It’s Not the Jab – It’s the Precedent
Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
Excerpt:
"There are many good – sound – reasons for objecting to forcing anyone to get “vaccinated” that have nothing to do with sickness, as such, but rather with this business of forcing people to take medicine or submit to medical treatment of any kind whatsoever. It sets a precedent by affirming the principle that it is ok to force people to take medicine and submit to medical treatment. Once that is established, for any medicine or treatment it will naturally become the basis for requiring that people submit to other medical treatments; they will be required to take other medicines – as decreed by the government and enforced by corporations, through “policies” that render it impossible to work or even to socialize without proof you’ve submitted to these decrees.
There are some, perhaps, who wish to live in such a world but most probably do not. Yet they cannot see that they are helping to build such a world by supporting this push to make everyone roll up their sleeves.
Just this once? If you think so, think again. Please.
As always, there are people who cannot see the inevitability. The same people who could not see that mass acceptance of the “masks” – as these psychological training devices are styled – would lead to mass “vaccinations” – as these unsafe and ineffective temporary symptom suppressors are styled. The same people, in mentality, who could not see that giving the federal government the legal power to seize – that is, to “tax” – a portion of the incomes of the very wealthy would inevitably lead to the government seizing a portion of the incomes of everyone.
The proportion ever increasing.
If the government can erect checkpoints on the public right-of-way, at which people who’ve given no reason to suspect them of having committed any crime can be stopped at gunpoint and required to produce “papers” – and also demonstrate to the satisfaction of an armed government worker that they are not “drunk” – then the government already has the power – in principle, established in law by precedent – to erect checkpoints at which people can be required to prove they are “vaccinated” and present “papers” so affirming.
This is why many thoughtful people object in principle to forcing anyone to be injected with anything. The shot itself is an incidental affront. It is what the affront allows – and enables – that matters.
Try to envision what such a world will be like.
Imagine being required to go to the doctor’s office, like a pet taken to the vet."
"There are many good – sound – reasons for objecting to forcing anyone to get “vaccinated” that have nothing to do with sickness, as such, but rather with this business of forcing people to take medicine or submit to medical treatment of any kind whatsoever. It sets a precedent by affirming the principle that it is ok to force people to take medicine and submit to medical treatment. Once that is established, for any medicine or treatment it will naturally become the basis for requiring that people submit to other medical treatments; they will be required to take other medicines – as decreed by the government and enforced by corporations, through “policies” that render it impossible to work or even to socialize without proof you’ve submitted to these decrees.
There are some, perhaps, who wish to live in such a world but most probably do not. Yet they cannot see that they are helping to build such a world by supporting this push to make everyone roll up their sleeves.
Just this once? If you think so, think again. Please.
As always, there are people who cannot see the inevitability. The same people who could not see that mass acceptance of the “masks” – as these psychological training devices are styled – would lead to mass “vaccinations” – as these unsafe and ineffective temporary symptom suppressors are styled. The same people, in mentality, who could not see that giving the federal government the legal power to seize – that is, to “tax” – a portion of the incomes of the very wealthy would inevitably lead to the government seizing a portion of the incomes of everyone.
The proportion ever increasing.
If the government can erect checkpoints on the public right-of-way, at which people who’ve given no reason to suspect them of having committed any crime can be stopped at gunpoint and required to produce “papers” – and also demonstrate to the satisfaction of an armed government worker that they are not “drunk” – then the government already has the power – in principle, established in law by precedent – to erect checkpoints at which people can be required to prove they are “vaccinated” and present “papers” so affirming.
This is why many thoughtful people object in principle to forcing anyone to be injected with anything. The shot itself is an incidental affront. It is what the affront allows – and enables – that matters.
Try to envision what such a world will be like.
Imagine being required to go to the doctor’s office, like a pet taken to the vet."
Respect for autonomy:
Allowing individuals to pursue their wellbeing as they perceive it. “Every person has a high value … and cannot merely be treated as a means to the end of others’ good,” writes Peter Schröder-Bäck and colleagues in the journal BMC Medical Ethics.
The Nuremberg Code.
Informing of the risks and the benefits of the intervention and getting voluntary consent without “any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion”
It is unethical for a person to incur any vaccine risk or lose personal freedoms for the sake of somebody else.
The Siracusa Principles:
“No state party shall, even in time of emergency threatening the life of the nation, derogate from the Covenant’s guarantees of the right to life; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and from medical or scientific experimentation without free consent; … and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. These rights are not derogable under any conditions even for the asserted
Galt's Oath:
Readers of this site should have it to memory.
Even for anyone who may not accept the Oath entirely, note no conflict with the principles above.
"for the common good"
Statements which may sound reasonable and helpful to those who do not think, but are in fact highly dangerous.
Once the concept is allowed there is no limit as to how far it can be taken.