• Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    49
    ·
    7 months ago

    It is right up there with the same people arguing for abortion because one should be able to decide what medical procedures (including drugs) should be done to them also arguing for COVID vaccine mandates, i.e. arguing that people should be forced to take a drug.

    But then that’s one of my biggest grumps about pro-choice arguments (and I am pro-choice) - there’s a tendency to argue that supporting abortion is just an application of some broader principle but also to have abortion be the only controversial case where that principle actually applies.

    • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Except nobody was physically forced down and vaccinated against their will. You can still choose not to be vaccinated, but choices have consequences. I’m not saying the government should arrest people for not being vaccinated, but people, institutions, companies and hospitals should definitely have the choice to not want to let those people inside.

      • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        “Choices have consequences” is not something that should be said in regards to a government coercing you about a matter of your rights.

        • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Nobody is coercing you to do anything when your employer doesn’t want people spreading disease in their company. Nobody is coercing anyone if e.g. hospitals refuse to hire someone who hasn’t had certain vaccinations. It has nothing to do with coercion. It has to do with the fact that actions and choices have consequences. You don’t get to willingly disregard (the safety of) everyone else and expect to be welcome everywhere.

          If I choose not to shower, and stink to high heaven, some employers won’t hire me. If I choose not to wear shoes, or walk around in my underwear, I will be denied access to many places. Does this mean I am being coerced to shower and wear clothes?

          Actions have consequences. It’s just that simple. You can always choose to not do x, but when it’s a requirement for y, you won’t get to do y unless you do x. And speaking of rights, what about everyone else’s rights to not have to sit/work/eat/wait next to Typhoid Mary? Or is it really your opinion that whatever someone does, their right to do whatever is more important than the rest of society? Do you think businesses should be forced to allow anyone inside no matter what? Employers are not allowed to set requirements for their employees?

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Equating abortion and vaccine mandates is stupid. Pregnancy can’t be transmitted.

      Mandates for people already recovered from Covid was anti-scientific though.