You stick by your beliefs. I will give you that.

gzt:

MichaelNZ: hypocrisy about "my body, my choice"

Your shortened form implies perhaps unintentionally that vaccination was compulsory in NZ. I'm sure you're aware that was not the case.

In fairness, a reasonable argument can be made that if not getting the vaccine meant losing your job and not being able to support your family then it was compulsory for many in practice, if not in law. So, I tend to think the hypocrisy comment is valid.

If you believe people should be free to choose what is (or isn't) done to their bodies, surely you need to be consistent.

I've see-sawed in my opinion around this because of the public safety aspect of vaccines, which obviously isn't applicable to the pro-life vs pro-choice debate. But at what point do the ends justify coercing people into submitting to a vaccine they don't want, let alone one that (by historical standards) had not gone through the long-term testing that others are required to go through?

Paul1977:

 

which obviously isn't applicable to the pro-life vs pro-choice debate. But at what point do the ends justify coercing people into submitting to a vaccine they don't want

 

The whole "Pro Choice" and "Me Too" causes were fundamentally based around a simple premise of "My Body, My Choice".

What transpired highlights a massive blind spot many of the Left have fallen into and shown themselves susceptible to the same ideology and thinking as their Far Right counterparts who they decry so much. That is stupidity on a grand scale with far reaching consequences.

In 2019 Tamaki and co. were bordering on, if not there, totally irrelevant. Until they got handed a popular cause they could hijack for their own self interest. Now he is back in the news and social feeds and we get such appalling displays like what happened at Pride and the Te Atatu library.

Not a better gift could be handed to religious conservatives then to weaken the standing for "my body, my choice".

MichaelNZ:

 

Not a better gift could be handed to religious conservatives then to weaken the standing for "my body, my choice".

 

Do feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be something of a logical fallacy here. The issue of abortion affects only the woman involved. Yes, it also affects the foetus but that is a different matter. 

Vaccination affects the whole community. If a critical mass of people refuse vaccination, they reduce protection for everyone else. The coercive aspect of vaccination, whether one supports that or not, is attempting to place the greater good ahead of individual choice. I think the authorities at the time probably handled this clumsily. That can happen in times of panic. I don't think Jacinda Ardern was trying out for a villain's mustache. 

Paul1977: In fairness, a reasonable argument can be made that if not getting the vaccine meant losing your job and not being able to support your family then it was compulsory for many in practice, if not in law.

MichaelNZ: In 2019 Tamaki and co. were bordering on, if not there, totally irrelevant. Until

Paul1977:

 

In fairness, a reasonable argument can be made that if not getting the vaccine meant losing your job and not being able to support your family then it was compulsory for many in practice, if not in law. So, I tend to think the hypocrisy comment is valid.

 

If you believe people should be free to choose what is (or isn't) done to their bodies, surely you need to be consistent.

 

Nobody ever said that asserting your rights would be free of consequence. You have a right not to take a vaccine. I have a right not to expose myself to people far more likely to infect me with a potentially fatal disease. 'Get vaccinated or lose your job' is not an infringement of your rights. It is an assertion of other people's rights.

SaltyNZ:

 

Paul1977:

 

In fairness, a reasonable argument can be made that if not getting the vaccine meant losing your job and not being able to support your family then it was compulsory for many in practice, if not in law. So, I tend to think the hypocrisy comment is valid.

 

If you believe people should be free to choose what is (or isn't) done to their bodies, surely you need to be consistent.

 

 

Nobody ever said that asserting your rights would be free of consequence. You have a right not to take a vaccine. I have a right not to expose myself to people far more likely to infect me with a potentially fatal disease. 'Get vaccinated or lose your job' is not an infringement of your rights. It an assertion of other people's rights.

 

And exteding this, if it's not clear, the choice is still there. Either choice has consequences.

But nowhere it was under duress. People were not being round up on the streets, and injected with vaccines by force.

freitasm:

 

And exteding this, if it's not clear, the choice is still there. Either choice has consequences.

 

But nowhere it was under duress. People were not being round up on the streets, and injected with vaccines by force.

 

Duress is a threat used to coerce someone to do what they don't want to. Get the vaccine or be unable to pay your rent/mortgage, feed your children, etc is duress any way you slice it.

Whether it was justified duress depends on who you ask.

"Its for the greater good" justifies anything.

The Far Right are every bit as enthusiastic for this line of thinking and right now the pendulum has swung and the Left are on the back foot.

SaltyNZ:

 

Nobody ever said that asserting your rights would be free of consequence. You have a right not to take a vaccine. I have a right not to expose myself to people far more likely to infect me with a potentially fatal disease. 'Get vaccinated or lose your job' is not an infringement of your rights. It is an assertion of other people's rights.

 

And why do you get to assert your rights consequence free? Maybe the consequence of asserting your right to not be exposed to potentially fatal diseases is that you have to stay at home yourself.

These things are seldom as clear cut as many would like. Blindly going down the route of "the greater good takes precedent" can lead to very dark places.

Paul1977:

 

And why do you get to assert your rights consequence free? Maybe the consequence of asserting your right to not be exposed to potentially fatal diseases is that you have to stay at home yourself.

 

These things are seldom as clear cut as many would like. Blindly going down the route of "the greater good takes precedent" can lead to very dark places.

 

Maybe the consequence of asserting your right to drive on the other side of the road in your sovereign citizen car can lead to death and destruction of yourself and others. 

Rikkitic:

 

Maybe the consequence of asserting your right to drive on the other side of the road in your sovereign citizen car can lead to death and destruction of yourself and others. 

 

I'm not sure driving on the opposite side of the road is a right. To be fair I'm not sure that anything we are talking about are rights under the law.

But I assume your argument, if you are making one at all, is that the severity of the consequences should determine which rights should take precedent?

Paul1977:

 

But I assume your argument, if you are making one at all, is that the severity of the consequences should determine which rights should take precedent?

 

I suppose so. On reflection, I don't really want to do this again. I don't care if I am right or you are or someone else. There is no benefit in bashing each other like deer at rutting time. What can we agree on? I am willing to reconsider my beliefs if presented with compelling evidence. At the moment, I believe in the science. I believe that vaccination is the greatest medical breakthrough of all time. I believe it has saved countless lives. I believe that vaccinating large numbers of people also protects the unvaccinated by preventing the spread of disease. I believe, during an epidemic or pandemic, that as many people as possible should be vaccinated. I believe that vaccination can also cause harm, but the good it does vastly outweighs this. I believe people should not be forced to accept vaccination against their will, but for the sake of public health, there may have to be sanctions against those who refuse vaccination. I guess this is my starting point.

Paul1977:

 

freitasm:

 

And exteding this, if it's not clear, the choice is still there. Either choice has consequences.

 

But nowhere it was under duress. People were not being round up on the streets, and injected with vaccines by force.

 

 

Duress is a threat used to coerce someone to do what they don't want to. Get the vaccine or be unable to pay your rent/mortgage, feed your children, etc is duress any way you slice it.

 

Whether it was justified duress depends on who you ask.

 

There are a number of "Notifiable Diseases" that can you see you lawfully detained and put into isolation.

We have restrictions on things like drink driving, and tobacco with smoke free areas. Both are legal drugs, but for the safety of the majority of the population there are restrictions applied to the users. We do not consider their rights to be infringed upon.

There were people who had compromised immunity who were also forced to isolate, unable to feed themselves, their kids, pay the mortgage etc, because catching the disease would have killed them. Death in this case it not an inconvenience. (And yes, I had a friend who was being treated for cancer who got covid and died 3 days later).

We have (still) an under resourced healthcare system that if we did not have a large number of people vaccinated would have collapsed, those needing other medical interventions would also then have become victims along with large numbers of people with covid who could not be treated (USA experience).

We did not know enough about the disease then, but the vaccines were safe (People still die from "safe vaccines"), these techniques were developed in the 1980's and had been extensively studied.

Employers ALSO have rights and they have an obligation to ALL their staff, and from an employers perspective keeping unvaccinated people from the work place was a sound decision for both employees and customers.

My wife is a practice manager, and neither her or myself have had covid, we keep our vaccines up to date.