Are you pro-choice or pro-life...on vaccines?
Oct 1, 2021 16:08:04 GMT -5
Post by leilani on Oct 1, 2021 16:08:04 GMT -5
October 1, 2021
Are you pro-choice or pro-life...on vaccines?
By Jack Gleason
The two terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" have been used in the abortion debate for many years. But when the two terms are applied to the vaccine controversy gripping the entire world, they come down on the same side — vaccine mandates are anti-choice and anti-life.
If women expect the right to control their own bodies and make their own medical choices in consultation with their families, religious leaders, and doctors, why would a decision whether or not to take a vaccine be at all different? Do we really think it is acceptable to force someone to take an injection against his will? Will teams of "vaccine police" be dispatched to neighborhoods to hold people to the ground and give them shots?
That would be horrific, but the pressure for non-vaxxed people to get the shot has reached an insane level. Isn't firing someone who won't take the shot almost identical to dispatching vaccine police? Relegating the unvaxxed to second-class or "untouchable" status — no air travel, no train travel, where they can't attend football games or go to local restaurants — is just as bad.
Pro-choice in the case of the vaccines means you get to make your own medical decisions, regardless of government or social pressure.
"Pro-life" can also be a consideration in the vaccine mandate debate. We all want to live happy, healthy lives. We should be choosing what course actually is best for our personal health. After 18 months of experience with COVID, and now the new delta variant, we have learned a lot...
Most people don't die from COVID, and the ones who do are often seniors in their last months of life with multiple "comorbidities."
Others with serious pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and obesity are also at much greater risk.
For many groups of people — especially the young and healthy — the risk from the disease is significantly less than the risk of harmful side effects.
But the way people are treated when they first experience symptoms is an even greater factor than their medical condition. Until now, the mainstream medical advice has been to stay home and "self-quarantine" until the patient is in severe distress, and then seek treatment at a hospital. In many cases, it's too late, and hundreds of thousands may have died needlessly.
Continued at the link
Are you pro-choice or pro-life...on vaccines?
By Jack Gleason
The two terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" have been used in the abortion debate for many years. But when the two terms are applied to the vaccine controversy gripping the entire world, they come down on the same side — vaccine mandates are anti-choice and anti-life.
If women expect the right to control their own bodies and make their own medical choices in consultation with their families, religious leaders, and doctors, why would a decision whether or not to take a vaccine be at all different? Do we really think it is acceptable to force someone to take an injection against his will? Will teams of "vaccine police" be dispatched to neighborhoods to hold people to the ground and give them shots?
That would be horrific, but the pressure for non-vaxxed people to get the shot has reached an insane level. Isn't firing someone who won't take the shot almost identical to dispatching vaccine police? Relegating the unvaxxed to second-class or "untouchable" status — no air travel, no train travel, where they can't attend football games or go to local restaurants — is just as bad.
Pro-choice in the case of the vaccines means you get to make your own medical decisions, regardless of government or social pressure.
"Pro-life" can also be a consideration in the vaccine mandate debate. We all want to live happy, healthy lives. We should be choosing what course actually is best for our personal health. After 18 months of experience with COVID, and now the new delta variant, we have learned a lot...
Most people don't die from COVID, and the ones who do are often seniors in their last months of life with multiple "comorbidities."
Others with serious pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and obesity are also at much greater risk.
For many groups of people — especially the young and healthy — the risk from the disease is significantly less than the risk of harmful side effects.
But the way people are treated when they first experience symptoms is an even greater factor than their medical condition. Until now, the mainstream medical advice has been to stay home and "self-quarantine" until the patient is in severe distress, and then seek treatment at a hospital. In many cases, it's too late, and hundreds of thousands may have died needlessly.
Continued at the link