They make those nice bomb disposal units. Stick guy inside, lock door.
But would you consider it a violation of bodily autonomy rights if organizations could refuse service to anyone who has had an abortion?
If I’m understanding the OP’s analogy correctly, the person having the abortion ~= the person refusing a vaccination (ie. person exercising their right to bodily autonomy), and the fetus ~= the public (ie. person that could be harmed as a result of the exercise of that bodily autonomy). The practicalities of the situations are very different - ie. separating the unvaccinated person from the public prevents harm, but separating a fetus from the carrier of the fetus causes harm (if you assume that the fetus can be harmed). But I think LHoD still has a valid question about whether, for example, it is OK to punish people who cause harm as a result of exercising their bodily autonomy - is it OK to fine or imprison someone for infecting someone else with COVID as a result of being unvaccinated? And is it OK to fine or imprison someone for having an abortion? If the first is OK but the second isn’t, wouldn’t that only make sense if you think a person was harmed from the first scenario but no person was harmed in the second?
I’m just extremely uncomfortable not allowing complete, total, body autonomy. Even when others may be impacted by someone’s choices, as with vaccination, forced compliance should be a last resort. A pandemic creates a situation where I grudgingly give in because of the potential for catastrophe.
On the other hand I wouldn’t forcefully stop an MMA fighter from participating in a fight during the eighth month of her pregnancy.
I’d be more concerned about her opponent.
Organizations can refuse to serve people who’ve had an abortion. I think that’s wrong, but I don’t think that’s a violation of bodily autonomy rights. It’s wrong for other reasons, IMO.
To answer your questions, I think it would be wrong to use force or threat of force (including imprisonment) to require vaccinations. But I support requiring vaccines for school, travel, etc.
Maybe a tax or a fine would be okay with me. I’m not sure, though.
You shouldn’t try to write any fiction with a ticking clock. You’d probably tell the screenwriters of Goldfinger to stop messing around and drop the nuke into the ocean.
We don’t have to stretch so far to find an analogous situation.
There are plenty of activities that pregnant women are not recommended to do, and some businesses may not be willing (or insured) to let pregnant women take part in. e.g. UFC requires female combatants to take pregnancy tests and pregnant women are not permitted to fight.
(Yes UFC is an extreme example, but I chose it because it’s fairly black and white. In more typical scenarios places like bouldering or boxing gyms might not want to take this risk).
We don’t normally consider this a bodily autonomy issue, But then what’s the difference between saying you can’t come to this concert unvaccinated and you can’t climb this wall pregnant?
The first is a public health issue, and the second is a liability issue.
They don’t want to get sued if the woman miscarries due to the activity.
In a perfect world, I’d say that the pregnant woman could sign a liability waiver that says that she won’t hold the venue liable for possible injury to her fetus, but i’m not sure that that would work in the world we live in.
If you could get the entirety of the public to sign a liability waiver that says they don’t mind getting COVID, then unvaccinated and unmasked people can attend concerts.
I personally feel that a fetus has exactly the rights that the mother chooses to extend to it, no more, no less.
So, when you ask what the difference is, the difference is that one is risking the health of something that she has the right to risk the health of, and the other is risking the health of a large number of people to whom you don’t have the right to risk the health.
Could be. But you could also say it’s public safety including the safety of the person herself. Then the two situations are entirely the same.
For example, here in the UK, it’s illegal to ride a motorbike without a helmet. Why? Because society has decided that a certain level of care for human life is essential, even to the point of restricting some liberties, and, more practically, society doesn’t want to pick up the tab for lots of crippled or mentally disabled former bikers.
And if we’re happy with that justification then it’s trivial to justify a venue’s vaccination policy or no pregnant women policy exactly the same way.
And if we’re not happy, then why aren’t we complaining about bike helmet laws?
This description is exactly why some people in the US are fighting UHC tooth and nail. People are losing their ability to do what they want with their bodies.
There are many states where helmet laws are already in place, without a UHC. Don’t see what UHC has anything to do with it.
And to be honest, if we were just worried about the cost of care, then we wouldn’t have helmet laws at all, as burying a dead biker is far cheaper than treating accident survivors.
UHC doesn’t force you to use care. It makes it available for all who want it. You don’t want it? Don’t use it.
There are plenty of idiots in the US against helmet and seat belt laws. I’m not talking about people taking principled stances against government overreach, but those who don’t want to wear a helmet or a seat belt and are indignant that others think they should. The same sort who don’t want to be told to get vaccinated or wear a condom, but happy enough to tell a woman she deserved it because she dressed too sexy or drank too much. Or a person of color deserved it for being too uppity.
The “consequences for you, not for me” culture.
Right, so you believe that @Mijin has no idea what they are talking about.
I think that people who fear the government exerting additional control over unhealthy things in our lives see statements like that and believe that the nanny state will expand under UHC.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the government is incentivized to decrease medical spending under UHC and therefore has incentive to require helmets on riders or not allow you to buy the belly buster soda. While I don’t think the system has to be that way people who are living under that system apparently believe that is right and proper for the government to dictate what you can do with your body.
Cite for a system of UHC where a person is forbidden to buy soda?
A strangely aggressive way to put it; it’s a disagreement at most.
You’ll notice I didn’t mention UHC, because while it’s relevant it’s not critical to the point. Bikers riding without helmets still has a social cost even without UHC – more people showing up to emergency rooms with head injuries, and fewer productive workers (and more dependants) in the economy.
As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, the impact on a person’s bodily autonomy of a vaccination is in almost all cases so much massively less than the impact of carrying a pregnancy to term that they’re not really comparable.
In terms of an utterly absolutist position on bodily autonomy, and taking that term to reference absolute control over anything inside one’s body, you have a point. But it’s kind of the same sort of point as ‘anyone who agrees that it’s wrong to release large amounts of particulate matter into the air ought to agree that it’s also wrong to ever, anywhere, build a campfire or smoke a joint.’ Not everyone’s as absolutist on the subject as @kayaker; and I don’t think a less absolutist position is necessarily hypocritical.
Slippery slope and all. ‘First they came for my Big Gulp then they put me in a re-education camp!’
The really funny part of this is folks bitch about the nanny state government banning 64oz drinks, meanwhile they are still free to buy two 32oz drinks . . . but they never complain about their ‘’‘freedom’‘’ being taken away by the corporation that will not provide them 128oz cups.
Seems that there is some rule about sentences that start with “so” go on to completely misrepresent the one being replied to. It seems to continue to hold here. It Is not @Mijin that doesn’t seem to know what they are talking about.
I think that they will find any excuse to misrepresent any statement in order to try to use it to justify their beliefs.