Hacker News Reader

Comment by sul_tasto | Hacker News Reader

It seems to me both pro-choice advocates and Canadian truckers are saying, “Get your laws off my body.” The idea that a person belongs to herself or himself is fundamental to both arguments.

View on HN

The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others. There's very good arguments for mandating vaccines against infectious diseases. I think debating mandated vaccinations with regards to the realistic likelihood of eradicating a disease is a debate that can be had, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. The common good must be weighed against individual liberty. Even here in America, the land of the free, we do it all the time. There are countless things I can not do because it would not be in the best interest of society as a whole. In all Western societies, and many others as well, individual liberties are commonly curtailed for the common good.

I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others.

Fundamental rights are legal absolutes that can only be negated by other rights or the a threat to the existence of the state itself that is supposed to defend these rights (e.g. war).

The problem is, there are no rights to be healthy and not to catch a respiratory disease and the virus doesn't threaten the existence of the state with a 0.05% mortality rate in old and sick people.

> I, for one, am honored to give up some liberties so that I may help others.

I'm not sure to decide if you're a troll or not.

>The stakes are clearly different. Pregnancy doesn't endanger others.

What about sodomy? Receptive anal intercourse is an order of magnitude more likely to spread HIV/AIDS[1] than vaginal intercourse. Maybe what happens in the bedroom should be "curtailed for the common good"?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission

I think what the parent comment is suggesting is pregnancy (and sodomy) overwhelmingly impact the people directly involved with it. It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party.

I think it's a bit like second hand smoke vs. first hand smoke. I think it's entirely reasonable to object to second hand smoke (refusing vaccinations while insisting on participating in society) in all forms while supporting an individual's right to first hand smoke (pregnancy/sodomy).

>It's extremely unlikely (though still possible, technically) that one person sodomizing another will transmit HIV to a third, unrelated party.

Consider the prevalence of casual hookups, and how long the incubation period is, I say the chance is pretty high. If anything, the aids epidemic is evidence that it can spread despite requiring intimate contact. That said, for the purposes of this argument I'd be okay with limiting the argument to "ban sodomy for non-married couples" to rule out the "third, unrelated party" element.

When people start contracting HIV from being in the same room as people with it, then maybe we can have that discussion.

Also, just use a condom.

Someones choice to get an abortion doesn't give someone a potentially fatal disease.

Someones choice to not get vaccinated HAS led to significant deaths at this point. Via overloaded health systems, spreading the disease and of course, the much higher likelihood of death for those who are unvaccinated.

Drawing a parallel to abortion is absurd.

I think pro-life supporters would argue that abortion leads to the death of the unborn child, who they believe has a right to be born. Is a woman required to carry an unwanted child to term because the fetus has rights? Is a Canadian trucker required to receive an unwanted vaccine to protect the old and vulnerable? Personally, I see a lot of similarities in the ambiguity of where the boundary exists between the rights and responsibilities between two parties relative to each other.

Oh, they very much don't want laws on their own body, but they very much want their laws on everyone else's, if you ask them how they feel about:

* government control over media (especially which is non-christian, relating to LGTBQ subjects/characters, covering the history of racial discrimination, etc)

* freedom to humanely end one's own life out of a conscious, informed decision to do so

* the right to wear as little or as much clothing as you want, including covering your head entirely

* a woman having easy, unrestricted access to contraceptives and abortion

* immigration policies (the right to travel freely in search of a better life)

* the death penalty

* how freely you should be able to end another person's life (ie very loose carry and self defense laws)

* easy, accommodating access to voting

Yes, and where there's risk, there needs to be informed consent. Manipulation of trial data, collusion to censor, deplatforming and controlled media clearly limit informed consent.

The differences very much matter.

You being pregnant does not increase the risk of my pregnancy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com