3 ms·

> "your body, my choice" The sad thing is you could be referencing the left with Covid vaccines or the right with abortion.

jerojero 2y ago
These are completely different issues. When people don't vaccinate themselves they become a walking vector that affects society as a whole. Yes, personally, they might be healthy. But there's people out there who can't take the vaccines and should they get sick of COVID they could die. There's people out there who, even after being vaccinated, are still at higher risk should they get the disease (the vaccine doesn't prevent you getting sick, rather it makes it more difficult for the virus to transmit and lowes it's effectiveness and how dangerous it is for you). So people not vaccinating puts the whole of society at risk. On the other hand, abortion is very much a familial issue. It affects the woman that is pregnant the most. The rest of the people around her are affected only tangentially, yes, the parents might want to become grandparents or the person that got her pregnant might also want to have a child. And those are inputs that are necessary when coming to the decision of performing an abortion or not. Now, where does "your body, my choice" come into play? Do abortions cause the societal harm that vaccines cause? I don't think there's any evidence to this, it's all moral standings. But we legislate for everyone, we don't legislate for a group of people that happen to have a particular religious view of the world. Now, these people have a lot of power and influence and that's why their view is imposed on most of society. Ultimately though, these issues are different and shouldn't be treated as mirrors of each others. I think that's a mistake.
- valval 2y ago
  These topics are very clear cut to me. Forcing someone to take an experimental drug is not okay, and murdering small babies is not okay.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    The government did not force anyone to take the vaccine. The death count in US proportionally speaks to that. If you're comparing walking into a store or concert (both private establishments) to your state telling your doctor thru cannot operate on you, you clearly don't understand or won't understand how freedom works.
    - valval 2y ago
      You’re talking about a different thing. I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it. Private businesses can place whatever bans on whomever they want, for all I care.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        > I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it. Where? I've yet to hear of a court case where the plantiff is arguing that they were forced to take a vaccine by a government. Bodily automomy has plenty of case studies and it'd be an easy slam dunk if any federal entity tried doing that. There was an executive order: https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investigation-into-federal-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investiga... >the Biden Administration implemented Executive Order (E.O.) 14043. This E.O. required federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 8, 2021, or risk removal or termination from their federal employment. But I believe the precedent for political discrimination in the workplace is thin, at best. I don't think the Hatch Act would have much ground here. You're not owed a job for your political nor religious beliefs if it puts others in danger (there's a lot of case law on the latter with regard to rituals). ---- EDIT: Oh yea, there was the overreaching argument of the president. That one was swiftly shot down: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medical-freedom-v-biden/ https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medica... >Finally, our brief argued that Supreme Court precedent supports the president’s broad authority to regulate federal employees, including their out-of-office conduct, when such regulation is justified by the government’s interest in the safety, effectiveness, and security of government facilities. In one case, for example, the Supreme Court sanctioned Reagan Administration regulations requiring drug testing of government employees and prohibiting drug use outside of the workplace
        valval 2y ago
        I’m not speaking of any application of such measures, I’m stating my opposition of them. Although now that you’re making my argument for me, it’s not cool that tax payer funded jobs would be terminated over that.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
I have a few family members who chose not to take the vaccine. They are dead, but that was indeed their body, their choice. Wherre is this story on a person forced to take a vaccine?

jerojero 2y ago

These are completely different issues. When people don't vaccinate themselves they become a walking vector that affects society as a whole. Yes, personally, they might be healthy. But there's people out there who can't take the vaccines and should they get sick of COVID they could die. There's people out there who, even after being vaccinated, are still at higher risk should they get the disease (the vaccine doesn't prevent you getting sick, rather it makes it more difficult for the virus to transmit and lowes it's effectiveness and how dangerous it is for you). So people not vaccinating puts the whole of society at risk. On the other hand, abortion is very much a familial issue. It affects the woman that is pregnant the most. The rest of the people around her are affected only tangentially, yes, the parents might want to become grandparents or the person that got her pregnant might also want to have a child. And those are inputs that are necessary when coming to the decision of performing an abortion or not. Now, where does "your body, my choice" come into play? Do abortions cause the societal harm that vaccines cause? I don't think there's any evidence to this, it's all moral standings. But we legislate for everyone, we don't legislate for a group of people that happen to have a particular religious view of the world. Now, these people have a lot of power and influence and that's why their view is imposed on most of society. Ultimately though, these issues are different and shouldn't be treated as mirrors of each others. I think that's a mistake.

valval 2y ago
These topics are very clear cut to me. Forcing someone to take an experimental drug is not okay, and murdering small babies is not okay.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  The government did not force anyone to take the vaccine. The death count in US proportionally speaks to that. If you're comparing walking into a store or concert (both private establishments) to your state telling your doctor thru cannot operate on you, you clearly don't understand or won't understand how freedom works.
  - valval 2y ago
    You’re talking about a different thing. I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it. Private businesses can place whatever bans on whomever they want, for all I care.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      > I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it. Where? I've yet to hear of a court case where the plantiff is arguing that they were forced to take a vaccine by a government. Bodily automomy has plenty of case studies and it'd be an easy slam dunk if any federal entity tried doing that. There was an executive order: https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investigation-into-federal-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investiga... >the Biden Administration implemented Executive Order (E.O.) 14043. This E.O. required federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 8, 2021, or risk removal or termination from their federal employment. But I believe the precedent for political discrimination in the workplace is thin, at best. I don't think the Hatch Act would have much ground here. You're not owed a job for your political nor religious beliefs if it puts others in danger (there's a lot of case law on the latter with regard to rituals). ---- EDIT: Oh yea, there was the overreaching argument of the president. That one was swiftly shot down: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medical-freedom-v-biden/ https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medica... >Finally, our brief argued that Supreme Court precedent supports the president’s broad authority to regulate federal employees, including their out-of-office conduct, when such regulation is justified by the government’s interest in the safety, effectiveness, and security of government facilities. In one case, for example, the Supreme Court sanctioned Reagan Administration regulations requiring drug testing of government employees and prohibiting drug use outside of the workplace
      - valval 2y ago
        I’m not speaking of any application of such measures, I’m stating my opposition of them. Although now that you’re making my argument for me, it’s not cool that tax payer funded jobs would be terminated over that.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

I have a few family members who chose not to take the vaccine. They are dead, but that was indeed their body, their choice. Wherre is this story on a person forced to take a vaccine?