Government vaccine mandates and abortion restrictions

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They do it because they are stupid.

That's a caricature of someone used to make it easier for us to be self righteous.  They aren't stupid (no more than you and I anyway), but they are inconsistent.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

California allows no exemptions (religious or otherwise). If you want to use public schools you vaccinate.

It doesn't allow medical exemptions for kids who can't be vaccinated because of problems with their immune system, such as those who are receiving chemotherapy for cancer, etc.?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It doesn't allow medical exemptions for kids who can't be vaccinated because of problems with their immune system, such as those who are receiving chemotherapy for cancer, etc.?

The post has an edit that was dated well before this post, so I’m not sure if there is a problem with board software or something? But yeah I linked to an article describing limited medical exemptions for things like you posted. 

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's a caricature of someone used to make it easier for us to be self righteous.  They aren't stupid (no more than you and I anyway), but they are inconsistent.

They can be both. Stupid and inconsistent.

[mgy401]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If these people were going to stay home and isolate themselves, I'd agree.  But that's not what they want to do. 

Instead they are choosing go out and be around other people who could be hurt by their refusal to vaccinate or wear a mask. They are choosing to go out of their way to perform an action whose natural consequences has been understood to have the ability to (and to actually have) hurt other people.

If we are talking about how choice works into the matter, it's not all that different.

That assumes, though, that individuals have no inherent right to travel or to be in public spaces (by “public spaces” I don’t mean a grocery store or something where a defined owner permits, at their discretion, members of the public to come and receive a service or purchase a good [and could legitimately choose to exclude unvaccinated folk]; I mean publicly owned/administered spaces like roads and parks); or to freely and consensually associate with third parties in spaces privately owned/controlled by the parties to the interaction.  

I think the natural rights to free travel, to free association, and to exist in outdoor public spaces, are far more venerable than some supposed right to commit murder in the name of sex-without-babies.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

That assumes, though, that individuals have no inherent right to travel or to be in public spaces

What I feel you need to address is the collision of rights here. Do I have a right not to be harmed by you* in a public space?
 

*generic “you” here

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

That assumes, though, that individuals have no inherent right to travel or to be in public spaces (by “public spaces” I don’t mean a grocery store or something where a defined owner permits, at their discretion, members of the public to come and receive a service or purchase a good [and could legitimately choose to exclude unvaccinated folk]; I mean publicly owned/administered spaces like roads and parks); or to freely and consensually associate with third parties in spaces privately owned/controlled by the parties to the interaction.  

I think the natural rights to free travel, to free association, and to exist in outdoor public spaces, are far more venerable than some supposed right to commit murder in the name of sex-without-babies.

Okay, I suggest a compromise based on history. The unvaccinated be required to ring bells loudly as they travel to warn everyone that they are likely to have a deadly disease and are required to avoid all close contact with those who do not carry the bells.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It gets really hard to quantify that I guess. Also see my edit, they do allow limited medical exemptions 

I agree. 

Good with the medical exemptions.

I want to go with the idea of "what are the rules of the church?" but even with church here on the board we see people with different beliefs.  It's obvious that the prophet of our church finds that vaccines in general are not against church rules, but there would be people who argue against that and I hate to say you can't follow your own feelings so it does get really murky.  

Legally though if you have religious exemptions I think you would have to base it on church rules and not personal feelings - but then again it gets murky when people don't follow an organized religion.  

So in theory legally I am for good religious exemptions.  In practice I don't know what to do with that. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

If these people were going to stay home and isolate themselves, I'd agree.  But that's not what they want to do. 

Well, by that reckoning, we can fault anyone who engages in any conduct that might injure anyone else.

That includes . . . pretty much everything under the sun.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Instead they are choosing go out and be around other people who could be hurt by their refusal to vaccinate or wear a mask.  They are choosing to go out of their way to perform an action whose natural consequences has been understood to have the ability to (and to actually have) hurt other people.

"Who could be" being the operative phrase.

Has the government previously mandated flu vaccines, even though people "could be" adversely affected by an unvaccinated person?  Nope.

Has the government prohibited people from driving cars because there are "other people" who "could be hurt" if the driver gets into an accident?  Nope.

By your reasoning, it seems like the government has unlimited authority to regulate any and every aspect of our lives.  Am I wrong?  If so, what is your limiting principle?  Is there any restraint on government authority, in your view?  Or can it impose any restriction on anyone at any time by saying "they are choosing to go out of their way to perform an action whose natural consequences has been understood to have the ability to (and to actually have) hurt other people"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

 I think the natural rights to free travel, to free association, and to exist in outdoor public spaces, are far more venerable than some supposed right to commit murder in the name of sex-without-babies.

I think that seekingunderstanding boiled the issue down nicely

It all depends on who's rights will win the day.  Does someone have the right to be in public spaces if them being there is likely to cause harm to others in that space?  

Does someone have the right to choose to behave in a way that is likely to increase patient load at a hospital, for example, creating a negative consequence for someone who hasn't behaved that way by using resources that will no longer be available if that person or a loved one has a heart attack?

(and your use of the term 'commit murder' shows a bias, and biases are often the reason that we don't notice our own double standards and inconsistencies).

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They can be both. Stupid and inconsistent.

Just like all of us can, and are.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Has the government prohibited people from driving cars because there are "other people" who "could be hurt" if the driver gets into an accident?  Nope.

But they have instituted seat belt laws, speeding laws, anti dui laws, insurance laws and so forth. So yes?

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But they have instituted seat belt laws, speeding laws, anti dui laws, insurance laws and so forth. So yes?

Yes.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, by that reckoning, we can fault anyone who engages in any conduct that might injure anyone else.

That includes . . . pretty much everything under the sun.

-Smac

There is a difference between 'might' injure someone else and 'is likely to' injure someone else.  Likely to injure someone else does not include pretty much everything under the sun.  With the delta variant of covid, we know that community spread by the unvaccinated and unmasked is a 'likely' event, not a 'might happen' event.

Quote

 

"Who could be" being the operative phrase.

Has the government previously mandated flu vaccines, even though people "could be" adversely affected by an unvaccinated person?  Nope.

Has the government prohibited people from driving cars because there are "other people" who "could be hurt" if the driver gets into an accident?  Nope.

By your reasoning, it seems like the government has unlimited authority to regulate any and every aspect of our lives.  Am I wrong?  If so, what is your limiting principle?  Is there any restraint on government authority, in your view?  Or can it impose any restriction on anyone at any time by saying "they are choosing to go out of their way to perform an action whose natural consequences has been understood to have the ability to (and to actually have) hurt other people"?

Thanks,

 

I'm not talking about a government mandating the vaccine (which the US government did with smallpox but has not done with covid).  I'm talking about the arguments that people are using to justify why it should be acceptable to everyone that they are refusing to get vaccinated or wear masks.  People can do what they want, but that doesn't mean their actions aren't hurting/killing others or that their arguments for their choices are legitimate.

I haven't even addressed government mandated vaccinations so I'm not sure what reasoning of mine you are using to conclude the bold above.

[smac97]

 

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

 

Your Peanuts cartoon falls apart pretty quickly when you realize that it needed herd immunity levels of people to get the vaccine to get this under control. Then people didn’t do that. Then the virus got more deadly just for funsies. Now it is killing off those people in droves and they are taking a disturbing number of other people with them.

Public control? Maybe if the people who were so worried about the virus being used for “public control” had gotten the vaccine there wouldn’t need to be any “public control” anymore. Now several states including my own are likely to end up with patients dying in the waiting rooms. I guess they die free at least. Hooray.

[bluebell]

This is an interesting concept because the First Presidency has just come out and specifically urged members to please wear masks and get vaccinated.  That's adds a whole new layer for posters who are members, especially if they've previously been the type of member who believes that there is never an excuse not to follow the prophet.

"To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective."

Edited August 12, 2021 by bluebell

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is an interesting concept because the church has just come out with a newsroom release, asking members to please where masks and get vaccinated.  That's adds a whole new layer for posters who are members, especially if they've previously been the type of member who believes that there is never an excuse not to follow the prophet.

And did you catch the “We can win this war if everyone will follow the wise and thoughtful recommendations of medical experts and government leaders.”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

 

How to you mesh “political purposes and public control” with the first presidency describing the same actions as “wise” and “thoughtful”?

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

 

I do wonder, why would governments want to use masks to control the public?  What are the benefits of that kind of control, to the government?

I've heard this argument made before but I've never heard a good or plausible explanation for what the government is actually getting out of controlling the public through mask use.  Political purposes, sure, but a government using covid to force the public to wear masks is a much harder sell.

[The Nehor]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How to you mesh “political purposes and public control” with the first presidency describing the same actions as “wise” and “thoughtful”?

Hold on.

 

 

Okay, now I am ready.

[mgy401]

37 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What I feel you need to address is the collision of rights here. Do I have a right not to be harmed by you* in a public space?
 

*generic “you” here

We’ll, let’s game that out.  If we find ourselves in a submarine together and suddenly it is stranded underwater with a limited supply of oxygen and increasing carbon dioxide levels—your breathing is harming me.  Do I have a right to regulate, or even end, your breathing to prevent harm to myself?

I think reality lies in the notion that neither side’s rights are absolute.  @The Nehor’s suggestion may have been tongue-in-cheek; but some sort of enforced identification and social distancing of non-vaccinated folk while allowing them to utilize public spaces is probably preferable to putting them under effective house arrest.

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think that seekingunderstanding boiled the issue down nicely

It all depends on who's rights will win the day.  Does someone have the right to be in public spaces if them being there is likely to cause harm to others in that space?  

Does someone have the right to choose to behave in a way that is likely to increase patient load at a hospital, for example, creating a negative consequence for someone who hasn't behaved that way by using resources that will no longer be available if that person or a loved one has a heart attack?

(and your use of the term 'commit murder' shows a bias, and biases are often the reason that we don't notice our own double standards and inconsistencies).

I could as easily reply that your refusal to equate abortion with murder betrays a bias on your own part; especially given that the OP for discussion’s sake has essentially conceded the humanity of the fetus who is subject to an abortion.

On the hospital issue specifically:  I would support hospitals triaging COVID cases in such a way as to give preference to vaccinated patients with breakthrough cases, or who had good cause not to get vaccinated, or (assuming it were hypothetically possible, which understand it probably isn’t) who had otherwise been diligent about masking, social distancing, etc.  You’ll not find me arguing for universal healthcare, and one reason is that I believe the availability of universal healthcare tends to reward destructive behavior.

But in a broader sense, as @smac97 says, human behavior almost inevitably creates externalities that adversely affect other humans.  At some point, being a member of society means that to some degree you can’t help but accept that you’re going to bear some of the consequences of someone else’s bad behavior.  I don’t like being contradicted, but here you are—contradicting me.  I find that very distressing.  I might need to work through that discomfiture with a mental health professional.  Can I send you the bill?   Of course not, because societies and governments have tended to tolerate behavior that has a history of being accepted, is unintentional, that is relatively low-risk to third parties, and/or where the nexus between cause-and-effect is remote.  A person posting on an Internet forum, or leaving their house and walking through a neighborhood park, tend to satisfy most or all of these criteria; the act of ending a child’s existence through elective abortion satisfies virtually none of them.

The relatively new thing in the last few decades, is that governments are increasingly seeking to constrain behavior whose individual consequences are negligible or even impossible to ascertain, but whose collective consequences are—at least in theory—significant.  We see this in issues of climate change, economic policy/taxation, and epidemiology.  Such measures may be necessary, but members of a democracy will tend to be suspicious of such attempts because its a thin line between “You need to do this but you can’t, and will never be able to, intuitively see the rationale” versus “because I said so, peasant!”.  

And where the rubber hits the road in this particular discussion is that effectually, while it’s one thing to confine to their home a person who has actually tested COVID-positive—it’s a quite another to confine someone to their home because they might be infected by a disease that they might transmit to a person who might get symptoms and if symptomatic might be hospitalized and if hospitalized might die (particularly when we’re giving waivers to vaccinated folk who apparently can still both carry and transmit the virus).  That’s in a whole different universe than abortion, which (accepting the presumptions of this thread) will kill at least one child every single time it’s done. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is an interesting concept because the church has just come out with a newsroom release, asking members to please where masks and get vaccinated.  That's adds a whole new layer for posters who are members, especially if they've previously been the type of member who believes that there is never an excuse not to follow the prophet.

Quite so.  I hope you understand that I very much in favor of people getting vaccinated.  My qualms pertain to government mandates, and the attendant risks of overreach, arbitrariness, etc.

I thought this graph was interesting:

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How to you mesh “political purposes and public control” with the first presidency describing the same actions as “wise” and “thoughtful”?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

I see a difference between the First Presidency encouraging us to get vaccinated and the government mandating it.

I impose a fair amount of trust in the First Presidency.  I think their assessment of the vaccines is likely to have been measures, apolitical, and so on.

I have far less trust in the government pertaining to mandates.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[mgy401]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is an interesting concept because the First Presidency has just come out and specifically urged members to please wear masks and get vaccinated.  That's adds a whole new layer for posters who are members, especially if they've previously been the type of member who believes that there is never an excuse not to follow the prophet.

"To limit exposure to these viruses, we urge the use of face masks in public meetings whenever social distancing is not possible. To provide personal protection from such severe infections, we urge individuals to be vaccinated. Available vaccines have proven to be both safe and effective."

But to contextualize this with the current discussion comparing anti-COVID measures to abortion restrictions:  Would this be the same First Presidency whose discussion of abortion in the Church Handbook begins with the admonition that “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it”?

I mean, the glass house of ecclesiastical authority might have been a very nice place to wait out the COVID storm.  Unfortunately, the pro-choice wing of the Church has spent the last fifty years throwing rocks at it. 

Edited August 12, 2021 by mgy401