[Sivad]

Forced vaccination is a bad idea for a whole host of reasons but the most compelling reason for rejecting these policies that allow the state to violate informed consent is that it sets a very dangerous precedent:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)


Buck v. Bell is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has never expressly overturned Buck v. Bell.

[...]

The effect of Buck v. Bell was to legitimize eugenic sterilization laws in the United States as a whole. While many states already had sterilization laws on their books, their use was erratic and effects practically non-existent in every state except for California. After Buck v. Bell, dozens of states added new sterilization statutes, or updated their constitutionally non-functional ones already enacted, with statutes which more closely mirrored the Virginia statute upheld by the Court.[16]

[...]

The Virginia statute which the ruling of Buck v. Bell supported was designed in part by the eugenicist Harry H. Laughlin, superintendent of Charles Benedict Davenport's Eugenics Record Office in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. Laughlin had, a few years previously, conducted a number of studies on the enforcement of sterilization legislation throughout the country and had concluded that the reason for their lack of use was primarily that the physicians who would order the sterilizations were afraid of prosecution by patients whom they operated upon. Laughlin saw the need to create a "Model Law"[17] which could withstand a test of constitutional scrutiny, clearing the way for future sterilization operations. Adolf Hitler closely modelled his Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring on Laughlin's "Model Law". The Third Reich held Laughlin in such regard that they arranged for him to receive an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936. At the Nuremberg trials after World War II, Nazi doctors explicitly cited Holmes's opinion in Buck v. Bell as part of their defense.

So it starts with compulsory vaccination and then progresses into maniac eugenicists forcibly sterilizing people. This isn't some crazy totalitarian country that did this, this was a US Supreme Court decision from the modern era. There's already talk about adding lithium to the water supply to curb suicide rates and if we look a little further ahead it's not hard to imagine the principle of compulsory vaccination being used as a precedent to mandate genetic modifications that reduce aggression. There's not too much that can't be justified by invoking the public welfare and "the protection and health of the state".

[Sivad]

The Buck v. Bell decision led to 80,000 forced sterilizations.

Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. Although compulsory sterilization is now considered an abuse of human rights, Buck v. Bell was never overturned, and Virginia did not repeal its sterilization law until 1974.[59] The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[60] Beginning around 1930, there was a steady increase in the percentage of women sterilized, and in a few states only young women were sterilized. From 1930 to the 1960s, sterilizations were performed on many more institutionalized women than men.[31] By 1961, 61 percent of the 62,162 total eugenic sterilizations in the United States were performed on women.[31] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.[61][62]

Men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons. Men were sterilized to treat their aggression and to eliminate their criminal behavior, while women were sterilized to control the results of their sexuality.[31] Since women bore children, eugenicists held women more accountable than men for the reproduction of the less "desirable" members of society.[31] Eugenicists therefore predominantly targeted women in their efforts to regulate the birth rate, to "protect" white racial health, and weed out the "defectives" of society.[31]

A 1937 Fortune magazine poll found that 2/3 of respondents supported eugenic sterilization of "mental defectives", 63% supported sterilization of criminals, and only 15% opposed both.[63][64]

In the 1970s, several activists and women's rights groups discovered several physicians to be performing coerced sterilizations of specific ethnic groups of society. All were abuses of poor, nonwhite, or mentally retarded women, while no abuses against white or middle-class women were recorded.[65] Several court cases such as Madrigal v. Quilligan, a class action suit regarding forced or coerced postpartum sterilization of Latina women following cesarean sections, and Relf v. Weinberger,[66] the sterilization of two young black girls by tricking their illiterate mother into signing a waiver, helped bring to light some of the widespread abuses of sterilization supported by federal funds.[67][68]

The number of eugenic sterilizations is agreed upon by most scholars and journalists. They claim that there were 64,000 cases of eugenic sterilization in the United States, but this number does not take into account the sterilizations that took place after 1963. Around this time was when women from different minority groups were singled out for sterilization. If the sterilizations after 1963 are taken into account, the number of eugenic sterilizations in the United States increases to 80,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsor ... ted_States

[Pants-of-dog]

No one proposed forced vaccinations.

Has someone done so, or are you pre-emptively tilting at windmills?

[Rancid]

I feel like people over complicate this discussion. Largely because they get emotional and throw in a bunch of rhetoric.

Ultimately this is about individual rights versus the collective good. Fundamentally, the argument here is about where the balance between these two often opposing stances.

My personal opinion is that skewing things completely in favor of one over the other isn't the best result for society overall. Skewing rights towards the individual will often lead to massive amounts of inequality, as power and wealth will collect at the top. Skewing rights away from the individual and looking after the collective and also stifle progress and innovation. The question is, we need a balance somewhere, so where is it?

With respect to vaccination, I lean towards protecting the collective.

[Sivad]

I feel like people over complicate this discussion. Largely because they get emotional and throw in a bunch of rhetoric.

Ultimately this is about individual rights versus the collective good. Fundamentally, the argument here is about where the balance between these two often opposing stances.

My personal opinion is that skewing things completely in favor of one over the other isn't the best result for society overall. Skewing rights towards the individual will often lead to massive amounts of inequality, as power and wealth will collect at the top. Skewing rights away from the individual and looking after the collective and also stifle progress and innovation. The question is, we need a balance somewhere, so where is it?

With respect to vaccination, I lean towards protecting the collective.

If the science was sound then there would be no need to coerce people to vaccinate, but as it is the vaccine pushers don't have an ethical or scientific leg to stand on. It was the same with the eugenicists, all they had was a bunch of junk science and state coercion. Part of me is glad they're implementing forced vaccination, that kind of outrageous babbittry just pisses people off and galvanizes movements.

[Rancid]

GO ask your grandmother about polio.

[Rugoz]

Children have the right not to die or become seriously ill just because their parents are fucking idiots.

Children are not the property of their parents, for the 100th time.

[Sivad]

GO ask your grandmother about polio.

Yeah, that's not an intelligent response. Just because the benefits outweigh the risks with one vaccine doesn't mean that's true of all vaccines. And we're not just talking about specific vaccines, the entire schedule is being mandated and since neither the schedule as a whole or the individual vaccines have been properly studied we can't even begin to quantify the risks to any reasonable degree of accuracy.

[Sivad]

Children have the right not to die or become seriously ill just because their parents are fucking idiots.

I agree, that's why babbitts are so fucking dangerous, their obtuse idiocy is incredibly detrimental to all of society.

[Rancid]

Yeah, that's not an intelligent response. Just because the benefits outweigh the risks with one vaccine doesn't mean that's true of all vaccines. And we're not just talking about specific vaccines, the entire schedule is being mandated and since neither the schedule as a whole or the individual vaccines have been properly studied we can't even begin to quantify the risks to any reasonable degree of accuracy.

Ultimately, I'm not interested in debating this with you. People's minds cannot be changed anyway.

[Sivad]

Ultimately, I'm not interested in debating this with you. People's minds cannot be changed anyway.

There's nothing to debate, I got multiple top public health experts saying vaccines haven't been properly studied. If that doesn't change your mind then that's just an issue with your mentality. Invincible ignorance is the norm in this world, most people are just militantly dedicated to bullshit.

[Pants-of-dog]

If the science was sound then there would be no need to coerce people to vaccinate,

Here you are assuming that the vast majority of people are capable of making intelligent and rational decisions based solely on a rigourous analysis of science.

Since you constantly tell us about how much you dislike most people because they are not smart, I find it surprising that you would implicitly assume the opposite.

but as it is the vaccine pushers don't have an ethical or scientific leg to stand on. It was the same with the eugenicists, all they had was a bunch of junk science and state coercion. Part of me is glad they're implementing forced vaccination, that kind of outrageous babbittry just pisses people off and galvanizes movements.

Again, who is implementing forced vaccination?

[Rugoz]

...

[Rugoz]

Vaccines?! Throw em to the ground!

[Sivad]

I know you're like fundamentalist believers who don't have even a shred of rational doubt about the system or it's doctrines but you should at least consider what collosal jackasses you'd be if you're wrong. And that's what I see, just unmitigated imbecility. Total bubble headed donk stupid jackassery.

[Pants-of-dog]

So no one is forcing people to get vaccinated. Okay.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Again, who is implementing forced vaccination?

Kamala Harris, Democrat Candidate for the Presidency is advocating for this position.

Bernie Sanders also holds to it.

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-gui ... ccinations

[Pants-of-dog]

Kamala Harris, Democrat Candidate for the Presidency is advocating for this position.

Bernie Sanders also holds to it.

https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-gui ... ccinations

What exactly are they proposing?

Also, if people are proposing it, it is obvious that no one is currently implementing it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No one proposed forced vaccinations.

So what does this mean?

It sure looks like you got this wrong.

[Pants-of-dog]

Maybe, but it depends on what is actually being proposed.

If they are merely proposing to have vaccinations required to go to school, then they are not really proposing forced vaccinations.

What are Sanders et al proposing?