The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Vaccination: objections to your conscientious objection > Comments

Vaccination: objections to your conscientious objection : Comments

By Martin Bouckaert, published 9/5/2012

What happens when the doctor refuses to sign the conscientious objector’s form?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All
Yuyutsu,

I find your response pathetic.

Our current law acknowledges no greater consideration than life and it's convenient continuation. Vaccination is a clear method of doing so. Those individuals with medical reasons to decline can document the fact.

Please specify the "Higher considerations" you hypothesise and the manner in which they are enhanced by reduced probability of survival, especially in childhood.

In the meantime, by all means, please reduce your probability of survival in favour of such considerations. I suspect our culture will benefit.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 12:22:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rusty,

I find your response violent.

<<Our current law acknowledges no greater consideration than life and it's convenient continuation.>>

Convenient... to whom?

Understandably you wish everything was according to your convenience, but occasionally things that are convenient to you can be very inconvenient to others. Enforcing your conveniences on others anyway, is nothing but violence.

Fortunately, so I learnt from this thread, even the current Australian law does not allow you to vaccinate people against their will. I fight here that it will stay this way.

<<Please specify the "Higher considerations" you hypothesise and the manner in which they are enhanced by reduced probability of survival, especially in childhood.>>

I already wrote (Wednesday, 9 May 2012 10:58:26 PM) that "It would be futile to list here all the possible different values that people may have" (as their number could be as high as the number of individuals in question), yet I provided one example there anyway.

The point is that nobody is REDUCING your survival probability, all that those people who refuse to get vaccinated do is to refuse to INCREASE that probability for you. Suppose for example that you approach a beautiful lady and ask her to help you increase your probability of progeny (which must be highly advantageous to your convenient continuation): if she says 'No', then it's a NO and she is not required to give you her 'higher considerations' for doing so. Fortunately, according to current Australian law (and so it should stay!), if you proceed on the grounds that her considerations were not justified enough, then you will end up in court for rape.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 1:05:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Yuyutsu*

" ... even the current Australian law does not allow you to vaccinate people against their will. I fight here that it will stay this way. ... "

I wouldn't be so quick to believe that in its entirety *YuYutsu* Whilst I concede that it may be correct, it wasn't substantiated, thus for me at least, it remains unknown until I cannot witness the evidence.

The reason I say that is that whilst you may be opposed to be being compelled visa vi vaccinations, I would suggest that you be at peace about that, as there are a host of areas in the Australian law which can compel you.

I have already cited one example for you, but the core of what underpins that is when an individual is considered to be a danger to themselves or others.

Thus, when it comes to vaccinations, and especially when considering say some the nastier air born varieties, I would not be surprised to know that there are certain exceptions to the rule of being able to voluntarily opt out of any vaccination program.

Another example is court room rules, where if you do not stand up before the wig parasite, you may be found in contempt and receive a monkey house penalty regardless of whether you have done anything wrong visa vi the charges or not.

And of course, it is compulsory for kids to go to school, but if you refuse vaccinations the school can refuse to admit your kids resulting in a situation where you end up with child protection on your doorstep.

Ever read abut our so called Australian "Death Islands" where the Original Australians post rape (in some instances no doubt) and being infected with S.T.D.'s were rounded up against their will and left to die agonising deaths?

I could go on.

As to whether this has the potential to induce psychic shock in you is a matter for you only as long as you are judged to retain "legal capacity."
Posted by DreamOn, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 4:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear DreamOn,

I am glad you care!

I didn't know myself that compulsory vaccination was illegal in Australia - but I learnt about it from various kind souls in this thread.

Yes, compulsory schooling is wrong, but fortunately in Australia it is mitigated by the fact that you can elect for home-schooling, or private schools, or even open your own little school by the joint effort of a few parents with of a similar belief-system.

Yes, there are a host of areas in the Australian law which can compel you - so I am doing what I can to fight that.

I see no problem with laws that compel people to not harm or endanger others (without their consent), but I reject the notion that the state has any right to compel people to not harm or endanger themselves (and others who consent to being harmed or endangered by them).

As for nasty germs, it should in principle be acceptable for the state to deny potential carriers (eg. non-vaccinated people) access to public spaces, so they must in that case remain on their property (or on the property of others who do not mind). Unlike forced vaccination, this is a measured response which solves the problem without violence. Nevertheless, I think that the state should only exercise this right in extreme cases such as serious epidemics.

All states/countries make such evil laws to one extent or another, without any moral authority. There is so much to improve and the road ahead is long, but looking at the half-full glass, Australia is probably at the better half, not as bad as most - at least Australia is free of the very-worst state-abuse of all - conscription. I wouldn't have come to live here and wouldn't stay here for one day otherwise.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 16 May 2012 11:56:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy