Can Pharma and CDC deny civil liberties?

Now that vaccine mandates are taking over the country, has anybody discussed how Pharma and CDC can suspend civil liberties?

I think not, though now there is a rumble about that topic, notably from Candace Owens and a few other like-minded libertarians?

Opinions?

 

It really depends on what civil liberties you think you have.

If the vaccine was intended for and only affected and protected you, then there is no impact on others and your right of bodily autonomy supercedes.

However if the vaccine in you prevents or significantly reduces the risk of you spreading a disease to others, that is reduces the risk of you harming another, then that right of bodily autonomy is in question. The issue then becomes one of how much potential harm can you do to another through your knowing action or inaction.

 

BWAHAHAHAHA...All over s**t that don't last a good 6 MONTHS....

 

With that post you offer sophistry and nothing more. You repeat the psychobabble of Fauci & Pharma.

Sorry sir, I don't buy that garbage.

 

That's alright, I don't buy your garbage that you have a right to knowingly subject me to harm.

 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news sir, but life on this planet subjects you and me both to harm. As the old saying goes, life is a beach and then you die. Life subjects us all to harm. It seems your position is founded upon emotional issues, not rational issues.

Yes, life is dangerous. So Sorry.

 

That is the argument on both sides, so I can't see where.you have much room to talk. There is not much we can do about the things out there that threaten us that are not from thinking beings. A hurricane does not choose who its victims are, nor can be neglectful. Humans can, and as such we can impose certain controls. If I were to bring home and start messing around with radiation sources such that the radiation negatively affected my neighbors, would I not be responsible for that damage? Even if a natural event placed the source on my property, would I not be responsible if I knew it to be there, and were able to have it removed, but did not do so? Even more so, if it was known that I could have prevented it from arriving on my property, would I not be responsible if I allowed it to happened, by not taking those measures? In all those situations I would be responsible for harm to another, and for not taking the precautions to prevent that harm when reasonable. So too it is with any kind of highly contagious virus of significant threat.

 

There is a big difference between hurricanes and other acts of nature and the criminal injections of Pfizer and other criminal organizations run by humans. Pfizer pleaded guilty to criminal fraud charges at least twice, but Moderna is too new to have had that happen yet. Maybe their time will come.

You offer a bunch of hypotheticals. My analysis is of actual ongoing events.

 

So you disagree with laws banning smoking in public places? How about mandatory vaccines for children?

 

I do, or more specifically in private businesses. A business should decide whether it will allow smoking or not, and at most be required to post if they do. If they don't like that the business allows smoking then they don't go in there, just as if they don't like that a place requires a coat and tie, they don't go in there.

 

Yes, let's allow a public health hazard for employees. If they don't like working around a health hazard they can quit. Is that what you're saying?

 

Every job has it's hazards. We choose to risk those hazards when we hire with them. As long as it is a known hazard. Are you saying that a business should not be allowed to cater specifically to the smoking demographic? If there are enough people who want to smoke and dine, why should there not be a business that provides that? It's not like a non-smoker would be required to go there or work there.

 

Workers should not be required to work in a toxic environment.....so, OSHA shouldn't exist?

 

If the worker is a smoker already, why would it be considered a toxic environment for them? And of course OSHA should exist. There is plenty out there that is not a voluntary toxin. But since tobacco is a substance that we allow people to consume, then there is no valid reason to not allow certain business to permit such, if they want. But I stress, no business should ever be required to.

 

So far, he has not said anything, stated no opinion. So far all he's done is pose rather absurd questions with no comment provided.

 

Then explain seat belts. Your using one protects you alone, not others, don't they? Aren't they mandated by law? If I want to be street pizza isn't it my body, my right?

Also, explain abortion to a pro-life person who sees the unborn as a person. In that case it isn't just the mother's body, but also the offspring's life in consideration.

I can see why pro-life conservative anti-vaxers would get riled up over this. It looks like we are hypocrites to them.

 

Why do you presume that I support seat belt laws, short of those required for children and other minors?

Simple enough. Bodily autonomy rights means that you can withdraw permission for the use of your own bodily resources at any time, except after the fact. For example. I can promise you a kidney to save your life. Up until the moment that the kidney is removed, I can withdraw that permission, even if it means your death. Once removed however, it is no longer a bodily resource of mine and I can no longer withdraw permission. The same principle applies to sex. I can withdraw my permission for another to have sex with me at any point during the sexual activity. Once the activity is over, I can no longer withdraw permission. A woman can withdraw that permission at anytime (or should be able to) during pregnancy. However, once the offspring is born, it is no longer using her bodily resources, and thus she can no longer withdraw that permission.

Quite honestly some pro-vaxers are hypocrites. The key comes in whether failure to get the vaccine potentially harms only you, or potentially harms others, and even then the risk of harm and the extent of that harm comes into play. I, for one, do not believe that all vaccines need to be mandated by government. That said, I do believe that certain ones do indeed need to be mandated, especially if they have a high mortality rate, or a high infection chance that could cause it to spread to the vulnerable via the less vulnerable.

 

He, who?

 

No, I meant pro-choice people look like hypocrites to pro-life anti-vaxers who believe the unborn are people. In that case people who want them to get vaxed but at the same time hold up bodily autonomy as a reason they should be allowed to kill people... look quite hypocritical.

 

Misrepresentation. Pro choice people do not hold that bodily autonomy is a reason that one should be allowed to kill people. Which is why a woman cannot terminate the offspring once it is out of her body. On the other side of the coin, the one who violates another's bodily autonomy cannot use their own right to life as a reason to continue the violation of the bodily autonomy. The only right one has with bodily autonomy is the right to end another's violation of said bodily autonomy. If it can be done without the death of the violator (as hypothesized earlier with the artificial womb example), then it should be done so, but if death is the result, then death is the result, much as if you kill someone stopping them from trying to rape you, another violation of bodily autonomy.

 

They do from the point of view of a person who equates a fetus to a person.

 

I have already showed you how that is not true. If you are raping me, a violation of my bodily autonomy, am I not allowed to stop that violation even at the cost of your life? Or are you saying that I must allow you to continue to rape me if the only way to stop you is to end your life?

 

Depends whether rights derive from govt or not.

I say not. But theres plenty who think they do, and govt is going to go along with those. Eventually it'll come down to force and resistance.

 

So you believe someone addicted to a toxic substance should be allowed to make the choice of being further exposed to that toxin even though society by and large will be paying for the outcome of that exposure.