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.
There is no huge difference, loss of freedom is loss of freedom.
If you are not driving, you do not need to wear a seat belt. This vaccine order forces a requirement simply for existing.
I’m opposed to mandatory seat belts and mandatory jabs. Generally, I don’t like being told what to do even if it’s something I’m not opposed to.
The bigger issue...there is no constitutional right to drive a car. Driving a car is a privilege. Court cases out the butt on this issue. Because it isn’t a right, the state can regulate operation of a car. Driver’s licenses. Speed limits. Driver’s license restrictions for various issues. Wearing seatbelts. All conditions on the privilege to drive. But there is a constitutional right to as to what one puts in one’s body. There is a huge difference.
Zactly
Can’t inject poison into a murderer on death row but, the givernment can force you to play Russian Roulette with a drug.
I’ve done it myself. I just wanted to have a little snark, and you took it exactly the way I had hoped
the government medics and judges still refuse to medicate the homeless derelicts that need medication to act normal or abuse drugs and alcohol.
Seatbelts are not federally mandated.
I thought seat belt laws/registration stickers were primarily created to allow LE to pull people over and search their cars.
It’s weird around here sometimes...
That and the attempted humorectomy was unsuccessful...
There should be no seatbelt mandate.
I strongly oppose mandatory seatbelt laws as well. Both are governmental overreach
To use the government’s Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System’s numbers to make your argument that vaccines are bad destroys all credibility.
Just because Wesley Smith twists the logic about seat belts in the “National Review,” does not make it correct. The analogy is, just like the seat belt protects you from death, so does the vaccine.
Your chance of dying in a car accident are even more remote than dying from COVID-19; yet there is a mandate for seat belts. That’s another part of the analogy, since dying from COVID is in the 2% range.
The side-effects from the vaccine are even more remote than dying from COVID-19. Yet, people act like those side effects are mountains when they are actually mole holes.
Finally, isn’t the “my body, my choice” argument being used to kill babies in the womb? Do you support that?
“Why is it on every thread your knee jerk reaction is to ignore the thread and post a “hate your own allies” rant?”
I’m not exactly a fan of Lurkin because his constant anti-RINO chants tend to depress turnout, allowing Democrats, who today are ALWAYS far worse, to slip into office - but he does have a point here.
What he’s asking here is very simple: Why should we support people who profess conservative values, but the minute a candidate shows up ready to actually IMPLEMENT these conservatives values, not only do they run away from us, but they actively work to enable our enemies to take over? They are not our allies if they’re doing that, and likely never were.
In the case if National Review it was virtually every writer who supported Hillary (along with Cruz, for a while, by the way). The 2016 election wasn’t a hard decision at the presidential level, either you believed in this country, or not.
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.