and there, though maybe some would)

For the purposes of abortion I would not define it at birth much less a year and for that purpose I am OK to hold to first trimester as is currently the case.

So don't understand my comment about my son not being a full human at birth to mean I think I (or anyone else) should have the right to end his life or any such thing.

[MrBirdman]

Now that this conversation, which I enjoyed, has moved into abortion I will bow out, but it was a fun time gents. Whatever you do with your health, take care and be well!

[Bijan]

2 minutes ago, clint said:

The pro choice crowd have no credible scientific or moral backing to declare in which trimester it is ok to terminate a life.

It depends on one's criteria. If one is to take the idea that a single cell zygote is a life one should not terminate, then one should not eat meat or kill any animal of any form as any animal is much more conscious or developed than that zygote.

Any other choice and one is not using science or morals (in the secular sense) to make that distinction.

7 minutes ago, clint said:

As for the "viable" argument,  even a two year old would die if left alone to fend for himself,  so that one's pretty weak imo.

Not totally weak. That two year old or any born child could be cared for by others with no burden to the parents.

The argument for abortion as abhorrent as it is to you, is that carrying a child is a burden the parents would like to do without. Once the child is born there is no burden. If they don't want the child they can simply give it away.

In any case this viable thing is not a criteria but a point at which abortion becomes definitely questionable.

[potpest]

It was also my reaction when I first heard it, until I looked into it further.

Not sure where you did your research but science doesn't seem to back this:

Lynda Coughlin, a virologist (twitter.com/Virusnerdette) and Assistant Professor in Microbiology at Mount Sinai Hospital (here) told Reuters: “The statement that "no virus harmful to humans has ever been proven to exist" is absolutely false. There are numerous examples of viruses which are known to cause disease in humans. In the same way we can trace DNA left at the scene of the crime, scientists can identify viruses which are the cause of human disease by isolating them from infected individuals, sequencing their genetic material to identify them, directly visualising them (by electron microscopy) and indirectly visualising their effects on cells, as well as confirming their ability to cause disease by testing isolated and characterised viruses in animal models”.

This science is exactly how we are able to create appropriate vaccines.

Further info here:
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-harmful-viruses-idUSKBN23335V

[BigGuns]

So in the cartoon, is the potato-nosed caricature a fetus?  I’m so confused at this point.  

[Bijan]

17 minutes ago, clint said:

Does the fact that a single celled zygote contains all of the dna necessary to make a full grown human not make you think?

In a similar sense so does every cell in our bodies (well except gametes). A flesh wound that spills blood and kills cells is not murder.

In a more abstract sense so would a file of a DNA mapping with the listing of base pairs on a computer.

If the contention is that it contains that DNA and exists such that it can develop into a human being, then it should properly apply to such cells in a live uterus. As such cells in a lab petri dish lack the necessary conditions.

If the contention is that it contains that DNA and that that DNA is unique and so it's loss is the loss of something unique, I believe the argument has to deal with the case of identical zygotes or identical twins. In that case is it ok to destroy all but one?

If it is not ok then we arrive at the idea that taking an unfertilized egg cell, wiping the DNA, adding DNA from an adult cell and creating a clone, creates a human life.

Which is in itself logically consistent. But then we could kill such a cell and make another identical one. So would that be ok.

In any case I don't think the presence of DNA is a sound basis for making this sort of moral decision but just food for thought.

[potpest]

The contention is the "visualizing their effects on cells" part.  The dispute is that the healthy test samples are compromised by the sterilization process and addition of antibiotics before the viruses are added to the experiments,  and that the ensuing cell damage is not the result of the viral material but that of the precursor intervention.   There are highly censored scientists/virologists that hold this opinion and you have to search outside of mainstream engines to find their work but if you are truly interested you should do your own research.  I would suggest starting with Dr. Stefan Lanka.  Of course he has been defamed by the mainstream but you should look at his work for yourself.  Use a search engine other than Google for better results.   Here is a recent article : https://www.australiannationalreview.com/health/dr-stefan-lanka-all-claims-about-viruses-as-pathogens-are-false/
Most people are happy to accept the authorized dogma on healthcare and I don't blame them at all,  some of us however have been given very good reason to want to question what the reality is, or maybe that is just in our nature to question authority.  Anyway, if you're good with how things have been presented to you then go with it but for those that have a feeling something just isn't right I suggest doing some digging and at least expose yourself to what others have to say before writing off anyone with opposing views as just a crazy loon.
We should be careful about appealing to "the science" as a be all and end all to any argument.  First of all who is presenting the science?   Who funded the science?  Who has much to gain based on the science?  Why should we just blindly trust the science,   shouldn't science be open to scrutiny?   When the powers that be start labeling people as "deniers",  thus shaming them into silence you should really start to question what is going on.  That's just my opinion. 

It seems bizarre to me to question who funds "science" and ignore the facts from a worldwide consensus of millions of different scientists with millions of different sources of funds, whilst quoting an article from the National Review and not question it's funding or motives. Just my opinion.

[cnov]

10 minutes ago, clint said:

I agree,  I simply thought that appealing to science might sway you a bit.   I'm of the firm belief that our soul is present upon conception but obviously there is no way to prove that, that is where faith comes in.

Faith is all well and good, but it seems like a bit of a cop out in my opinion, we should be striving to prove or understand. 

Science can at least admit where it is wrong and is always striving to either prove or disprove itself with a view of further understanding.

[Bijan]

2 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

Funny, that was my initial response when you posted about there being no proof that viruses cause disease. 

While I’m pro-choice I don’t go as far as Bijan, but can respect that his position is internally consistent. 

Apologies on taking this far into left field and off topic.

I only meant to see if we could discuss that topic while adhering to the spirit of the thread title as to: "the ability to freely express an opinion that is devoid of hate and malice".

I think it has been resolved as essentially a matter of faith. And therefore not worthwhile of discussion except among believers or un-believers themselves.

[Hammer Smokin']

3 hours ago, clint said:

I didn't make the argument.   I was attempting to explain why a Christian wouldn't want a vaccine with fetal tissue in it.

a minority, a select few, of Christians. 

not all. 

not even half. 

in fact, a small minority of Christians. 

[El Presidente]

I love seeing a good Dog Whistle. 

 

“Dog whistling”, or “dog whistle politics” is a relatively new term that’s emerged in politics over the past decade or so. It refers to the art of calling up your supporters and getting them riled up by using subtly coded language that appeals to their baser instincts.