Vaccine and other products - abortion connection

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Have you been living under a rock the past couple of months?! These “vaccines” are being mandated to the point of get the shot or lose your job and livelihood.  That’s not a choice, that’s coercion.  You call my argument one of semantics, um, duh since we’re talking about DEFINITIONS!

Lowering the standards of “vaccines” to being anything that provides protection is like calling condoms a vaccine for STDS and then mandating people wear them in order to prevent the spread of HIV. 

Well yes in fact I have been living under a rock. Peter.

I call this a matter of semantics because the change in definition in this case does not appear to have any substantive impact on the ultimate outcome. For example, if we change the definition of "homicide" from "the intentional killing of a human being" to "crossing the street when the light is red," without changing the penalty, I and many other people are going to jail. The change in the definition matters.

I fail to see how it matters in the case of the vaccine, but perhaps you can explain that to me.

For one, making vaccination a requirement for a particular job is not what we typically think of as "coercion". If I hold a gun to your head and say "take the vaccine or I will blow your brains out" that is what we typically think of as coercion, because you have a natural right to life. But there is no natural right to any particular job, and employers have always been free to mandate particular requirements for a job. For example,  one of my previous employers required me to take drug tests, and to be working at my desk at 9AM every morning. Now, I would much rather smoke a joint for breakfast and start working at 1 in the afternoon, but I took the drug tests and got to my desk at 9AM because I wanted to keep the job. I suppose you also think that is also "coercion"?

Secondly, and more importantly I think, is that there is no direct correlation between the labeling of any particular substance as a "vaccine" and a mandate to take it (as a condition for employment, for example). There are all types of things that are labeled vaccines that are not mandated (the Flu shot, the hepatitis vaccines, the malaria vaccine, etc.) And there are all types of things that are not labeled vaccines (my drug test, for example) that are mandated. In this particular case the COVID vaccine has been mandated in some places, but not simply because it met some particular definition of "vaccine". If you called it a “smidgen of protection shot” the same employers who are mandating the shot now, could continue mandating the shot in the future. So in this case the definition does not appear to have any substantive effect on ultimate outcomes, hence I call all of this a matter of "semantics".

Have a nice day.

[hakutaku]

18 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

Ah, yes, how dumb of me.  They changed the definitions to protect US from ourselves; it just so happens to be coincidentally during a time when their “vaccines” were taking a nose dive in “rare” breakthrough cases. 

Correct.  The covid vaccine isn't uniquely bad, it has higher efficacy than the flu vaccine, the Moderna numbers are comparable to the whooping cough vaccine.

People who prioritized politics over public health were popularizing the proposition that breakthroughs proved the vaccinated was pointless.  The language change was to defuse that false charge.

[fides' Jack]

On 11/9/2021 at 3:24 PM, hakutaku said:

The covid vaccine isn't uniquely bad, it has higher efficacy than the flu vaccine

This has been proven false.  And now we know Pfizer fudged their numbers from the beginning.