Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
and the right to decide whether to get immunized
You do have the right to not get immunized; the state and any private party has the right to keep you off their property if you're not. I don't see a problem if you chose to be a festering petri dish of filth as long as you stay away from the rest of us.
Interesting. So, just for the sake of argument. Would you support a law requiring that people provide proof of immunization in order to be allowed to enter a polling place (public property with lots of people you might infect, correct?). Not so simple really. Let's go a step further. In order to appear in court, you must be immunized (another public area with people you might infect).
When I mentioned "the state" I was mostly thinking of schools since, y'know that's actually relevant.
Right. And I raised the counter point because you are required to send your child to school. So if you can't afford a private school, or don't have the time for home schooling, you have no choice but to put your child into public school. So for those people, you're saying they have a right, but that they are legally required not to exercise it. Which is kinda pointless.
Oh. And ironically, you've created a situation where in many cases, your "right" is based on how wealthy you are (or how much free time, I suppose). So poor working class folks don't get the right, but wealthy middle class folks, or those with a dedicated stay at home spouse do. Does this fall squarely under the heading of "unintended consequences"?
Quote:
There are all kinds of restrictions in place for public and private locations (no smoking, must be 21 to enter, etc) How is the goal of the public not being infected by your nasty *** infringing on your rights? Want to appear in court? Nothing stopping you from getting your shots you disgusting microbe-fest.
As I suggested earlier. It's a matter of degrees. I presented my counter to get across the point that there must be some point at which the "public health" angle has to bend to personal freedom. Because we could technically argue for *any* restriction on the grounds of public health. It only depends on how far down the absurd rabbit hole we're willing to go. Can you define a stopping point? Can we pass a law requiring everyone to shave their heads because they might be carrying lice? How about requiring everyone to wear government provided paper clothing all the time they are in public. Heck. Let's color code the outfits so that they represent important health status information about each person to everyone else. How far do we go? Where does it stop? I don't know because you wont say "ok. This is too far".
Is there a point at which it's too far?