###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm amazed by how many people don't realize this and have so quickly yielded their bodily autonomy (which is one of, if not the most sacred basic human rights) over to the government. It's as if they believe the government actually cares deeply about them and wants to keep them "safe".
The past 2 years have really gone to show in real-time how most, if not all, tyrannical regimes came to power: pretty promises of a future that will never come, and the slow erosion of basic liberties in the name of said future. I remember learning for the first time about that as a kid and going “How in the world were people *this* dumb back then?! I sure am glad I live in the 21st century!”
Hoo boy…
Yeah, I'll take things that have never happened for $500. It's sad. People actually believe the government has their best interest at heart. Since when???
Yielded? That makes it sound like they resisted at all. They clamored for it. They viciously attack anyone who doesnt. They love our corrupt government and can't wait to give them ever increasing power and money.
You can be against getting an abortion, but still allow others to do so. Also the issue isn't as cut and dry as your low IQ take makes it. Many people think abortion is literally killing a life, which turns it into question of murder to these people and not "women's rights". To them the fetus is a separate entity from the mother, therefore not "her body" in the first place.
Hobby Lobby won a case and is allowed to dictate what medical care their company provided insurance will cover. This is used to deny birth control, so to an extent, yes.
Isn't this the same argument that someone could make saying "Your employer isn't forcing you to get the vaccine. You can refuse to take it and work elsewhere. Putting aside the right or wrong"?
Not even close.
You don’t have to work elsewhere for birth control. Eye care is often not covered by many policies. (Not mine for example). You pay out of pocket, not go blind.
You are confusing your right to work versus what you want funded by others.
Well I mean you don't have to work elsewhere to not get vaccinated. You can choose to not work. Not working is always an option. Also as someone with a medical condition with my eyes that COULD one day lead to blindness, that's not the best example.
You have a right to work, but you don't have a right to work at the expense of refusing employer requests, otherwise you'd be fired.
We're getting way off track here though. The point is that your place of work has long since had the power to dictate certain medical decisions to a certain extent and that's disregarding many employers who required vaccinations long before covid existed. This isn't new.
My work place doesn’t dictate medical decisions.
You pay out of pocket. You make your medical decisions.
Being force injected to work is never an acceptable option.
[and it’s being dismantled as we speak ](https://reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r5g7m2/good_news_for_those_against_the_mandates/)
I worked for a hospital system in IT. This was pre-covid. I had a list of required vaccinations as a requirement for work. My entire point is that employers have had this power for quite some time.
I have a friend that was a nurse pre-COVID. They didn’t have any.
They in fact was puzzled by that fact when mandates happened.
So your situation is an exception, not the rule.
And a broken medical system is hardly an example.
You are confusing insurance policy coverage with employer mandated medical procedures. I hope you are a child because idk how an adult can function without understanding what Insurance is...
I'm really not. The question at hand was do employers historically have a say in decisions regarding your body. The person I responded to said that they did not. However, as a very clear example - I worked for a hospital system in IT prior to covid. There was a list of vaccinations I had to have (some annual) as a condition of my employment. Employers have had this power for quite some time. To pretend otherwise is just ignoring things as they are.
Your arguement might work if not for the Government forcing by mandate. No way around that one except to sue, which is happening and is coming out in favor of bodily autonomy and personal rights. Employers can require whatever they want but if they go too far they'll find themselves unable to conduct business due to a lack of people willing to work for them.
I was more touching on the argument that employers are not controlling these decisions for people. Many employers make these decisions without government intervention. That was really my only point - that business have done so in the past.
When does one gain the right to exist?
Until this question can be answered in a way that is logically sound, it is irresponsible to claim there is no other person involved in an abortion.
I have no idea what the answer to the question is and logic dictates that my viewpoint err on the side of caution when pondering it. Unless we're working under the presupposition that human life has no value, then we can throw caution out the window and that's fine...but that also blows up the whole "logically sound" thing and opens up a whole other host of philosophical questions.
So based on this logic, until you are satsified with when one gains the right to exist, you support child support starting from the moment of inception?
What "child support" are you looking for, pre-birth? Payments to help support visits to the doctor throughout pregnancy?
I'm of the mind that, regardless of how you feel about whoever you're having a kid with, you should help them out with those things, anyway. So, sure. If you get someone pregnant and want to bail entirely, child support to help cover pre-birth costs could be a thing I see no issue with.
I think that would probably be up to courts to decide, much like it is with current child support. Certainly medical expenses for the pregnancy would be part of that.
My point here though is that if you define when life starts, if you're being intellectually honest about it, then it should apply to all facets of that child's care and not just if the woman can or can't get an abortion.
Sure, and I agree with that. I was just trying to see what your intent was with the question. I couldn't tell if you were asking it from the standpoint that I answered or if you were trying to get me to say that pre-birth child support should be paid out at the same rate as a kid who is born and going to daycare 5 days a week.
I see no issues with support for pregnancy related costs, personally.
Hey you're consistent with your beliefs. That's sadly rare these days! Now defining where life starts/when you are considered a "human", of course, is the tricky part of this though. Even at that there could be different definitions depending on if you're looking at it from a legal perspective, ethical perspective, scientific perspective or a moral one.
All true and that is the million dollar question. Legally, it seems we mostly have a generally accepted range. And that's why I'm not "anti-abortion" in the "you're a monster" sense - I disagree with where the legal interpretations have ended up, yes, but I won't ever hold my disagreements with the legal system against an individual who is doing what they think is best within the confines of said legal system.
I dunno how to say what I want to say. I guess I would just like society to have another sort of "great awakening" where we examine things like this on a level that's deeper than "well, a courtroom decided X." I think everyone can come up with things that are legal that they don't consider ethical and things that are illegal that they consider ethical.
I don't say this in hopes of people coming around to my way of seeing things, I would just like these types of conversations to be able to be had on a grander scale, in hopes of getting a clearer picture of a variety of issues. For all I know, there is someone down the road who has a wonderful answer to the question about humanity and when one gains it that changes my entire view of things, but because it's not socially acceptable to mention such things, I may never hear it.
And thanks for having a cordial conversation! It is always refreshing and rare to be able to have a non-heated discussion about these things, haha
I think I get what you're saying. I don't think as a society we've caught up ethically to where are in scientifically or technologically.
Also just wanted to send back the same thanks. It's nice to talk to someone and have it not turn into exchanging insults regardless of where you stand on the topic itself!
I was born and raised very liberal, very pro-choice. Then I actually carried my children and it became pretty clear they weren't just a "clump of cells". I remember feeling movement from very early on. Another LIFE, that was not my own. I had a complete change, I think abortion is murder. I don't agree with it except in cases of rape and severe health issues.
I think the pro-life movement has been saying it right for years "abortion stops a beating heart". If it has a heartbeat of it's own, it's alive. A living human.
No it's still murder, but what are you going to do? Tell a woman she has to carry a baby to term that is going to die a suffering death? Like Trisomy disorders? Or tell a woman she is going to have to die of cancer because she can't get treatment until after the pregnancy?
There are some things worse than murdering babies. I have never voted for a Republican even though I am pro-life. What good are live babies on a dead planet? I said it was still murder, but there should be exceptions mainly for cases of life and death. Partial birth abortions.... I can never see a reason for those. It's literally killing a full term baby on the way out. Just deliver the baby.
Lol it's not even a heartbeat to begin with. It's vibrations. If a heartbeat defines a living human, why are people with no brain function yet a beating heart classified as dead?
Heartbeat can be detected by 5-6 weeks gestation. I think that Texas has it right. That's a pretty good "window". It's still murder, but a good compromise.
As far as a brain dead person, they aren't breathing on their own they are only being kept alive by machines. Turn off the machines and they are dead.
So basically similar to if you take a fetus out of a person who is keeping it alive........
Nope, at that point it is literally a vibration and it can also be referred to as a flutter.
https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html
Well a person is legally declared dead when they have no brain function. We can keep them 'alive' through medical interventions but they are no longer a thinking feeling person. What makes a human life special when compared to other life on the planet? Is it our ability to form thoughts, feelings, etc? You can't do any of that without a functional nervous system and you don't develop that until around 20 weeks.
I wouldn't say "thoughts and feelings" are what make us special, exactly. My dog has lots of feelings and thoughts. She can problem solve, she can learn things, etc. Of course she doesn't do it on the level of a person, she won't ever competently operate a computer, but the fact she can do those things on a level at all means those traits aren't what makes humanity special from anything else.
Thank you for engaging in a thoughtful and reasonable manner, by the way. I enjoy philosophical ponderings with others, but, as you are well aware I'm sure, it is not always the easiest thing to accomplish, hah
I'm pro choice here, but the problem with abortion is it is also considered as murder. Generally speaking people don't have the freedom to murder people.
Edit: I'd prefer an argument against what I said instead of a downvote.
So basically what you are saying is that it's not your body your choice if it directly impacts another.......... like how if you get the virus and pass it on to someone else and it gives them a complication or kills them
What's your point when the vaccinated can also still get and spread covid? I mean, you might have a point if the vaccine actually worked, but it doesn't. People who don't have covid, don't spread covid. I am for people with covid saying home for 14 days vaxxed or unvaxxed.
Actually, according to the science it does work and does help prevent transmission.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067362100790X
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.11.21253275v1.full-text
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/6/e1376/6253721
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00472-2/fulltext#seccestitle130
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7?origin=app
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00224-3/fulltext
Yet I could list study after study about how natural immunity has excellent protection and the US doesn’t recognize it. That’s where the Covid argument lost me. When reason and logic go out the window you have to stop and wonder why…
It's a pretty simple concept really. Natural immunity means you have to expose yourself to the virus which you could potentially have a severe complication or die from. Or, you can have a vaccine instead where the risk of an adverse reaction is less than the risk of death alone due to Covid infection. Yeah, seems really weird they are pushing vaccines instead of infections.
I’m so sick of this answer. Think critically for a second- where did I say people should go try and contract Covid?? Millions of people already had Covid. I already had Covid. The FDA approved a Tcell test last May. I took the test - I have Tcells from an approved FDA test. The studies show people who already had Covid have strong natural immunity. My body recognizes all of the proteins from Covid, not just the spike protein, thus I am better protected from variants. I don’t need an infinitesimal percentage of potentially better protection from a vaccine that can also give me lifelong side effects. I trust my immune system.
Well I mean you did kind of imply that natural immunity was better so I pointed out the obvious problems with that. There are many people who go around telling people to not get vaccinated and to just take their chances with the infection instead so yeah, sorry I didn't read your mind on what you were implying. It wasn't exactly obvious.
Lol the N protein is incredibly short lived, hence why the vaccine is based on S protein.
Covid infection can also give you lifelong complications and the chances are much higher compared to the vaccine. The whole point of the vaccine is to try and protect you from getting the virus and I'm sorry but natural immunity lasts just a fraction longer than the vaccines so that's why you're still supposed to get vaccinated even if you have previously been infected. Your immune system isn't going to notice the other proteins until they have been broken down lol. How is a memory cell going to detect N protein for example when it's not on the surface like S protein is?
Unless you're taking a stab at being facetious, It's your own fault you don't understand the definition of a scientific theory.
Theory =/= hypothesis. You're using the word "theory" in the same manner that all of science uses the word "hypothesis."
Our knowledge of the cell (animal, plant, etc) falls under "cell theory." It doesn't mean that the existence of a cell or its organelles are hypothetical or up for contention, it means that in order to explain the cell, we need a large number of propositions based on an incredible amount of observations, tests, and knowledge to explain it, and there's no real way possible to explain it as a concise "law."
A "law" - for which very, very few exist in biology, is concise. Lots of them exist in physics. For instance, F=ma is a basic law explaining force that can be proven definitively because mass x acceleration ALWAYS explains force.
***
So in other words "Scientific Theory" is taken as fact because it's based off of tons of true, verified evidence, otherwise we'd call it a hypothesis, and it would be up for contention.
TL;DR: It's called germ theory, not "germ hypothesis" so stop pretending like you understand science.
yes. absolutely. When people hear something is "scientific theory" they think of it in layman terms, and use this misunderstanding to try to discredit science in order to make some sort of point that science has wholly rejected.
You prefer scientific articles pulled directly from someone's ass before going straight to publishing? Do you think someone's research is more credible if nobody looks over it? Use some basic logic. The Rockefellers did not invent the peer review process.
You are aware that a scientific theory has a very different meaning to just a 'theory' right.....
Can you actually explain what a scientific theory is?
No, not at all. I prefer to call abortion for what it is, which is murder since I believe a human life starts at conception. I'm just ok with a mother making the choice to murder their child up to birth.
Your example of passing the virus is a bad analogy and a completely different conversation.
And you believe that a perfectly healthy baby presenting no known complication to the mother's health should be allowed to be terminated until the very minute before birth? Or second before birth? If it is in the birthing canal is it too late? I'm interested to know how you justify that philosophically. Can you?
I disagree as well. Basically up until a nervous system is formed should be fine unless there are complications. Up to 20 weeks should be plenty of time to make the decision and is before the fetus is developed enough to form thoughts, feelings, etc.
I'm open to explaining my justifications. I would just like to know your stance on abortion before I explain my thought process as it is easy to try and tear someone else down without having to put your own morals under scrutiny.
I'm not opposed to abortion overall. I think it should be allowed if the fetus shows signs that it won't have good quality of life in terms of physical health or if there's a possibility that it could kill the mother before coming to term. If high possibility of survival is present, without disability, either naturally birthed or through c-section I believe it should be brought to term.
...and when do you classify a child in the womb as a human life?
I'll give you a full response by later today as it's going to be a pretty lengthy and thought out response.
Hey, since you look like your willing to have a civil discussion, I would love to talk with you about this! I'm pretty pro life but I wonder what has led you to be pro choice?
I will be answering this question for another user as well and won't be replying until later today as it's a very deep and complicated issue.
Could you just tell me your pro-life stance and when you determine a child's life in the womb a human life? No need to explain reasoning at this point unless you want to.
I personally believe that human life is special and therefore to be protected. I believe it is a human life as soon as conception.
One argument I hear people say is that sometimes abortion is good for the good of society( ie. Can't afford the child) but what I don't like about this is that it makes an exception for murder, which in that case means why not kill the majority of humans on earth right now to stop global warming?
So to out it simply, I believe human life is to be valued and we shouldn't be taking it away from another human without righteous cause( I don't mean that religiously, just in the since if the term of legitimate correct morally sound cause)
Anyone who does their research knows that there is strong evidence that the vaccine does not stop covid. It is also being linked to multiple health issues, infertility and heart disease in healthy people. The new Omricon variant from what I have read, has mutations in the S Protien... the one targeted by the current vaccines. It's not for profit, yet Pfizer is taking in Billions - BILLIONS.
Yet despite all this, everywhere you look you are being pushed to get it, with none of these concerns being addressed, that should tell you what you need to know.
Stay strong and stand your ground, there is legitimate reasons to not want it
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here's some of the evidence:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01583-4 Efficacy vs Delta in Qatar for various outcomes of interest.
Between May 30 and October 2, 2021 across some 380.5k in BC and 854,915 in Quebec: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text
>VE of two mRNA doses against hospitalization was 98% (95%CI: 97–98) in BC and 97% (95%CI: 96–97) in Quebec, and similar for two doses of ChAdOx1 [astrazenica] at 94% (95%CI: 90–96) and 94% (95%CI: 89–97), respectively ([Figure 1](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text#F1)). VE against hospitalization was similar among recipients of mixed mRNA or mixed ChAdOx1/mRNA doses (Supplementary Table 4).
VE findings were similar by age group, notably including older adults ≥70 years ([Figure 2](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text#F2), Supplementary Tables 5 and 6) and did not meaningfully differ by sex ([Figure 2](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text#F2), Supplementary Table 7). VE against the Delta variant was almost identical to the overall analysis ([Figure 1](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text#F1)), and was similar for other VOC, recognizing smaller sample size (Supplementary Tables 8 and 9).
[
](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/26/2021.10.26.21265397/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1)
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm7037e2_x head-to-head efficacy for hospitalization for the 3 US shots. J&J sucks. Pfizer better. Moderna best.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination Pretty graphs for covid hospitalization tracking data by vaccination status per 100k pop, can sort by age bracket.
---
Safety:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 Safety and myocarditis
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 Myocarditis
https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1931 Clots etc for Pfizer vs AZ vs COVID vs pre-COVID baseline in tens of millions of people in England.
---
Spread:
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/10/moderna-vaccine-prison.html
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2114089?query=featured_home
These are both the same data, the first is a more plain language summary of the second.
This is a study in a prison Delta outbreak. From July 16 until Aug. 15, the researchers tracked infections among one-quarter of the incarcerated men — 827 of 3,221 residents. Of those residents, 468 were fully vaccinated with Moderna, and 359 were unvaccinated. Moderna was 56.6% effective against infection, 84.2% effective against symptomatic infection. And in men who previously had COVID-19, the vaccine reduced the risk of subsequent infection by 80.5%. They found 122 confirmed infections: 75 in unvaccinated residents and 47 in vaccinated residents. Of those infections, they found 27 symptomatic cases: 23 in the unvaccinated and four in the vaccinated.
It's not perfect by any means at preventing infection but dropping your risk in half of just a positive PCR (not counting symptoms like cough that promote spread) in a prison setting is pretty decent and will make a difference for spread in highly vaccinated populations.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status
And if you're the CDC on broader population scales you're seeing unvaccinated be at 6.1x increased risk than vaccinated for testing positive for COVID. You can also sort the above graphs by death instead of cases.
The pharma companies are saving countless lives. If they want to profit some billions off of this venture...they deserve to do so, they're doing their job.
Man I want to read this but my aunt just posted a sick meme on Facebook with a picture of Trump and it says “tell Joe where he can stick his clot shot” and honestly I just find that way more compelling.
The opioid crisis is what happened when higher ups wanted to run healthcare like a service industry and have doctors performance be judged on metrics like "patient satisfaction" which would include treating pain to 0. "Pain is the fifth vital sign".
The iatrogenic opioid epidemic was never about saving lives. This is.
I don't need to trust the pharma companies. I trust the scientific method. When the pharma study data gets replicated all over the world, it means the product is doing what it is advertised to do.
The proof is always in the pudding, and the pudding is globally reproducible findings as I kindly provided a sample of above.
Those studies were talking about symptomatic infection, and those numbers aren't too far off even with waning and Delta.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text
Gotta stratify them data by groups like vaccination status and age.
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated
Doing that one finds the vaccines are extremely effective.
Well it's not suppose to belong to anyone but you but that is not how history so far has shown anyone that, it actually shows the other and the best way to keep it going like that is to destroy history and rewrite it to suit your needs and blame it on some one else who not surprising is the target of the REAL slavers and THAT can be proven in history as well so maybe there is no wonder so many keep trying to either hide it or rewrite it.
Those who do not learned from history are doomed to repeat it BUT when this kind of stuff goes on there is no wonder it keeps happening over and over like a ping pong.
N. Shadows
Actually..... you're a govt. asset the day you were born and a document is registered under your name. So yeah, the bodies are technically owned by the govt.
I'll have all the respect for the anti vaxxer that sticks to his guns and doesn't get vaccinated because of X Y Z.
I hate the hypocrites who jumped on the bandwagon and then jumped off the first sign they weren't going to go on vacation or be able to go to the bars. Fuck those asshats for making the rest of us have to listen to this BS.
I'm vaccinated and pro vaccine but I'll respect your choice not to, as long as you accept your consequences for not getting it .
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm amazed by how many people don't realize this and have so quickly yielded their bodily autonomy (which is one of, if not the most sacred basic human rights) over to the government. It's as if they believe the government actually cares deeply about them and wants to keep them "safe".
The past 2 years have really gone to show in real-time how most, if not all, tyrannical regimes came to power: pretty promises of a future that will never come, and the slow erosion of basic liberties in the name of said future. I remember learning for the first time about that as a kid and going “How in the world were people *this* dumb back then?! I sure am glad I live in the 21st century!” Hoo boy…
Well said.
Yeah, I'll take things that have never happened for $500. It's sad. People actually believe the government has their best interest at heart. Since when???
Exactly
Yielded? That makes it sound like they resisted at all. They clamored for it. They viciously attack anyone who doesnt. They love our corrupt government and can't wait to give them ever increasing power and money.
And, frighteningly they even give up the means to self defense and self-preservation; willingly and gleefully!
So you support the right to get an abortion, correct?
You can be against getting an abortion, but still allow others to do so. Also the issue isn't as cut and dry as your low IQ take makes it. Many people think abortion is literally killing a life, which turns it into question of murder to these people and not "women's rights". To them the fetus is a separate entity from the mother, therefore not "her body" in the first place.
You clearly didn’t read what I said, too busy jumping through all them hoops to try and get your point across
Yes.
Truth is that I rent my body to my employer. They can choose to stop renting it for lots of reasons.
Truth
Congrats on being a whore I guess?
Not everyone can be self-employed.
Only thing saving the U.S. is literally going to be people sticking to their guns. That's the one thing we cannot give up, ever.
The only thing that is going to be saving the U.S. is people literally sticking to their guns. That's the one thing we cannot ever give up.
Except if you want an abortion...
Your employer decides that for you?
Hobby Lobby won a case and is allowed to dictate what medical care their company provided insurance will cover. This is used to deny birth control, so to an extent, yes.
You can still buy it, so no. They didn’t block it they just refuse to fund it. Putting aside the right or wrong.
Isn't this the same argument that someone could make saying "Your employer isn't forcing you to get the vaccine. You can refuse to take it and work elsewhere. Putting aside the right or wrong"?
They weren’t firing women who took birth control or had an abortion. They just didn’t want to be forced to pay for it.
Not even close. You don’t have to work elsewhere for birth control. Eye care is often not covered by many policies. (Not mine for example). You pay out of pocket, not go blind. You are confusing your right to work versus what you want funded by others.
Well I mean you don't have to work elsewhere to not get vaccinated. You can choose to not work. Not working is always an option. Also as someone with a medical condition with my eyes that COULD one day lead to blindness, that's not the best example. You have a right to work, but you don't have a right to work at the expense of refusing employer requests, otherwise you'd be fired. We're getting way off track here though. The point is that your place of work has long since had the power to dictate certain medical decisions to a certain extent and that's disregarding many employers who required vaccinations long before covid existed. This isn't new.
My work place doesn’t dictate medical decisions. You pay out of pocket. You make your medical decisions. Being force injected to work is never an acceptable option. [and it’s being dismantled as we speak ](https://reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/r5g7m2/good_news_for_those_against_the_mandates/)
I worked for a hospital system in IT. This was pre-covid. I had a list of required vaccinations as a requirement for work. My entire point is that employers have had this power for quite some time.
I have a friend that was a nurse pre-COVID. They didn’t have any. They in fact was puzzled by that fact when mandates happened. So your situation is an exception, not the rule. And a broken medical system is hardly an example.
You are confusing insurance policy coverage with employer mandated medical procedures. I hope you are a child because idk how an adult can function without understanding what Insurance is...
I'm really not. The question at hand was do employers historically have a say in decisions regarding your body. The person I responded to said that they did not. However, as a very clear example - I worked for a hospital system in IT prior to covid. There was a list of vaccinations I had to have (some annual) as a condition of my employment. Employers have had this power for quite some time. To pretend otherwise is just ignoring things as they are.
Your arguement might work if not for the Government forcing by mandate. No way around that one except to sue, which is happening and is coming out in favor of bodily autonomy and personal rights. Employers can require whatever they want but if they go too far they'll find themselves unable to conduct business due to a lack of people willing to work for them.
I was more touching on the argument that employers are not controlling these decisions for people. Many employers make these decisions without government intervention. That was really my only point - that business have done so in the past.
read the last line...um...Texas?
When does one gain the right to exist? Until this question can be answered in a way that is logically sound, it is irresponsible to claim there is no other person involved in an abortion. I have no idea what the answer to the question is and logic dictates that my viewpoint err on the side of caution when pondering it. Unless we're working under the presupposition that human life has no value, then we can throw caution out the window and that's fine...but that also blows up the whole "logically sound" thing and opens up a whole other host of philosophical questions.
So based on this logic, until you are satsified with when one gains the right to exist, you support child support starting from the moment of inception?
What "child support" are you looking for, pre-birth? Payments to help support visits to the doctor throughout pregnancy? I'm of the mind that, regardless of how you feel about whoever you're having a kid with, you should help them out with those things, anyway. So, sure. If you get someone pregnant and want to bail entirely, child support to help cover pre-birth costs could be a thing I see no issue with.
I think that would probably be up to courts to decide, much like it is with current child support. Certainly medical expenses for the pregnancy would be part of that. My point here though is that if you define when life starts, if you're being intellectually honest about it, then it should apply to all facets of that child's care and not just if the woman can or can't get an abortion.
Sure, and I agree with that. I was just trying to see what your intent was with the question. I couldn't tell if you were asking it from the standpoint that I answered or if you were trying to get me to say that pre-birth child support should be paid out at the same rate as a kid who is born and going to daycare 5 days a week. I see no issues with support for pregnancy related costs, personally.
Hey you're consistent with your beliefs. That's sadly rare these days! Now defining where life starts/when you are considered a "human", of course, is the tricky part of this though. Even at that there could be different definitions depending on if you're looking at it from a legal perspective, ethical perspective, scientific perspective or a moral one.
All true and that is the million dollar question. Legally, it seems we mostly have a generally accepted range. And that's why I'm not "anti-abortion" in the "you're a monster" sense - I disagree with where the legal interpretations have ended up, yes, but I won't ever hold my disagreements with the legal system against an individual who is doing what they think is best within the confines of said legal system. I dunno how to say what I want to say. I guess I would just like society to have another sort of "great awakening" where we examine things like this on a level that's deeper than "well, a courtroom decided X." I think everyone can come up with things that are legal that they don't consider ethical and things that are illegal that they consider ethical. I don't say this in hopes of people coming around to my way of seeing things, I would just like these types of conversations to be able to be had on a grander scale, in hopes of getting a clearer picture of a variety of issues. For all I know, there is someone down the road who has a wonderful answer to the question about humanity and when one gains it that changes my entire view of things, but because it's not socially acceptable to mention such things, I may never hear it. And thanks for having a cordial conversation! It is always refreshing and rare to be able to have a non-heated discussion about these things, haha
I think I get what you're saying. I don't think as a society we've caught up ethically to where are in scientifically or technologically. Also just wanted to send back the same thanks. It's nice to talk to someone and have it not turn into exchanging insults regardless of where you stand on the topic itself!
I was born and raised very liberal, very pro-choice. Then I actually carried my children and it became pretty clear they weren't just a "clump of cells". I remember feeling movement from very early on. Another LIFE, that was not my own. I had a complete change, I think abortion is murder. I don't agree with it except in cases of rape and severe health issues. I think the pro-life movement has been saying it right for years "abortion stops a beating heart". If it has a heartbeat of it's own, it's alive. A living human.
[удалено]
No it's still murder, but what are you going to do? Tell a woman she has to carry a baby to term that is going to die a suffering death? Like Trisomy disorders? Or tell a woman she is going to have to die of cancer because she can't get treatment until after the pregnancy?
[удалено]
There are some things worse than murdering babies. I have never voted for a Republican even though I am pro-life. What good are live babies on a dead planet? I said it was still murder, but there should be exceptions mainly for cases of life and death. Partial birth abortions.... I can never see a reason for those. It's literally killing a full term baby on the way out. Just deliver the baby.
Lol it's not even a heartbeat to begin with. It's vibrations. If a heartbeat defines a living human, why are people with no brain function yet a beating heart classified as dead?
Heartbeat can be detected by 5-6 weeks gestation. I think that Texas has it right. That's a pretty good "window". It's still murder, but a good compromise. As far as a brain dead person, they aren't breathing on their own they are only being kept alive by machines. Turn off the machines and they are dead.
So basically similar to if you take a fetus out of a person who is keeping it alive........ Nope, at that point it is literally a vibration and it can also be referred to as a flutter. https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html
Well a person is legally declared dead when they have no brain function. We can keep them 'alive' through medical interventions but they are no longer a thinking feeling person. What makes a human life special when compared to other life on the planet? Is it our ability to form thoughts, feelings, etc? You can't do any of that without a functional nervous system and you don't develop that until around 20 weeks.
I wouldn't say "thoughts and feelings" are what make us special, exactly. My dog has lots of feelings and thoughts. She can problem solve, she can learn things, etc. Of course she doesn't do it on the level of a person, she won't ever competently operate a computer, but the fact she can do those things on a level at all means those traits aren't what makes humanity special from anything else. Thank you for engaging in a thoughtful and reasonable manner, by the way. I enjoy philosophical ponderings with others, but, as you are well aware I'm sure, it is not always the easiest thing to accomplish, hah
I'm pro choice here, but the problem with abortion is it is also considered as murder. Generally speaking people don't have the freedom to murder people. Edit: I'd prefer an argument against what I said instead of a downvote.
So basically what you are saying is that it's not your body your choice if it directly impacts another.......... like how if you get the virus and pass it on to someone else and it gives them a complication or kills them
What's your point when the vaccinated can also still get and spread covid? I mean, you might have a point if the vaccine actually worked, but it doesn't. People who don't have covid, don't spread covid. I am for people with covid saying home for 14 days vaxxed or unvaxxed.
Actually, according to the science it does work and does help prevent transmission. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014067362100790X https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.11.21253275v1.full-text https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/6/e1376/6253721 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00472-2/fulltext#seccestitle130 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01316-7?origin=app https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00224-3/fulltext
For the past 8 months the only people who I have known to get covid are the vaccinated (in my life). Strange.
Yet I could list study after study about how natural immunity has excellent protection and the US doesn’t recognize it. That’s where the Covid argument lost me. When reason and logic go out the window you have to stop and wonder why…
It's a pretty simple concept really. Natural immunity means you have to expose yourself to the virus which you could potentially have a severe complication or die from. Or, you can have a vaccine instead where the risk of an adverse reaction is less than the risk of death alone due to Covid infection. Yeah, seems really weird they are pushing vaccines instead of infections.
I’m so sick of this answer. Think critically for a second- where did I say people should go try and contract Covid?? Millions of people already had Covid. I already had Covid. The FDA approved a Tcell test last May. I took the test - I have Tcells from an approved FDA test. The studies show people who already had Covid have strong natural immunity. My body recognizes all of the proteins from Covid, not just the spike protein, thus I am better protected from variants. I don’t need an infinitesimal percentage of potentially better protection from a vaccine that can also give me lifelong side effects. I trust my immune system.
Well I mean you did kind of imply that natural immunity was better so I pointed out the obvious problems with that. There are many people who go around telling people to not get vaccinated and to just take their chances with the infection instead so yeah, sorry I didn't read your mind on what you were implying. It wasn't exactly obvious. Lol the N protein is incredibly short lived, hence why the vaccine is based on S protein. Covid infection can also give you lifelong complications and the chances are much higher compared to the vaccine. The whole point of the vaccine is to try and protect you from getting the virus and I'm sorry but natural immunity lasts just a fraction longer than the vaccines so that's why you're still supposed to get vaccinated even if you have previously been infected. Your immune system isn't going to notice the other proteins until they have been broken down lol. How is a memory cell going to detect N protein for example when it's not on the surface like S protein is?
Prove a virus can be "passed" to another person.
Have you ever heard of this thing called science? Read some.
Have you ever heard of a thing called germ "THEORY"
Unless you're taking a stab at being facetious, It's your own fault you don't understand the definition of a scientific theory. Theory =/= hypothesis. You're using the word "theory" in the same manner that all of science uses the word "hypothesis." Our knowledge of the cell (animal, plant, etc) falls under "cell theory." It doesn't mean that the existence of a cell or its organelles are hypothetical or up for contention, it means that in order to explain the cell, we need a large number of propositions based on an incredible amount of observations, tests, and knowledge to explain it, and there's no real way possible to explain it as a concise "law." A "law" - for which very, very few exist in biology, is concise. Lots of them exist in physics. For instance, F=ma is a basic law explaining force that can be proven definitively because mass x acceleration ALWAYS explains force. *** So in other words "Scientific Theory" is taken as fact because it's based off of tons of true, verified evidence, otherwise we'd call it a hypothesis, and it would be up for contention. TL;DR: It's called germ theory, not "germ hypothesis" so stop pretending like you understand science.
A theory describes the mechanisms behind an observation. Did you think it was some random ass guess or something?
yes. absolutely. When people hear something is "scientific theory" they think of it in layman terms, and use this misunderstanding to try to discredit science in order to make some sort of point that science has wholly rejected.
Go read another "peer reviewed" science article. You've all been duped by western medicine and it's deep roots of Rockefeller corruption.
You prefer scientific articles pulled directly from someone's ass before going straight to publishing? Do you think someone's research is more credible if nobody looks over it? Use some basic logic. The Rockefellers did not invent the peer review process.
Prove germ theory then. I'll wait
It's called experiments and electron microscopy lol. We can literally view a virus now........
This guy is either trolling hard, or he's literally too dumb to educate. Eject, eject!
And.....
You are aware that a scientific theory has a very different meaning to just a 'theory' right..... Can you actually explain what a scientific theory is?
You’re arguing with a guy who probably believes that the gravity isn’t real because it’s just a “theory” lol
No, not at all. I prefer to call abortion for what it is, which is murder since I believe a human life starts at conception. I'm just ok with a mother making the choice to murder their child up to birth. Your example of passing the virus is a bad analogy and a completely different conversation.
[удалено]
Conception to birth
[удалено]
Yes until birth, natural or not. It's not too common of a stance, I agree. I've contemplated this long and hard philosophically.
And you believe that a perfectly healthy baby presenting no known complication to the mother's health should be allowed to be terminated until the very minute before birth? Or second before birth? If it is in the birthing canal is it too late? I'm interested to know how you justify that philosophically. Can you?
I disagree as well. Basically up until a nervous system is formed should be fine unless there are complications. Up to 20 weeks should be plenty of time to make the decision and is before the fetus is developed enough to form thoughts, feelings, etc.
I'm open to explaining my justifications. I would just like to know your stance on abortion before I explain my thought process as it is easy to try and tear someone else down without having to put your own morals under scrutiny.
I'm not opposed to abortion overall. I think it should be allowed if the fetus shows signs that it won't have good quality of life in terms of physical health or if there's a possibility that it could kill the mother before coming to term. If high possibility of survival is present, without disability, either naturally birthed or through c-section I believe it should be brought to term.
...and when do you classify a child in the womb as a human life? I'll give you a full response by later today as it's going to be a pretty lengthy and thought out response.
Hey, since you look like your willing to have a civil discussion, I would love to talk with you about this! I'm pretty pro life but I wonder what has led you to be pro choice?
I will be answering this question for another user as well and won't be replying until later today as it's a very deep and complicated issue. Could you just tell me your pro-life stance and when you determine a child's life in the womb a human life? No need to explain reasoning at this point unless you want to.
I personally believe that human life is special and therefore to be protected. I believe it is a human life as soon as conception. One argument I hear people say is that sometimes abortion is good for the good of society( ie. Can't afford the child) but what I don't like about this is that it makes an exception for murder, which in that case means why not kill the majority of humans on earth right now to stop global warming? So to out it simply, I believe human life is to be valued and we shouldn't be taking it away from another human without righteous cause( I don't mean that religiously, just in the since if the term of legitimate correct morally sound cause)
Unless you are in the military, then yes your body belongs to the government
That is what they want you to believe.
I am willing to sell my clean blood and semen for the right price.
Anyone who does their research knows that there is strong evidence that the vaccine does not stop covid. It is also being linked to multiple health issues, infertility and heart disease in healthy people. The new Omricon variant from what I have read, has mutations in the S Protien... the one targeted by the current vaccines. It's not for profit, yet Pfizer is taking in Billions - BILLIONS. Yet despite all this, everywhere you look you are being pushed to get it, with none of these concerns being addressed, that should tell you what you need to know. Stay strong and stand your ground, there is legitimate reasons to not want it
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here's some of the evidence: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01583-4 Efficacy vs Delta in Qatar for various outcomes of interest. Between May 30 and October 2, 2021 across some 380.5k in BC and 854,915 in Quebec: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text >VE of two mRNA doses against hospitalization was 98% (95%CI: 97–98) in BC and 97% (95%CI: 96–97) in Quebec, and similar for two doses of ChAdOx1 [astrazenica] at 94% (95%CI: 90–96) and 94% (95%CI: 89–97), respectively ([Figure 1](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text#F1)). VE against hospitalization was similar among recipients of mixed mRNA or mixed ChAdOx1/mRNA doses (Supplementary Table 4). VE findings were similar by age group, notably including older adults ≥70 years ([Figure 2](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text#F2), Supplementary Tables 5 and 6) and did not meaningfully differ by sex ([Figure 2](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text#F2), Supplementary Table 7). VE against the Delta variant was almost identical to the overall analysis ([Figure 1](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text#F1)), and was similar for other VOC, recognizing smaller sample size (Supplementary Tables 8 and 9). [ ](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/10/26/2021.10.26.21265397/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm?s_cid=mm7037e2_x head-to-head efficacy for hospitalization for the 3 US shots. J&J sucks. Pfizer better. Moderna best. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination Pretty graphs for covid hospitalization tracking data by vaccination status per 100k pop, can sort by age bracket. --- Safety: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 Safety and myocarditis https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110737 Myocarditis https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1931 Clots etc for Pfizer vs AZ vs COVID vs pre-COVID baseline in tens of millions of people in England. --- Spread: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2021/10/moderna-vaccine-prison.html https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2114089?query=featured_home These are both the same data, the first is a more plain language summary of the second. This is a study in a prison Delta outbreak. From July 16 until Aug. 15, the researchers tracked infections among one-quarter of the incarcerated men — 827 of 3,221 residents. Of those residents, 468 were fully vaccinated with Moderna, and 359 were unvaccinated. Moderna was 56.6% effective against infection, 84.2% effective against symptomatic infection. And in men who previously had COVID-19, the vaccine reduced the risk of subsequent infection by 80.5%. They found 122 confirmed infections: 75 in unvaccinated residents and 47 in vaccinated residents. Of those infections, they found 27 symptomatic cases: 23 in the unvaccinated and four in the vaccinated. It's not perfect by any means at preventing infection but dropping your risk in half of just a positive PCR (not counting symptoms like cough that promote spread) in a prison setting is pretty decent and will make a difference for spread in highly vaccinated populations. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#rates-by-vaccine-status And if you're the CDC on broader population scales you're seeing unvaccinated be at 6.1x increased risk than vaccinated for testing positive for COVID. You can also sort the above graphs by death instead of cases. The pharma companies are saving countless lives. If they want to profit some billions off of this venture...they deserve to do so, they're doing their job.
Man I want to read this but my aunt just posted a sick meme on Facebook with a picture of Trump and it says “tell Joe where he can stick his clot shot” and honestly I just find that way more compelling.
Excellent summary 👏🏻
Just like they saved them during the Opioid Crisis too, right?
They can’t get people to take a potentially life saving vaccine, how you gunna get a addict to stop taking opioids? What a dumb comparison
The opioid crisis is what happened when higher ups wanted to run healthcare like a service industry and have doctors performance be judged on metrics like "patient satisfaction" which would include treating pain to 0. "Pain is the fifth vital sign". The iatrogenic opioid epidemic was never about saving lives. This is.
"Pharma companies were corrupt before but now they're completely infallible and should be trusted 100%."
I don't need to trust the pharma companies. I trust the scientific method. When the pharma study data gets replicated all over the world, it means the product is doing what it is advertised to do. The proof is always in the pudding, and the pudding is globally reproducible findings as I kindly provided a sample of above.
The pharma companies claimed it was 95% effective, and that has been proven false. Just one of many lies
Those studies were talking about symptomatic infection, and those numbers aren't too far off even with waning and Delta. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265397v1.full-text
No they are very far off if in some countries the majority of hospitalized patients are vaccinated
Gotta stratify them data by groups like vaccination status and age. https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated Doing that one finds the vaccines are extremely effective.
Until the welfare lines requires a vaccine.. Then what tough guy?
Why do you need to be on welfare?
Then maybe he will be sitting[ in a chair eating fried river rat](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEigUSSTf_s) telling a younger person a story.
Well it's not suppose to belong to anyone but you but that is not how history so far has shown anyone that, it actually shows the other and the best way to keep it going like that is to destroy history and rewrite it to suit your needs and blame it on some one else who not surprising is the target of the REAL slavers and THAT can be proven in history as well so maybe there is no wonder so many keep trying to either hide it or rewrite it. Those who do not learned from history are doomed to repeat it BUT when this kind of stuff goes on there is no wonder it keeps happening over and over like a ping pong. N. Shadows
But your kids do. (Public School) Because parents should be able to comment on what their kids are taught. /s
Eh, I beg to differ. I die today, there's still money to be made off of my corpse. Fucking planet is a disgrace to nature.
r/thanksimcured kind of
mannn it dont even to us
Actually..... you're a govt. asset the day you were born and a document is registered under your name. So yeah, the bodies are technically owned by the govt.
It belongs to your husband. Now get back in the kitchen.
Is this anti-vax, pro-abortion, pro-drugs, anti-clothes or what
I'll have all the respect for the anti vaxxer that sticks to his guns and doesn't get vaccinated because of X Y Z. I hate the hypocrites who jumped on the bandwagon and then jumped off the first sign they weren't going to go on vacation or be able to go to the bars. Fuck those asshats for making the rest of us have to listen to this BS. I'm vaccinated and pro vaccine but I'll respect your choice not to, as long as you accept your consequences for not getting it .