Posted on 09/09/2021 7:06:29 PM PDT by Vendome
Mainstream bioethics thinking is growing increasingly authoritarian.
There is a huge difference between a law that requires wrapping a cloth belt around one’s body while in a moving car and injecting chemicals into one’s system. Yes, both acts involve attempts to promote public safety. But the former’s interference with liberty is de minimus, while the latter is one of the most potentially portentous that can be asked of people.
In free societies, legal mandates must be reasonable. A national vaccination mandate — which would be unprecedented — fails that test.
Primary Menu National Review Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Flipboard Email this article THE CORNER POLITICS & POLICY No, a Vaccine Mandate Is Not Like Requiring Seat Belts By WESLEY J. SMITH August 5, 2021 8:24 PM Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Flipboard Email this article
A healthcare worker holds coronavirus vaccines at a vaccination center in El Paso, Texas, May 6, 2021. (Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters)
Mainstream bioethics thinking is growing increasingly authoritarian. Princeton’s notorious utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer now joins Ezekiel “Mandate” Emanuel in an internationally syndicated column urging that everyone be legally required to take the COVID jab.
Singer justifies this imposition by comparing the proposal to laws that require people to wear seat belts in cars. From, “Why Vaccination Should be Compulsory:”
We are now hearing demands for the freedom to be unvaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19. Brady Ellison, a member of the United States Olympic archery team, says his decision not to get vaccinated was “one hundred percent a personal choice,” insisting that “anyone that says otherwise is taking away people’s freedoms.”
The oddity, here, is that laws requiring us to wear seat belts really are quite straightforwardly infringing on freedom, whereas laws requiring people to be vaccinated if they are going to be in places where they could infect other people are restricting one kind of freedom in order to protect the freedom of others to go about their business safely.
Good grief. There is a huge difference between a law that requires wrapping a cloth belt around one’s body while in a moving car and injecting chemicals into one’s system. Yes, both acts involve attempts to promote public safety. But the former’s interference with liberty is de minimus, while the latter is one of the most potentially portentous that can be asked of people.
In free societies, legal mandates must be reasonable. A national vaccination mandate — which would be unprecedented — fails that test.
Why aren’t near-universal mandates “reasonable?” Well, young people almost never become seriously ill from COVID — although a very few certainly do. But there is also some evidence of a very slight — but potentially serious — risk from the vaccines for the young...
Share on Twitter Share on Flipboard Email this article THE CORNER POLITICS & POLICY No, a Vaccine Mandate Is Not Like Requiring Seat Belts By WESLEY J. SMITH August 5, 2021 8:24 PM Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Flipboard Email this article
A healthcare worker holds coronavirus vaccines at a vaccination center in El Paso, Texas, May 6, 2021. (Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters)
Mainstream bioethics thinking is growing increasingly authoritarian. Princeton’s notorious utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer now joins Ezekiel “Mandate” Emanuel in an internationally syndicated column urging that everyone be legally required to take the COVID jab.
Singer justifies this imposition by comparing the proposal to laws that require people to wear seat belts in cars. From, “Why Vaccination Should be Compulsory:”
We are now hearing demands for the freedom to be unvaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19. Brady Ellison, a member of the United States Olympic archery team, says his decision not to get vaccinated was “one hundred percent a personal choice,” insisting that “anyone that says otherwise is taking away people’s freedoms.”
The oddity, here, is that laws requiring us to wear seat belts really are quite straightforwardly infringing on freedom, whereas laws requiring people to be vaccinated if they are going to be in places where they could infect other people are restricting one kind of freedom in order to protect the freedom of others to go about their business safely.
Good grief. There is a huge difference between a law that requires wrapping a cloth belt around one’s body while in a moving car and injecting chemicals into one’s system. Yes, both acts involve attempts to promote public safety. But the former’s interference with liberty is de minimus, while the latter is one of the most potentially portentous that can be asked of people.
In free societies, legal mandates must be reasonable. A national vaccination mandate — which would be unprecedented — fails that test.
Why aren’t near-universal mandates “reasonable?” Well, young people almost never become seriously ill from COVID — although a very few certainly do. But there is also some evidence of a very slight — but potentially serious — risk from the vaccines for the young. If we care about freedom, surely, for the young, vaccination may be the preferred — but should not be the mandatory — course.
There is also significant evidence that people who recovered from COVID already have significant natural resistance to the disease. That being so, is it reasonable to force people with antibodies to involuntarily inject substances into their bodies, particularly since there is a very slight potential for serious bodily injury or death from the vaccine? No.
I could find no studies for adverse affects or effects from wearing a seat belt but, I can look at the givernment Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System https://vaers.hhs.gov/
Here we can see thousands of deaths attributed to these vaccines and hundreds of thousands more who have injured.
The seat belt analogy is for a retarded intellect and way to easy to swat down...
A seat belt isn’t installed as part of your body forever.
You put a seatbelt around you while you drive, then you take it OFF when you choose.
These jabs are in you permanently and they are chemicals no one is willing to tell you exactly what’s in them..
Something is wrong with your cut and paste.
If they want to use a collectivist argument for the vaccine, we can use a collectivist argument against abortion.
There are 70-million missing Americans who could be paying for my Social Security because of abortion-on-demand.
Car manufacturers can be sued for defective products while vaccine manufacturers cannot...
Impeach 46.
From the comments and where I was thinking anyway:
“The seatbelt equivalence is dumb. We know that one of the most dangerous things you can do is drive a car. And serious life altering injuries can occur at relatively low speeds. This is a scientific fact. But COVID has a 98 or 99 percent recovery rate. Furthermore, if you drill deeper into the demographics of those that die, the recovery rate gets better when you take comorbidity’s and age into account. So if you’re healthy and under 65 years old, getting a vaccine is more akin to wearing a seatbelt while you’re sitting on the couch at home watching Netflix.”
Weird
I checked in preview mode before posting and it shouldn’t have allowed that many words...
Simple answer. Seatbelt laws are ALSO evil and pointless. there was a time when we didn’t have them or need them. and yes people died, but the better answer was always, education and training, not coercion.
The deeper question is who owns our bodies, the state or the individual.
If the state owns our bodies they can do whatever they want, and we are slaves to whoever rules the state.
The state would have the right to kill us at will, assign work to us at will, make us move or stand still at will, kneel at will, etc.
We would be puppets on a string, and effectively no longer human beings.
Those are the stakes here.
Well now that you mention it...there probably shouldn’t be seatbelt requirements either.
The seat belt requirement was established as a result of lobbying
by the auto insurance companies to reduce their outlays of payments
on injuries that were incurred in automobile accidents.
The collective retarded intellect at National Review has still never repudiated their “Against Trump” cover, except for Glenn Beck that I am aware.
Here were are. Political Idiot mode again
Why is it on every thread your knee jerk reaction is to ignore the thread and post a “hate your own allies” rant?
Your short of political idiots are the best PR Bots the Democrat party have going for them
I just sampled some banana nut bread dough.
So good.
Hope I don’t get sick.
Maybe FDA can save me...
Doh!
I wonder if there is any way a poster would be able to remove the double and triple text in their contribution to the board.
Not doing so makes it difficult and annoying to read.
I wonder if there is any way a poster would be able to remove the double and triple text in their contribution to the board.
Not doing so makes it difficult and annoying to read.
I wonder if there is any way a poster would be able to remove the double and triple text in their contribution to the board.
Not doing so makes it difficult and annoying to read.
How do count people who oppose America First as “allies”?
LOL
So annoying
I checked in preview mode before posting
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.