4 ms·

> Peevish attitude -- as if getting a vaccine is a deep personal choice. Bodily integrity is a deep personal thing. “My body, my choice” isn’t it?

tshaddox 5y ago
No more so than driving drunk.
- d1a2n 5y ago
  You'll make this analogy, but if I remind you that banning driving would save lives, you'll tell me "car accidents aren't contagious!" Your mind has been destroyed, and unfortunately there is no vaccine (remember, the definition can change).
  - revax 5y ago
    >I remind you that banning driving would save lives This is not remotely comparable, banning driving would (for most people) require changing entirely your lifestyle. Getting a shot require a couple hours.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      Banning driving would almost certainly cause more people to die for other reasons than those who currently die in automobile accidents.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    What are you on about? Cars are actually a pretty good analogy. Banning cars is equivalent to a full lockdown - useful temporarily if the issue is getting out of control, but despite working well, takes so much away from us that it's definitely not worth it long-term. Banning drunk, unlicensed, etc. people from driving treats the issue more immediately without taking away ver much at all. Yes, drunkards won't get to drive, even if they're willing to risk it, so that's a negative effect for them, but society as a whole will gladly sacrifice that to protect everyone else (including them, even if they don't want it).
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    I am certainly confused. Do you think drunk driving on shared roads should be allowed or prohibited? I'm also not interesting in discussing whether anyone's "mind has been destroyed," but I am interesting in discussing whether specific ideas are good ideas or bad ideas.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  Driving drunk doesn’t imply violating driver’s own bodily integrity against their choice. A drunk driver risks other people’s lives and it’s a punishable crime.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    An unvaccinated person attending a public gathering risks other people's lives as well.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      For some few exceptions. I am vaccinated and don't feel threatened by unvaccinated people at all. Yes, there are people with compromised immune systems, but I think it is on them to reduce the risk of exposure without having a mandate on vaccination.
      - franga2000 5y ago
        It's not just about immunocompromised people. The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. If don't do it quickly, we're slowly "marinading" the virus in the vaccine, increasing chances for a vaccine-resistant mutation. It's kind of like why you're not allowed to stop a course of antibiotics half-way through.
        ghostwriter 5y ago
        > The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. There is no evidence that the virus can be get ridden of.
        franga2000 5y ago
        Well, we have gotten rid of other viruses in the past and it also makes sense in theory given what we know about viruses, so the burden of proof is on those claiming we can't.
    - 5y ago
franga2000 5y ago
Can people please stop using that chant? It's not relevant. It was never used for what you're using it for. It was an overly general chant used to push a very specific policy goal. Bodily integrity isn't a blanket rule. You have it only insofar as it doesn't harm others. Abortion, HRT, plastic surgery... fall into that category. Willingly spreading a deadly disease despite an easy and safe-ish preventative option does not.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  I think all your examples are wrong. I am for abortion, but the bodily integrity argument is just plainly bad because it relies on axioms that the child isn't a fully developed human. I support abortion rights but hate this argument in particular, because bodily integrity of the child would be of interest as well. HRT and plastic surgery are irrelevant here since they are voluntary choices.
  - franga2000 5y ago
    The post I was replying to was using the "my body my choice" chant which as far as I know is almost exclusively used by the abortion right movement. They were trying to apply it to vaccination, which isn't comparable to abortion for reasons I explained and therefore the chant had no place there. I do agree that the framing of abortion as a bodily integrity issue is missing a lot of other aspects, which is why we got dumb things like the heartbeat laws. But it is the argument I hear most activists make. HRT and plastic surgery are relevant because they're choices you should be allowed to make about your body because they don't harm others. Not getting vaxxed doesn't satify that criterion. It's not a perfect comparison since one is an action and the other is the lack of action, but it's still an issue of the government controlling what you do with your body, which I argue is acceptable if and only if it's something that harms others.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  > Bodily integrity isn't a blanket rule. You have it only insofar as it doesn't harm others. To move forward, you have to prove that one particular unvaccinated person harmed another particular person in the case of covid. Good luck with establishing this causation!

tshaddox 5y ago

No more so than driving drunk.

d1a2n 5y ago
You'll make this analogy, but if I remind you that banning driving would save lives, you'll tell me "car accidents aren't contagious!" Your mind has been destroyed, and unfortunately there is no vaccine (remember, the definition can change).
- revax 5y ago
  >I remind you that banning driving would save lives This is not remotely comparable, banning driving would (for most people) require changing entirely your lifestyle. Getting a shot require a couple hours.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Banning driving would almost certainly cause more people to die for other reasons than those who currently die in automobile accidents.
- franga2000 5y ago
  What are you on about? Cars are actually a pretty good analogy. Banning cars is equivalent to a full lockdown - useful temporarily if the issue is getting out of control, but despite working well, takes so much away from us that it's definitely not worth it long-term. Banning drunk, unlicensed, etc. people from driving treats the issue more immediately without taking away ver much at all. Yes, drunkards won't get to drive, even if they're willing to risk it, so that's a negative effect for them, but society as a whole will gladly sacrifice that to protect everyone else (including them, even if they don't want it).
- tshaddox 5y ago
  I am certainly confused. Do you think drunk driving on shared roads should be allowed or prohibited? I'm also not interesting in discussing whether anyone's "mind has been destroyed," but I am interesting in discussing whether specific ideas are good ideas or bad ideas.
ghostwriter 5y ago
Driving drunk doesn’t imply violating driver’s own bodily integrity against their choice. A drunk driver risks other people’s lives and it’s a punishable crime.
- franga2000 5y ago
  An unvaccinated person attending a public gathering risks other people's lives as well.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    For some few exceptions. I am vaccinated and don't feel threatened by unvaccinated people at all. Yes, there are people with compromised immune systems, but I think it is on them to reduce the risk of exposure without having a mandate on vaccination.
    - franga2000 5y ago
      It's not just about immunocompromised people. The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. If don't do it quickly, we're slowly "marinading" the virus in the vaccine, increasing chances for a vaccine-resistant mutation. It's kind of like why you're not allowed to stop a course of antibiotics half-way through.
      - ghostwriter 5y ago
        > The fewer people are vaccinated the quicker we get rid of the virus. There is no evidence that the virus can be get ridden of.
        franga2000 5y ago
        Well, we have gotten rid of other viruses in the past and it also makes sense in theory given what we know about viruses, so the burden of proof is on those claiming we can't.
  - 5y ago

franga2000 5y ago

Can people please stop using that chant? It's not relevant. It was never used for what you're using it for. It was an overly general chant used to push a very specific policy goal. Bodily integrity isn't a blanket rule. You have it only insofar as it doesn't harm others. Abortion, HRT, plastic surgery... fall into that category. Willingly spreading a deadly disease despite an easy and safe-ish preventative option does not.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raxxorrax 5y ago
I think all your examples are wrong. I am for abortion, but the bodily integrity argument is just plainly bad because it relies on axioms that the child isn't a fully developed human. I support abortion rights but hate this argument in particular, because bodily integrity of the child would be of interest as well. HRT and plastic surgery are irrelevant here since they are voluntary choices.
- franga2000 5y ago
  The post I was replying to was using the "my body my choice" chant which as far as I know is almost exclusively used by the abortion right movement. They were trying to apply it to vaccination, which isn't comparable to abortion for reasons I explained and therefore the chant had no place there. I do agree that the framing of abortion as a bodily integrity issue is missing a lot of other aspects, which is why we got dumb things like the heartbeat laws. But it is the argument I hear most activists make. HRT and plastic surgery are relevant because they're choices you should be allowed to make about your body because they don't harm others. Not getting vaxxed doesn't satify that criterion. It's not a perfect comparison since one is an action and the other is the lack of action, but it's still an issue of the government controlling what you do with your body, which I argue is acceptable if and only if it's something that harms others.
ghostwriter 5y ago
> Bodily integrity isn't a blanket rule. You have it only insofar as it doesn't harm others. To move forward, you have to prove that one particular unvaccinated person harmed another particular person in the case of covid. Good luck with establishing this causation!