5 ms·

So, the government never forced you to take a vaccine. You were only mandated to do so for employment purposes and public health. Persons are/were at risk of sp

So, the government never forced you to take a vaccine. You were only mandated to do so for employment purposes and public health. Persons are/were at risk of spreading disease to unwilling participants. Your freedom ends at my nose. Now, that being said, I agree, it was pretty heavy handed. Constitutionally breaking? Probably not. This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years. Your right to alcohol and other risky behaviors is also revoked as that is child endangerment. Now what about the child for the next 18 years? That is truly constitutionally problematic.

xienze 4y ago
> This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years. Those women can simply get their abortion done in another state, they're not "forced" to give birth to a child in much the same way a person threatened with losing their job wasn't "forced" to get a vaccine. Hey, you said it.
- light_hue_1 4y ago
  You, with a straight face, are trying to say that a government restricting your rights is totally the same as the policy of an employer? And you're telling me that a vaccine which is obscenely safe, you are more likely to die from tripping down the stairs in your own home than you are to die from the vaccine, is totally the same as childbirth? Where nearly 1000 women die every year, many are left with serious conditions, where women are left in poverty where they can't care for those children. Come on. Your position is beyond absurd.
  - xienze 4y ago
    My position is that you cannot claim women are “forced” to give birth (they have options) if, like the parent, you claim that no one was “forced” to take a vaccine they didn’t want (they have the option of losing their job). It’s a matter of double standards here. People get all up in arms when you point out that you can still get an abortion if you just travel out of state. But if you point out that your only way to avoid taking a vaccine you don’t want is to lose your job, well no one is “forcing” you to take it! Likewise, I say it’s disingenuous to claim you’re forced to have an unwanted child. You just have to travel to another state. That’s a helluva lot easier to swallow than losing your job. Just drop the phrase “forced to” around abortion is all I’m saying.
    - eropple 4y ago
      Texas has specifically enabled random citizens as third parties to cripple the futures of women who get abortions across state lines by suing them in Texas civil courts. This is a disingenous line of argument and you demean yourself with it to support an absolutely brainwormed kind of conspiracism.
- divided 4y ago
  Yes, a poor 15 year old in Mississippi can SIMPLY cross three or four states to get her abortion done. Problem solved, folks.
- Beltiras 4y ago
  The legislation in Texas empowers citizens in collecting bounties from anyone aiding a woman (and the woman herself) in getting an abortion.

xienze 4y ago

> This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years. Those women can simply get their abortion done in another state, they're not "forced" to give birth to a child in much the same way a person threatened with losing their job wasn't "forced" to get a vaccine. Hey, you said it.

light_hue_1 4y ago
You, with a straight face, are trying to say that a government restricting your rights is totally the same as the policy of an employer? And you're telling me that a vaccine which is obscenely safe, you are more likely to die from tripping down the stairs in your own home than you are to die from the vaccine, is totally the same as childbirth? Where nearly 1000 women die every year, many are left with serious conditions, where women are left in poverty where they can't care for those children. Come on. Your position is beyond absurd.
- xienze 4y ago
  My position is that you cannot claim women are “forced” to give birth (they have options) if, like the parent, you claim that no one was “forced” to take a vaccine they didn’t want (they have the option of losing their job). It’s a matter of double standards here. People get all up in arms when you point out that you can still get an abortion if you just travel out of state. But if you point out that your only way to avoid taking a vaccine you don’t want is to lose your job, well no one is “forcing” you to take it! Likewise, I say it’s disingenuous to claim you’re forced to have an unwanted child. You just have to travel to another state. That’s a helluva lot easier to swallow than losing your job. Just drop the phrase “forced to” around abortion is all I’m saying.
  - eropple 4y ago
    Texas has specifically enabled random citizens as third parties to cripple the futures of women who get abortions across state lines by suing them in Texas civil courts. This is a disingenous line of argument and you demean yourself with it to support an absolutely brainwormed kind of conspiracism.
divided 4y ago
Yes, a poor 15 year old in Mississippi can SIMPLY cross three or four states to get her abortion done. Problem solved, folks.
Beltiras 4y ago
The legislation in Texas empowers citizens in collecting bounties from anyone aiding a woman (and the woman herself) in getting an abortion.