Maybe Bluesky has "won"

> "your body, my choice"

The sad thing is you could be referencing the left with Covid vaccines or the right with abortion.

These are completely different issues.

When people don't vaccinate themselves they become a walking vector that affects society as a whole. Yes, personally, they might be healthy. But there's people out there who can't take the vaccines and should they get sick of COVID they could die. There's people out there who, even after being vaccinated, are still at higher risk should they get the disease (the vaccine doesn't prevent you getting sick, rather it makes it more difficult for the virus to transmit and lowes it's effectiveness and how dangerous it is for you). So people not vaccinating puts the whole of society at risk.

On the other hand, abortion is very much a familial issue. It affects the woman that is pregnant the most. The rest of the people around her are affected only tangentially, yes, the parents might want to become grandparents or the person that got her pregnant might also want to have a child. And those are inputs that are necessary when coming to the decision of performing an abortion or not.

Now, where does "your body, my choice" come into play? Do abortions cause the societal harm that vaccines cause? I don't think there's any evidence to this, it's all moral standings. But we legislate for everyone, we don't legislate for a group of people that happen to have a particular religious view of the world. Now, these people have a lot of power and influence and that's why their view is imposed on most of society.

Ultimately though, these issues are different and shouldn't be treated as mirrors of each others. I think that's a mistake.

These topics are very clear cut to me. Forcing someone to take an experimental drug is not okay, and murdering small babies is not okay.

The government did not force anyone to take the vaccine. The death count in US proportionally speaks to that.

If you're comparing walking into a store or concert (both private establishments) to your state telling your doctor thru cannot operate on you, you clearly don't understand or won't understand how freedom works.

I have a few family members who chose not to take the vaccine. They are dead, but that was indeed their body, their choice.

Wherre is this story on a person forced to take a vaccine?

You’re talking about a different thing. I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it.

Private businesses can place whatever bans on whomever they want, for all I care.

> I’m strictly talking about actual forcing, and by that I mean giving legal repercussions to people who wouldn’t do it.

Where? I've yet to hear of a court case where the plantiff is arguing that they were forced to take a vaccine by a government. Bodily automomy has plenty of case studies and it'd be an easy slam dunk if any federal entity tried doing that.

There was an executive order:

https://oversight.house.gov/release/wenstrup-opens-investiga...

>the Biden Administration implemented Executive Order (E.O.) 14043. This E.O. required federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 8, 2021, or risk removal or termination from their federal employment.

But I believe the precedent for political discrimination in the workplace is thin, at best. I don't think the Hatch Act would have much ground here. You're not owed a job for your political nor religious beliefs if it puts others in danger (there's a lot of case law on the latter with regard to rituals).

----

EDIT: Oh yea, there was the overreaching argument of the president. That one was swiftly shot down:

https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/feds-for-medica...

>Finally, our brief argued that Supreme Court precedent supports the president’s broad authority to regulate federal employees, including their out-of-office conduct, when such regulation is justified by the government’s interest in the safety, effectiveness, and security of government facilities. In one case, for example, the Supreme Court sanctioned Reagan Administration regulations requiring drug testing of government employees and prohibiting drug use outside of the workplace

I’m not speaking of any application of such measures, I’m stating my opposition of them.

Although now that you’re making my argument for me, it’s not cool that tax payer funded jobs would be terminated over that.

You were comparing this to abortion, and I'm saying the situations are the opposite. Losing something over your choice is the exact consequences of free speech. Being unable to do something over someone else's choices is the opposite of speech.

They would be replaced, not terminated. We lost a few million people in COVID, cso firing a few people is better than the government basically having a class action launched at the United States.

There's no point in stating your opposition to something that does not exist and is not happening. That's just fear mongering and straw-manning. If nobody is doing this, you're simply building a strawman to fight against because it's easy.

I guess it depends on the definition of "forcing" someone. I was generous in my definition and cited placing legal repercussions on people who wouldn't take the shot. Now that didn't happen (to my knowledge), but people got fired, ostracized, and denied all kinds of services and access because of their choice. That's not cool, and I'd hope we learned from that experience as a society.

I didn't mean to fear monger or construct a straw man. I didn't directly address anyone's argument, I stated my own opinion on this subject confidently on this message board that's meant for just that.

> but people got fired, ostracized, and denied all kinds of services and access because of their choice. That's not cool, and I'd hope we learned from that experience as a society.

Welcome to the free market. If you would prefer a larger government to enforce this lack of ostracization, perhaps a change to the first amendment as well, feel free to advocate for that.

Companies are risk averse. They don't want to deal with people getting sick and the PR nightmare of their employees not wearing masks. So that's that, and from a business perspective it's by far the best choice. You're always free to quit your job and go work somewhere that aligns with you more ideologically.