My Body... My Choice..

submitted by useless_aether from (imgoat.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HopeThatHalps 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Such laws apply to children who attend public schools, as a means of preventing public health crisis. It's in no way logically related to abortion.

That being said, "my body my choice" doesn't really address the moral dilemma of abortion in the first place. Why not "my gun my choice" if I decide to shoot you, or "my car my choice" if I run you over?

[–]HeyImSancho 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

My body my choice seems clear in just about any context I can see. It's non threatening to others, as well as to oneself; meaning it shouldn't get the SWAT team called on you, and it also shouldn't result in a 3 day forced stay at a mental facility for 'self harm'.

If you applied the same logic to 'my gun, my choice', or 'my car, my choice', then both have an element of something external that can be used to cause harm, whether to self, or to others, which has a definite stronger possibility to bring in outsiders-cops.

The only other point I think I could make in regards to strength of simply, 'my body, my choice', can you think of an easier, and perhaps shorter, and as concise method of declaring that you, have dominion over your very own body?

[–]HopeThatHalps 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

My body my choice seems clear in just about any context I can see. It's non threatening to others,

If a child has typhoid though, and that child goes to school, that body is a threat to others.

If you applied the same logic to 'my gun, my choice', or 'my car, my choice', then both have an element of something external that can be used to cause harm

In this case it's not internal/external, but that which you have dominion over, which includes your property, too.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The phrase 'my body, my choice'; you're extenuating, or growing the phrase; giving it context in a direction of doom(doesn't have to be). Meaning, you, and apparently many here, think that the govt. is good, and pharmaceuticals are great; surely these moral giants wouldn't lie to us. We should all take a few vaccines, or more because 'authority' stated it would save all of our lives, right?

I comprehend the line of thinking, as it's all over the msm/regular media, and in every grocery store window; get your flu shot here! They paint everything in a very cornered subjective box, while proclaiming it's all by way of objective concern, true concern for each individual and also for the greater good.

BUT, is it? Vaccines first of all are pushed across the entire societal board; not just to the angle of children in school, as posed by comments to the OP. There are people forced to vaccinate for numerous jobs; it's not just about 'the children'. We're all under that gun.

Basically your argument is, 'my body, my choice', is dangerous to all of society, where any non-vaccinated individual comes into contact with any group of people, is this correct?

I'm fairly sure this is your argument, and that of other posters. My question is simple, where do we stop regulating, and telling people how to live? I mean if we go this direction, there are multitudes of personal 'liberties', that could be viewed in the same light as being unsafe to the whole; using the govt. given subjective view of any topic, with information that pushes the goal post more so in our favor in condemning these liberties.

Furthermore, we really can break the argument, to vax, or not vax, into the argument of Safety/security vs. freedom/liberty. What do we get then????

Safety, and security, are great, but they can also be used to mask the realities of life, to cause ignorance to said realities. Life's a crap shoot, you can regulate, legislate, and have authoritative dictates on everyone; yet it won't make people happy, and considering life's a crap shoot, what of the law of diminishing returns?

At some point, we'll be so safe, life will cease to exist as we know it, lol.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The existing laws only apply to children that attend public schools, so afaik if they don't attend public school there is no requirement. I think in general, the notion that laws should always adhere to absolutes never proves to be 100% practical because no man is an island, and in this case we're also talking about kids, dependent minors, who have less individual rights than an adult anyhow.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The op didn't say children, I didn't say children, but between other posters, and yourself, it became about the children. My point is, it's about everyone. Again, there are professions that force vaccines; to opt out, good luck in getting hired, or being included, or treated with dignity, or respect.

The argument I think I keep reading out of many posters in this thread, is 'the individual must make concessions for the greater good of all'; even to the point of putting something into your body to cause change on the molecular level.

That sure doesn't sound like choice, and sounds very much like command and control authoritarianism; communism by extension.

You can take that argument, 'for the greater good', and apply it across the board on so many fronts; limiting so many liberties. People have done it, people are doing it, and they'll keep on doing it.

On that note, there's that old saying, what goes up, must come down, or any variation of that phrase will work for my point. We will regulate to there's not a single 'whit', or 'clue' left in people; we're almost there now for most. In the end, from this quagmire of regulations we actively grovel for, will be absolute stupid chaos.

It will be, because people will allow themselves to give up their common sense, critical thinking skills, and personal responsibility; none of which are necessary for the direction we're headed.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The only laws that currently exist apply to children. Anything else is a red herring.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Let's look at 'laws for children', perhaps state by state, we've got new laws, but there was traditionally always an 'out'. States are trying to make it where there's no 'out' in any way. Like the 'out' they try to steal from the kids in public schools, businesses force similar mandates on employees=healthcare, or related.... Furthermore from there, there are states trying to force adults into vaccines as well.

Forcing the individual to act against what they consider their better nature, better health, for the greater good as determined by the mob; is a sort of fascist authoritarian, and by extension by way of 20th century examples, communist.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

States are trying to make it where there's no 'out' in any way.

Can you give a concrete example?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Both of the links below I think will work; honestly, since google has started 'insuring informed, and correct choices', I'm finding it more challenging to search taboo stuff.

https://www.intellihub.com/mandatory-vaccines-for-adults-leave-it-to-california/

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/labor-employment-law/human-resources-law/forcing-flu-shots-employees-and-health-at-work.html