midtskogen wrote:Making vaccines (de facto) mandatory is a big mistake and backfires in distrust in vaccines. Denying unvaccinated a job is no better than denying people a job because they have the wrong skin colour, gender, sexual preferences or beliefs. That such laws have been passed or even discussed reveals how brittle the respect for the individual and equality is.
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post I think these are two different arguments though.
Watsisname wrote:A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post I think these are two different arguments though.
Yes, the genetic modification example is to help examine the reasoning about how to approach slippery slopes. For many people it's a scary technology, and a topic sometimes discussed with very high passions. What protects us from these things being taken too far?
We are a society where we have access to information, media, facts (and "alternative facts"!), open discussions, elections, and procedures for making, interpreting, and enforcing laws. When society deems genetic engineering is being used in a bad way, we have a way to do something about it. When society deems there is a contradiction between certain personal freedoms and certain collective freedoms, we have a way to reach a fair balance of the two.
midtskogen wrote:Source of the post Well, slippery road, but it's not that this stand means an unvaccinated society. If it did, it would mean that everybody would be opposed, and the argument would be even worse.
midtskogen wrote:Source of the post Making covid vaccines mandatory for schools and universities is particularly unreasonable, since young people tend to get milder symptoms, if any, from the illness itself than from the vaccines, and even better protection.
Watsisname wrote:Source of the post Not everyone who attends (or works at) a university is young. And have you given thought to what happens when students bring this disease home to their parents, or to people at a shop, or a restaurant or bar, and ultimately the rest of society including those who are at high risk or unable to be vaccinated?
midtskogen wrote:Source of the post If they can't take the vaccine for medical reasons, it sucks, but it can't be fixed by giving up people's right to decide over their own body
midtskogen wrote:Source of the postWould you like to be asked first before giving up a kidney, even though it could extend somebody's life?
Watsisname wrote:Source of the post Then you've removed their right to decide what happens to their own body
Watsisname wrote:midtskogen wrote:Source of the post If they can't take the vaccine for medical reasons, it sucks, but it can't be fixed by giving up people's right to decide over their own body
Then you've removed their right to decide what happens to their own body, with the consequence being a high chance of their hospitalization and death, plus a higher hospitalization and death rate everywhere, because vaccines are not 100% effective and you have fewer people taking them without it being mandated. You have many people's individual freedoms removed with more severe consequences.
Our highest court already weighed on this a long time ago. Yes, you have certain rights to decide what happens with your body. So does everyone else! That includes the right to health and care by controlling the spread and risk of exposure to dangerous transmissible diseases. You have the right to not take a vaccine, but if so others also have the right to refuse to let you work with them, or attend their university. Individual rights for everyone cannot be protected if everyone's individual rights are unlimited.
Our rights over our bodies are already limited in all sorts of ways. I don't have the right to be drunk in public, or even to consume alcohol in certain public spaces. I don't have the right to consume certain controlled substances, even in the privacy of my own home. Your genetic information may already be identifiable through a database and utilized by police, even if you never gave consent. Does that last one scare you? Watch Veritasium's video.midtskogen wrote:Source of the postWould you like to be asked first before giving up a kidney, even though it could extend somebody's life?
Yes, obviously. That's where we are. We weigh the balance between the rights of an individual and the rights of many individuals. It's an option to donate an organ. It's never (legally) taken from you without your consent. Neither is a vaccine forced into you without your consent. But you may be giving up certain freedoms within society if you don't.
Let's look at the differences between vaccination and organ donating. Donating an organ removes a part of you, with a certain level of risk, and greatly benefits an individual. Vaccination benefits you at a risk which is smaller than the alternative (exemption if evidence exists otherwise), and also benefits every single person you come in close contact with, the people they come in contact with, and ultimately, all of society. Compare the scales of sacrifice vs. benefit here. That's why there are legal mandates for vaccines, but not for organ donating. I don't think I am worried about a slippery road leading from here to there as much as you are.