🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@zpartacoos Certainly sounds like you are in the right place.. Discussion and debates is the cornerstone of what QOTO is all about. As scientists many of us have strong feelings on what the right answer is one on subject or another, but in the end the debate is always welcomed and the most important part of that science.

@icedquinn

First off, the AstraZeneca vaccine is not currently approved or being administered, on pfizer and moderna vaccines are, so that is not the vaccine we are discussing.

Snopes is not a scholarly source so we can just ignore that entirely and skip right to a scholarly source on the issue.

Here is a quote from an actual **medical** source:

>Do the COVID-19 vaccines contain aborted fetal cells?

>Answer from infectious diseases expert James Lawler, MD

>No, the COVID-19 vaccines do not contain any aborted fetal cells. However, Pfizer and Moderna did perform confirmation tests (to ensure the vaccines work) using fetal cell lines.

> When it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines currently approved for emergency use, neither the Pfizer nor Moderna vaccines used fetal cell lines during the development or production phases. (So, no fetal cell lines were used to manufacture the vaccine, and they are not inside the injection you receive from your doctor.) However, both companies used the fetal cell line HEK 293 in the confirmation phase to ensure the vaccines work. All HEK 293 cells are descended from tissue taken from a 1973 elective abortion that took place in the Netherlands.

https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-the-covid-19-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-cells

@angelobottone

@icedquinn

Absolutely false, it is not.

@angelobottone

@zpartacoos Hey, welcome, great to have you here. Hit me up anytime if you want to chat.

@angelobottone By the way the vaccine was **not** derived from a cell line using abortions. So your discussion there is moot.

@angelobottone better you than me taking that risk :)

@stux

That doesnt make it the "default" that makes it the current state... the default is the state we start in with no external factors.. a single human in isolation..

@hamjb@mstdn.social

@stux

You probably would when you realized it didnt make things anymore dangerous, wehn you realize it was never licenses or insurances keeping things in check but rather peoples desire not to kill a little kid and go to jail for 10 years

@hamjb@mstdn.social

@hamjb@mstdn.social

Except you cant start from all, many, or infinity.. we started from one, not from many. The first human (wherever we wish to draw that line genetically) had the right to do anything they wanted, over time as there were more humans and governments those rights were taken away.

@stux

@stux

I would never argue that we shouldnt take away or restrict some rights, we should within reason. and yea religion can often serve a similar purpose.

though to go back to the original statement, I would say that driving a car isnt one of those things a government should really have the right to regulate.. it seems almost absurd to me personally. If im being reckless then yes, arrest me, but as long as I'm driving safely I shouldnt need to seek anyones permission to do so.

@hamjb@mstdn.social

@stux

Well no not exactly.. I would word it differently "everyone has the right not to be killed, if you permit people to murder then you take away that right"

The default is a single human being in an infinitely empty universe.. you have all ther ights to do anything, stab what you likely, shoot what you like, the right to everything.. then you introduce other human being to the thought experiment, now you have rights which can no longer co-exist and be exercised, thats where governments come in. Their entire purpose is to resolve contradictory rights that arise when humans exist as groups.

@hamjb@mstdn.social

@stux

Everything is a right, by default.. some you just cant exercise. All your really saying is people should not be allowed to exercise their right to drive a car without approval.. thats fine, nothing wrong with that stance. The important part here is recognizing that rights are **never** granted, by default everything is a right, governments just choose which of them to take away. Good governments take away the right ones, bad governments take away the wrong ones.

@hamjb@mstdn.social

@hamjb@mstdn.social

Those arent mutually exclusive terms nor even related. If someone punched you in the face when you said it there would have been a lack of tolerance, but the fact that you were still able to say it despite the lack of tolerance shows you had the intrinsic right to do so, lack of tolerance doesnt take away your right, it just adds consequences to utilizing it.

@stux

@hamjb@mstdn.social

I never said you had a right or authority, but here you are making claims freely without anything stopping you, so clearly you have the right despite no one in authority granting it to you.

@stux

@hamjb@mstdn.social

Who gave you the authority to decide that then? No one, your right to declare that was intrinsic

@stux

@hamjb@mstdn.social

No, rights, rights are never granted, only taken away.

@stux

@Moon Yes, in fact isnt it obvious why?

@ldvd you're welcome, looking forward to getting to know you.