|
|
|
|
|
|
by ThirdFoundation
2606 days ago
|
|
|
Sorry, but these examples aren't properly analogous. A driving equivalent would something like automatic breaking technology. If it was proven that people driving with this were 50% less likely to cause accidents and the technology was available in all cars, then it would make sense to fine people that opted to manually turn it off. Abortion isn't the same situation at all. That is a loaded topic involving religion, body autonomy, the concept of a "soul", person-hood, and science. It is not a binary issue. Vaccines are black and white. There is sound science proving they don't cause autism and by not getting them the rest of the population is in danger. I would think heavy fines would be appropriate throughout society for these type of circumstances (or some other types of behavioral push). |
|
|
The argument being made is "infringing on peoples bodily integrity is ok if a measurable amount of lives are saved by the infringement".
I simply extended that argument to other things where we can measurably evaluate how many more people would be alive if we infringe on peoples rights.
Abortion is a perfect example because not only can we establish a clear upper bound on the number of lives lost due to it, but we can also save those lives through an infringement on bodily integrity in particular.
In short, if we can infringe bodily integrity to save less than 1 life a year, by mandating mandatory measles vaccines, then it stands to reason that all other similarly permanent offenses to bodily integrity are also permitted if they save 1 or more lives per year.