[loramin]

Originally Posted by Evia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To be honest with you loramin I used to be a huge pro vaxxer. It took a personal experience where I had my baby boy die of sids 6 days after his 30 day vaccine appointment that it shook me and started making me question more. I too thought it best to trust the doctors. Now I know everyone loves to say coralation doesn't equal causation but perfectly healthy baby's don't just die and The vaccine insert did mention sids as a possible side effect.

Wow: I honestly can't even imagine that. I say this with no hyperbole, in absolute seriousness: experiencing the death of a child one of (possibly THE) worst experience a human being can live through. I'm truly sorry.

Originally Posted by Evia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now sure I'll admit nobody knows for sure if it was the vax that killed him but I believe it was. I also learned that you cannot hold vaccine manufacturers liable if a death occurs either or the hospital.

Well here's another thought experiment: what if it did kill him ... but it saved 50 other kids' lives? This actually gets to your next point.

Originally Posted by Evia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just want you to see that there are two sides to this and it feels unfair that my health concerns should go out the window for your health concerns. Where do we draw the line from my rights to your rights if not with our own bodies? Danth said something similar that resonated with me.

Exactly: even if your kid could be sacrificed to save fifty other children, you should have a right to say "fuck you fifty kids: my child isn't the trolley car problem" (a utilitarianism reference). Except ... then you have to look fifty other parents in the eye, knowing you killed their kids [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] It's not an easy situation either way.

Earlier, when I referenced libertarianism and the morality of looking after yourself, I wasn't playing devil's advocate: there is a strong argument to be made that relying on institutions (governments, hospitals, etc.) always leaves someone getting screwed over. By that logic, the government should only look after basic rights (eg. life and liberty), and stay out of everything else.

Which brings us full circle to the start: what if your actions lead to my loss of life? The classic example of this is freedom of speech: we all agree freedom of speech is nearly universal, until some asshole yells "fire" in a crowded theatre, and people die stampeding out. Then we punish the asshole in spite of their "free speech rights", because they violated someone else's right to life.

If someone yelled fire in a theatre and someone you loved died in the stampede, would you want them punished? Now, if someone doesn't get a vaccine, and kills someone you love, same question?

I think trying to draw that line reveals the trickiness. If you say "well the vaccine could kill me, yelling won't", you don't really solve the problem, because if the vaccine only has only a 1 in a million chance of death and a 50% chance of saving a life, I'd like to think we'd all agree you're a douchebag for not getting it. But conversely if your chance of saving a life is low, and your risk from the vaccine is high, the reverse must be true.

So again, I won't fight you on getting vaccinated; I haven't lived your life, and you clearly have some good reasons. But if we're talking how things should be, I'll always think saving (savable) lives is a good thing we should strive for, and I'll always believe we should rely on evidence and expertise over our guts.

Originally Posted by Evia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Good chat loramin!

I felt the same [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]