Oh Alabama
Comments
-
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
-
It’s irrelevant regardless. As you say, the debate is if the fetus has agency. My body my choice is a cute phrase that leftists seem to not care so much about when it comes to other things.creepycoug said:
Inconsistency with "elsewhere" can be tackled elsewhere.MikeDamone said:
I’m not confused. My body my choice is inconsistent because those who apply it to abortions ignore it elsewhere. Regardless if they think the fetus has agency. If they do, it’s probably even worse.creepycoug said:
It is a terrible argument, unless you assign no moral significance to the fetus. If you don't, then you're damn right that the state should not be involved and it most certainly is a privacy issue.MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
If you do assign it moral signficance, then if you're at all logically consistent you ought to be in favor of a national ban ... no exceptions ever.
This is not tuff to understand. I don't know why it's confusing to people. It's a straightforward issue if there ever was one.
As it applies to the abortion issue now before us, it is terribly relevant if the fetus has no agency. -
Setting aside the fact that there are conservative women who are pro-choice, what is an example of one of these "other things"?MikeDamone said:
My body my choice is a cute phrase that leftists seem to not care so much about when it comes to other things.creepycoug said:
Inconsistency with "elsewhere" can be tackled elsewhere.MikeDamone said:
I’m not confused. My body my choice is inconsistent because those who apply it to abortions ignore it elsewhere. Regardless if they think the fetus has agency. If they do, it’s probably even worse.creepycoug said:
It is a terrible argument, unless you assign no moral significance to the fetus. If you don't, then you're damn right that the state should not be involved and it most certainly is a privacy issue.MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
If you do assign it moral signficance, then if you're at all logically consistent you ought to be in favor of a national ban ... no exceptions ever.
This is not tuff to understand. I don't know why it's confusing to people. It's a straightforward issue if there ever was one.
As it applies to the abortion issue now before us, it is terribly relevant if the fetus has no agency. -
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
-
Thank you. Which of these you listed do you personally disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them?MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
-
Not sure. I lean heavily toward liberty and the sovereignty of the individual to have agency over his body. But at the same time I don’t blurt out catch phrases when it suits me and don’t apply the same logic to others.HHusky said:
Thank you. Which of these you listed do you personally disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them?MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
-
But you think minimum drinking and smoking ages, or drug use prohibitions, for example, are things we got from left wingers.MikeDamone said:
Not sure. I lean heavily toward liberty and the sovereignty of the individual agency over his body. But at the same time I don’t blurt out catch phrases when it suits me and don’t apply the same logic to others.HHusky said:
Thank you. Which of these you listed do you personally disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them?MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
-
Didn’t say that.HHusky said:
But you think minimum drinking and smoking ages, or drug use prohibitions, for example, are things we got from left wingers.MikeDamone said:
Not sure. I lean heavily toward liberty and the sovereignty of the individual agency over his body. But at the same time I don’t blurt out catch phrases when it suits me and don’t apply the same logic to others.HHusky said:
Thank you. Which of these you listed do you personally disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them?MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
I said people who yell about body/choice for abortion are usually on the side of government force being used in vaccines, smoking, drinking aged, taxing junk food, etc.
It’s a bullshit argument.
-
It was actually the premise you started with.MikeDamone said:
Didn’t say that.HHusky said:
But you think minimum drinking and smoking ages, or drug use prohibitions, for example, are things we got from left wingers.MikeDamone said:
Not sure. I lean heavily toward liberty and the sovereignty of the individual agency over his body. But at the same time I don’t blurt out catch phrases when it suits me and don’t apply the same logic to others.HHusky said:
Thank you. Which of these you listed do you personally disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them?MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
-
The fuck?! I just stepped out for some lunch and come back to 68 replies!
-
Didn’t mention where we got any ideas at all.HHusky said:
It was actually the premise you started with.MikeDamone said:
Didn’t say that.HHusky said:
But you think minimum drinking and smoking ages, or drug use prohibitions, for example, are things we got from left wingers.MikeDamone said:
Not sure. I lean heavily toward liberty and the sovereignty of the individual agency over his body. But at the same time I don’t blurt out catch phrases when it suits me and don’t apply the same logic to others.HHusky said:
Thank you. Which of these you listed do you personally disagree with? Or do you disagree with all of them?MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
Premise is my body my choice applies narrowly to leftist. -
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent. -
Abortion is...........
Alabama's gift to the nearly dead MSM for a certain ratings boost. Thanks Saban. -
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?creepycoug said:
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent. -
You and I agree a lot Race even though we don't like to admit it in public.RaceBannon said:In 18 years when Bama is still kicking our ass in football you'll know why
@CirrhosisDawg is a big fan of state's rights. Pretty sure he is on board with Alabama
It would be funny if after 50 years of scare tactics something happened after all
My advice is for both sides to calm down. Keep it safe and legal in the first trimester. Ease off the after birth abortion agenda.
Every action has a reaction.
My early line has the Surpemes upholding Roe thanks to Kavenaugh. Too bad the democrats want to impeach him
We are what you call "soft" pro-choicers. But no one wants to be reasonable these days.
Also, I cant help buy get my sensibilities offended when the good people of Bammer think and care about the sanctity of life. Their Cadillac had its wheel in the ditch for long time. -
None I suppose. If they are indeed risky and not using them is indeed risky, society has itself a quandary I guess.MikeDamone said:
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?creepycoug said:
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent. -
We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it -
Alabama making people responsible for their actions again!
-
Common sense abortion laws. No one is coming for your abortion.Sledog said:Alabama making people responsible for their actions again!
-
The philosophizers take issue with viability because technology moves that line backward all the time, and so the thought is that whether someone is a person or not shouldn't be a function of technology.RaceBannon said:We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
I myself don't get too hung up on that and think the first trimester is a good enough line to draw. We draw lines in life all the tim. This is as a good a context to draw one as any.
-
People that hate on anti vaxxers and fuck up their immune system with copious amounts of alcohol and a shit diet suck too.
-
Race, we can find common ground. Yes abortions are going to happen regardless, even if they out law it in Alabama, they will go to another state. Just like banning guns in Chicago isn't very effective, people can get guns from elsewhere.RaceBannon said:We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
And yes age of viability was the common ground that people came to.
And I agree on fund raising, which is crazy to me. I know many people who vote primarily because abortion, they want it illegal. Me, I don't care as much about the issue. If people want to donate to a cause that'll probably not get overturned, that's their choice. -
This is so reasonable of you and yet so un philosopher king.creepycoug said:
The philosophizers take issue with viability because technology moves that line backward all the time, and so the thought is that whether someone is a person or not shouldn't be a function of technology.RaceBannon said:We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
I myself don't get too hung up on that and think the first trimester is a good enough line to draw. We draw lines in life all the tim. This is as a good a context to draw one as any. -
Your opinion piece is referring to a case in which prosecutors did prosecute a pregnant woman for shooting herself. And it was the Georgia Court of Appeals who said they couldn't. Not the state's highest court and not the statute itself. This "proven fact" could change tomorrow.SFGbob said:
One of the sure signs you're dealing with a gas bag, is when they lie about easily proven facts.HHusky said:
Georgia wants to prosecute women who return to the state having had an abortion. I don't know what Alabama's bill says.SFGbob said:
It's what should have happened with this issue from the beginning. If California wants to make abortion legal they should have the ability to do so. And if the voters of Alabama want to outlaw abortion they should have ability to do so.YellowSnow said:Spare me with your morality. Although @creepycoug would be pleased that they took a TUFF stand and no half measures.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/politics/alabama-abortion-law-roe-v-wade/index.html
What other medical procedures should we criminalize, Alabama? Vasectomies?
No, Georgia’s Heartbeat Bill Won’t Imprison Women Who Have Abortions
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/georgia-heartbeat-bill-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/ -
Hondo I stopped reading at this point.2001400ex said:
Race, we can find common ground.RaceBannon said:We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
Hell will freeze, I will root for Cuog! and the Miami/Washington '91 debate will be settled once and for all b4 you and Racebannon find mutual respect.
Trust me. -
That's the most true thing ever said on HH today. Maybe even this year.creepycoug said:
Hondo I stopped reading at this point.2001400ex said:
Race, we can find common ground.RaceBannon said:We aren't a theocracy so religious interpretations about life need not apply including my own personal thoughts on abortion at any time
In theory we make laws based on logic and science (stop laughing)
I believe the original ruling on first trimester was based on non viability outside the womb. Muslims didn't like that but tough shit. It was a societal compromise to protect the woman from the back alley. It was an acknowledgement that like drugs and booze, abortions were going to happen. They could be regulated or not.
Ever since this has been one of the best fund raising items on both sides. Bama is going to fuck that up by getting SERIOUS about almost eliminating it
Hell will freeze, I will root for Cuog! and the Miami/Washington '91 debate will be settled once and for all b4 you and Racebannon find mutual respect.
Trust me. -
The risk of not contracting the disease.MikeDamone said:
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?creepycoug said:
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent. -
Big pharma and government forcing injections. What could go wrong?BennyBeaver said:
The risk of not contracting the disease.MikeDamone said:
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?creepycoug said:
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent.
https://www.empr.com/uncategorized/recall-announced-for-meningitis-vaccine/
https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/novartis-recalls-liquid-version-its-anemia-drug-promacta-over-risk-contamination-from
https://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/valsartan-losatran-bp-med-recalls-2018-19 -
Recalls happen every day on all kinds of things, including safety and health related products.MikeDamone said:
Big pharma and government forcing injections. What could go wrong?BennyBeaver said:
The risk of not contracting the disease.MikeDamone said:
On vaccines, what risks should someone be forced to take in order to protect someone else from harm?creepycoug said:
That's fair, but I'll just say this: you can be right about one thing even if you are selective about how you appply that reasoning to other things.MikeDamone said:
Vaccinations, mandatory government health care, minimum drinking and smoking age, type of food and beverages people are taxed heavily to consume, drug use, means to self defense...HHusky said:
Right. I got that. I'm asking for an example.MikeDamone said:
With other leftists positions where they don’t give a shit about a persons body, choice, or agency.HHusky said:
Inconsistent with what?MikeDamone said:
Get a better argument. It’s inconsistent.HHusky said:
So is it wrong because it's inconsistent or is it just objectively wrong?MikeDamone said:“My body, my choice” is the worst phrase a leftist can use considering they don’t apply that logic anywhere else.
In this case, if the woman assigns no moral agency to the fetus, then they are right to say "my body/my choice" because the state is intruding upon her right to manage her physical self as she sees fit. That she forgets that rationale in some other arena doesn't make her wrong, just, as you put it, inconsistent.
Vaccines are tricky though. If the fetus has no moral significance, then the moral equivalent of removing a mole affects no other person.
If an unvaccinated person spreads disease (not offering up an opinion on that; I don't have the background to debate the point), then in theory that person is effectively assaulting other people. Lives are being effected!!! That's a potential distinction from the abortion debate.
Otherwise, yeah, I agree. People are full of shit and hopelessly inconsistent.
https://www.empr.com/uncategorized/recall-announced-for-meningitis-vaccine/
This recall is considered precautionary as the batch associated with the recall was subject to a “mechanical intervention executed during the aseptic filling operations, which is not supported by validation data.”
https://www.fiercepharma.com/manufacturing/novartis-recalls-liquid-version-its-anemia-drug-promacta-over-risk-contamination-from
To date, Novartis has not received any reports or adverse events for this recall.
https://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/valsartan-losatran-bp-med-recalls-2018-19
What is the risk of getting cancer from one of these drugs?
The FDA says it is very small. The amount of NDMA found in the recalled valsartan drugs exceeds acceptable levels. Records from drug manufacturers show the impurity may have been in the valsartan products for up to 4 years. The FDA estimates that if 8,000 people took the highest valsartan dose, which is 320 milligrams, from recalled batches every day for 4 years, there would likely only be one additional case of cancer over the life of those 8,000 people.
For context, 1 in 3 people in the United States will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime.
It's an imperfect world out here, but by all measures a safer one than before vaccines and things like seat belts, air bags and smoke detectors, etc.
If you can't handle the ups and downs of risk management, you might want to find another world to live in. -
So my body but I have to wear a seat belt?
Where's the freedom, man?
