Hacker News Reader

Comment by StanislavPetrov | Hacker News Reader

You might want to read the document you're talking about. It's quite explicit that the rights it mentions are not are comprehensive list, but rather a floor. Penumbra and all that.

Do tell me where the government was imprisoning people for not taking these experimental immunotherapies.

So it's fine if they force your employer to fire you, just so long as they're not throwing you in prison.

Uh, yeah. That's exactly right. A corporation is, believe it or not, not the government.

We are clearly talking about two very different things.

I'm talking about the government forcing a corporation to fire certain employees, not a corporation making that decision on it's own.

Where did that happen? What rulings, what companies, what employees?

The City of New York is not a corporation, and is one of many municipalities that has forced public employees to take the experimental immunotherapy or be fired. For the record, I have taken the experimental immunotherapy, but that has no bearing on the fact that the government should never be allowed to force people to undergo medical procedures, much less experimental ones.

To be pedantic, the City of New York is a municipal corporation. They are allowed to have conditions of continued employment. They cannot force vaccines upon anybody under the threat of jail time but they can certainly not continue to employ anybody they don't want to. NY is a right to work state.

Yeah, being a dumbass is not a protected class.

Your rights end where my rights begin. It's only a knot if your brain doesn't care for other people.

This is such a nonsense talking point. No right that you have compels any other private citizen to do anything. You do, however, have plenty of rights that prevent people from doing things to you. And no, you don't get twist it around and say that people have to do something to prevent them from doing something to you. Sorry.

Oh sorta like how people in restaurants don't have to wash their hands. Or doctors don't have to wash their hands. And others don't have to pass their drivers license test to drive on the roads. And public school students don't have to get vaccines. And people who serve in the military don't have to get their vaccines. And factories don't have to provide safe working conditions. And landlords don't have to inspect and maintain their properties. And drivers don't have to replace their tail lights when they're busted. And you don't need to clear your sidewalk after snowstorms. And McDonald's doesn't need to keep their coffee below a certain temperature and display hot warnings on their cups.

If you'd consider for a second, you can come up with some of your own to debunk your own previous hypothesis.

There are _countless_ examples where when you want to exist within society, you must act in order to prevent harms to others.

I accept your apology, though.

Your choice of words tells me this will not be a productive conversation.

> You can't have it both ways!

You can when the two ways have different contexts.

> force you to take injections of experimental immunotherapies

Leaving aside the misleading "experimental" part, the bodily rights context here was "being part of a society" - this was a huge public health crisis - people not having the vaccine impacted on a greater part of society than just themselves.

The bodily rights context for abortion is "a single person".

Two clearly different situations, no?

>Two clearly different situations, no?

No. You either have bodily autonomy (My body, my choice!) or you don't. For the record I happen to support abortion (and in fact think society would be better off if many of the people in Washington DC had been aborted), but I oppose hypocrisy and logical fallacies.

> You either have bodily autonomy (My body, my choice!)

You don't think there's any situations where the state (in its role of protecting society) might be ok overriding someone's bodily autonomy? That would preclude any vaccinations, prisons, etc., no?

So, the government never forced you to take a vaccine. You were only mandated to do so for employment purposes and public health. Persons are/were at risk of spreading disease to unwilling participants. Your freedom ends at my nose. Now, that being said, I agree, it was pretty heavy handed. Constitutionally breaking? Probably not.

This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years. Your right to alcohol and other risky behaviors is also revoked as that is child endangerment. Now what about the child for the next 18 years? That is truly constitutionally problematic.

> This is using the power of the state to compel women to give birth to a child after having carried it for 9 years.

Those women can simply get their abortion done in another state, they're not "forced" to give birth to a child in much the same way a person threatened with losing their job wasn't "forced" to get a vaccine. Hey, you said it.

The legislation in Texas empowers citizens in collecting bounties from anyone aiding a woman (and the woman herself) in getting an abortion.

You, with a straight face, are trying to say that a government restricting your rights is totally the same as the policy of an employer?

And you're telling me that a vaccine which is obscenely safe, you are more likely to die from tripping down the stairs in your own home than you are to die from the vaccine, is totally the same as childbirth? Where nearly 1000 women die every year, many are left with serious conditions, where women are left in poverty where they can't care for those children.

Come on. Your position is beyond absurd.

My position is that you cannot claim women are “forced” to give birth (they have options) if, like the parent, you claim that no one was “forced” to take a vaccine they didn’t want (they have the option of losing their job).

It’s a matter of double standards here. People get all up in arms when you point out that you can still get an abortion if you just travel out of state. But if you point out that your only way to avoid taking a vaccine you don’t want is to lose your job, well no one is “forcing” you to take it! Likewise, I say it’s disingenuous to claim you’re forced to have an unwanted child. You just have to travel to another state. That’s a helluva lot easier to swallow than losing your job.

Just drop the phrase “forced to” around abortion is all I’m saying.

Texas has specifically enabled random citizens as third parties to cripple the futures of women who get abortions across state lines by suing them in Texas civil courts.

This is a disingenous line of argument and you demean yourself with it to support an absolutely brainwormed kind of conspiracism.

Yes, a poor 15 year old in Mississippi can SIMPLY cross three or four states to get her abortion done. Problem solved, folks.

There is a lot of misinformation packed in two small paragraphs. Let’s try to unpack.

First, are you aware that the right for individuals to bear arms was not considered a right by judicial opinion for most of US history until 2008? For instance, in US v Miller 1939 it was decided one didn’t have a right to own sawed off shotguns because it bore no “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” You see, many read the amendment as the right for states to have a militia, not the right for individuals to bear arms for self defense. In fact, I believe most founding father documents support that interpretation. Interpretation matters as much as the document itself.

Second, the US government hasn’t tried to force injections of experimental immunotherapies. It was no longer experimental after it achieved approval. No US government mandated the vaccine besides in situations where vaccines are already mandated. They strongly encouraged through rewards, but they always provided alternatives to requiring vaccination. For example, masking and testing have been at times adequate alternatives. The government has required vaccines for public school and the military for decades (centuries?), and it has been widely regarded as saving millions of lives, so it’s very weird that it’s an issue now. Oh right, culture war.

The constitution is quite explicit that the rights it protects are not limited to those explicitly listed

I don't see what antivax has to do with anything

Reply on news.ycombinator.com