Are you going to compare pregnancies to car accidents, like the other guys who can't form a cogent argument, @Unthinking Majority ?
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Unthinking Majority wrote:Do women have body autonomy or not? Yes or no?
Obviously they are different situations, but they both involve the right of a woman to have control over her body and control what goes inside her body and who or what can be put inside and stay inside with her consent. Is this true or not?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, both scenarios involve the body autonomy of people.
This is why vaccines are not mandated. If you are referring to the woman who died of blood clots that @Doug64 mentioned, she chose to be vaccinated.
So in both respects (i.e. not mandating vaccines and allowing abortion at any stage of the pregnancy), body autonomy is respected.
Now, since I am not arguing that vaccines should be mandatory for everyone, there seems to be no inconsistency in my positions.
This is why vaccines are not mandated.
Godstud wrote:A pregnancy does not affect the potential health of people around you, so it is not comparable. Diseases do.
Unthinking Majority wrote:No i'm not referring to anything Doug said.
Ok, so when are vaccine mandates ok vs not ok?
Pants-of-dog wrote:It depends on what you mean by “vaccine mandate”.
If you mean that people are forced to get a vaccine by the government, then this would only be okay in very few and dire circumstances.
Did you mean that or something else?
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Unthinking Majority
Employers in Canada, like everywhere else in the Anglosphere, can fire anyone at any time for almost any reason.
If employers choose to fire people over vaccination status, that would be a double standard for existing labour law.
Are you saying that employers should not have the right to fire whomever they wish whenever they wish? If so, why?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Employers in Canada, like everywhere else in the Anglosphere, can fire anyone at any time for almost any reason.
Unthinking Majority wrote:Abortions affect the health of the unborn, but you argue people should still be able to have them performed, due to body autonomy.A unborn fetus is part of the woman. It's up to her, not up to assholes who simply want to control women, because of their idiotic religious beliefs, or because they want the patriarchy to continue.
You're willing to kill the unborn because of body autonomy, but not willing to potentially infect other people with COVID (or other diseases) by supporting vaccine mandates?
Pants-of-dog wrote:If employers choose to fire people over vaccination status, that would be a double standard for existing labour law.Employers, if they make vaccination as part of their company's safety policy, can in fact fire people for not being vaccinated, according to OSHA regulations.
AFAIK wrote:Britain has the rule of law and employment tribunals. Employers can't just sack people whenever they feel like it. Universities can't mandate vaccination for their students because that would violate the contracts that are respected and enforced by our legal system.
Check your privilege before using the term anglosphere again.
DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.
annatar1914 wrote:What rotten and ghoulish calculus...
How many are you and others like you willing to kill for your notions of ''liberty'', of not taking a vaccine that already has saved a tremendous number of people's lives?
If cars were as deadly as the flu, they would be banned.
That's the question, but there's nothing "rotten and ghoulish" about the calculus, it's called thinking like an economist, and who gets to make the decision.
For private ownership of cars, ~40,000 a year is clearly below the threshold. For the flu, ~50,000 is clearly below that threshold. In both cases we've regularly lost at least that many without anyone seriously calling for banning cars or so much as mask mandates, much less shutting down schools, etc.
Doug64 wrote:And here's another example of why I've pretty much stopped listening to our government health "experts," this time from OSHA. In their FAQ section, there's this question: Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log? The answer is:
To put this in simple English, "Yes, businesses are legally required to record workers' side effects from Wuhan virus inoculations" (I presume when the inoculations are required by the business) "but we aren't going to enforce that requirement because it might make the inoculations look bad." A clear case of "don't bother us with facts that might contradict our Truths."
That's the question, but there's nothing "rotten and ghoulish" about the calculus, it's called thinking like an economist, and who gets to make the decision. For private ownership of cars, ~40,000 a year is clearly below the threshold. For the flu, ~50,000 is clearly below that threshold. In both cases we've regularly lost at least that many without anyone seriously calling for banning cars or so much as mask mandates, much less shutting down schools, etc.
annatar1914 wrote:Again, a confusion of ideas, with things being an extension of one's individual will via ''Private Property'', an extension of one's alleged ''self-ownership'' Automobiles, when used properly, will attain the objective of taking one where one needs to go. A Pandemic goes where it will, and cannot ever be made an extension of one's will. For the Hyper-Individualist/Libertarian, it's always about total control over one's immediate surroundings, and disease throws a monkey wrench into that idea, doesn't it?
Potemkin wrote:This is the crux of what I think is the problem with the people who think Covid-19 is a hoax, or that vaccines are a conspiracy, or that having to wear a mask in public is an intolerable violation of their personal rights. The entire pandemic challenges their sense of themselves as sovereign individuals existing in splendid isolation who are in complete control of their immediate surroundings. This creates such cognitive dissonance within them that in order to maintain that sense of self, they must deny reality. The pandemic must be a hoax, the vaccines must be a conspiracy. They just want the whole pandemic, and the necessary response to it, to just go away. But, of course, it won't. In fact, by behaving in this way, they are actually ensuring that it won't go away, by making it more likely that they and others will catch the disease, more likely that they will spread it, and more likely that they will die of it. In other words, they've lost their fucking minds.
XogGyux wrote:Very deep and philosiphical. I have an alternative explanation. Idiot is president, idiot wants to pretend everything is well because idiot is concerned about elections, idiot downplays seriousness and his followers follow the old saying "monkey see, monkey do". Sometimes a potato, is just a potato.
Nope, or perhaps not in the sense of "you can[…]
Yes, and you still have the right to not get a va[…]
Well, that's your problem because history goes […]
I'm to the right of Reagan and live in Northern Vi[…]