3 ms·
It’s very simple: your freedom to choice does not apply to choices that harm others in society. Frankly nobody cares about your body when you’re putting their l
by dcow 5y ago
It’s very simple: your freedom to choice does not apply to choices that harm others in society. Frankly nobody cares about your body when you’re putting their lives at risk by continuing to remain uneducated on the topic and stalwart. Now that we have FDA approval, there is no more guinea pig argument. I don't know if I support a mandate yet, but wouldn't oppose one on principle because this is a matter of public health. I absolutely support discrimination based on vaccine status and government and private sector mandates (like there always have been for other vaccines), for schools, hospitals, companies, etc. If you don’t want to participate in society and put everyone at risk because of some misguided principle of absolute power over your body, GTFO.
- at_a_remove 5y agoAs my original quote shows, it is not that simple. "Harm" is a very nebulous term. The sterilization I mentioned above was harm to the body politic, namely the drain on the economy and society by the support of people who would never be productive. That was the reasoning. You have to be more specific than mere "harm," which is the point of why I posted that. You need boundaries, clear ones, pre-defined and inviolable, else you are setting yourself up for the scenario which has already happened once in history.