Businesses with contracts are still composed of individuals, traveling people, and government employees, etc, are still individual people, so my argument still holds true for all these cases. For people who are genuinely scared of getting disease, they can get these d–n vaccines and instantly be protected. But why force others to get a vaccine against their will when the people who are genuinely unwilling to run the risk of catching one of these ancient diseases have already vaccinated themselves? It does nothing for the protection of those people while destroying liberty for the latter group. Sounds pretty tyrannical to me.
And you never explained why you're "Pro-Choice" for the indiustrialized butchery of 6 million children per year yet remain anti-choice on so many medical, tax, and regulatory issues....
@9CJ6CB65mos5MO
Because in order to prevent enough deaths to not let it continue spreading, one must achieve a percentage of people protected against the disease to protect those who vehemently refuse. When they sign the contract, they need to follow the rules of that organization. Isn’t that your whole thought process with student loans? Heck, the student loans will have a more dramatic effect than vaccines.
Abortion really isn’t anything most understand. Getting angry about abortions is honestly ridiculous. 9/10 of them happen before twelve weeks, and the reasoning for them happening afterwards… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
Abortion is murder, in all cases whatsoever, and should never, ever, be allowed. The reason for this is that drawing the line of when life is to be considered life has disastrous implications for fully-born children and adults as well as for the unborn who will be so cruelly slaughtered in their mother's womb. Some people never draw the line, saying that abortion is perfectly justified up until the moment of birth, sometimes for weeks AFTER birth. But if babies can be murdered after they've been out of the mother's womb for a month, if that's morally justifiable, what'… Read more
@9CJ6CB65mos5MO
Babies are newborns, not zygotes with no possible capability to feel much of anything until a long way through pregnancy. The attribution and false equivalence you use for aborted fetuses and dead adults is that they are one and the same, yet their circumstance, status, and even basic ability to feel, think, and breath isn’t on nearly the same level. An adult isn’t able to be killed because they’re relying on medicine, since they’re out of the womb, capable of lacking consent, and are able to communicate. Comparing the two is ludicrously irresponsible to do. Babies can… Read more
@Patriot-#1776Constitution5mos5MO
That’s a mouthful of nonsense. You’re addressed absolutely none of my claims, and provided no reasoning why killing these adults is not morally equivalent to murder, you’ve just continued to reason in a vicious circle, assuming the merits of your argument in order to try to prove it’s uprightness…
@9CJ6CB65mos5MO
I am saying a fetus is not the same thing as a human, that’s a zygote with no ability to think, breathe, or feel, not a person on meds. I’m saying your false moral equivalency is ridiculous, and that the parent’s choice trumps that of the assumed wants of something that isn’t even conscious, or even barely developed. That’s why I’m fine with abortions in the earlier stages, but putting the benchmark at conception gives no parents any choice, and by doing so, would basically damn them to being forced to carry the fetus for the whole year because they didn’t see it for 2 weeks.
