6 ms·
Your rights end when exercising them endangers my life and the lives of my family. That’s also a basic tenet of civil society (see traffic laws for example).
by mthoms 5y ago
Your rights end when exercising them endangers my life and the lives of my family. That’s also a basic tenet of civil society (see traffic laws for example).
- bsagdiyev 5y agoBut if you’re vaccinated then you’re not at risk? I say as a vaccinated person.
- bart_spoon 5y agoWhat about the immunocompromised? Those who can’t have the vaccine. To say nothing of breakthrough infections and the fact that the mutation rate is tied to the number of infections, and therefore a vaccinated person’s immunity could indeed be impacted by large contingents of unvaccinated persons being infected. And how about the financial cost of COVID? Perhaps we should make it so that if one gets severe COVID and has no proof of vaccination, all coverage of medical costs by insurance are voided. You can’t make a reasonable argument that society should be on the hook for paying for your life saving medical treatment when you intentionally deny free, effective preventative measures.
- jdhn 5y agoThis focus on the immunocompromised is so strange to me. Bad flu season? Nobody really cared about them. Bad cold season? Again, nobody really cared about them. Yet covid comes around, the vaccines are produced, and suddenly everyone keeps talking about the immunocompromised. At some point, we have to just tell those who are immunocompromised that we're going to reopen society, and they have to be responsible for managing their own risk.
- swader999 5y agoThere simply isn't enough of them to justify the counter-measures.
- mthoms 5y agoIf you're vaccinated you're at less risk, not zero risk.
- corey_moncure 5y agoMy body, my choice only applies when we're talking about terminating the lives of unborn children, right?
- Daishiman 5y agoAs far as many of us are concerned, fetuses do not have human status, so the argument is absolutely irrelevant for most as a comparison.
- _-david-_ 5y agoA fetus is by definition a human. In fact it is the third stage of human development. This is why people argue against personhood. The claim is you can be a human fetus but not have personhood yet.
- dont__panic 5y agoDo unborn children occasionally pop out of women's bodies, enter other people's bodies, and reproduce uncontrollably to a point where they stop those other people from breathing? If so, we can apply the same logic to coronavirus and pregnancy. If not, you're just drawing a false parallel.
- corey_moncure 5y ago"The needs of society can override the individual's right to bodily self-determination". This is the thesis you need to tear down. Whence goes the vaccine, so goes abortion.
- krapp 5y ago>Whence goes the vaccine, so goes abortion. We've had mandatory vaccinations for over a century, certainly since Roe V. Wade, and yet abortion is still legal. Half the US believes abortion is murder and a sin against God and yet as far as I know, never has anyone tried to use the existence of vaccination laws as a pretext for making abortion illegal. That wouldn't even make sense.
- eschulz 5y agoTraffic permit and licensing laws meet a high standard for which there is significant legal precedent. Your statement does not have a legal basis in the US or under Common Law. While we have had health tests to ender the country, we have not had them to go to a public place. We have never required the flu shot to got to a bar or nightclub. I too am not antivax, but I don't think you have the right to require those around you in public places to take a new vaccine that has not even undergone the normal rigors of FDA approval.
- nobody9999 5y ago>but I don't think you have the right to require those around you in public places to take a new vaccine that has not even undergone the normal rigors of FDA approval. Under the NYC "mandate", No one is required to be vaccinated. I'll say that again: no one is being required to be vaccinated. While I disagree with the DeBlasio administration's new policy (WRT bars, gyms, etc.), both because it will be almost impossible to enforce and because the benefits (via increased vaccinations) will likely be marginal at best, no one is forcing anyone to do anything. I'd much prefer (as an increasing number of restaurants, theaters and other venues and businesses are doing) that requiring patrons and staff to be vaccinated be a decision taken by the specific business involved. Those businesses that only allow vaccinated people in their establishments will gain some folks and lose others -- and vice versa. Regardless, and I'll say it one more time: the "mandate" from the NYC government doesn't force anyone to get vaccinated, nor does it restrict anyone from public spaces. NYers aren't stupid (or at least not in any greater amount than anywhere else) and most will (and have) take appropriate precautions. That said, the new requirements won't be all that effective because they're essentially unenforceable unless the business' owners are fully on board -- if they are, then they'll (as many have already done) require their staff and patrons to be vaccinated. If a business' owners aren't on board with this, they won't require it, whether it's mandated or not.
- reducesuffering 5y agoSo you don't have the right to drive a car, right?
- mthoms 5y agoI'm not sure what point you're making.
- reducesuffering 5y agoExercising your right to drive a car endangers my life and the lives of my family. Just as you said. Should you not be allowed to do not?