> is no different than forcing a woman to take an abortion if she doesn't want it, or forcing a woman NOT to take an abortion, if she does want it.

This is a false analogy. From a health perspective, abortions only impact the mother and unborn fetus (and the impact on the fetus is debatable depending on where you land about when a human is “alive”). Not vaccinating affects those around you and can lead to extreme suffering and loss of life. They most definitely are very different.

>A future Constitution will explicitly support the right to be medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not.

No it won't because the Constitution is not, nor should it ever be, a suicide pact.

No piece of paper is, or ever should be used as a suicide pact, I agree.

But please clearly explain to me why you think the Constitution is in your words, a "suicide pact".

>But please clearly explain to me why you think the Constitution is in your words, a "suicide pact".

That's not what I said, and clearly not a reasonable conclusion one could reach from having read my comment with an awareness of the context in which it occurred. Which is odd, because I literally quoted the necessary context from your comment to make the meaning obvious.

I was referring to your mention of "a future constitution explicitly support(ing) the right to be medicated/vaccinated if one wishes to be, while conversely supporting the right NOT to be medicated/vaccinated, if one does not."

That Constitution would be a suicide pact, because it would render the purpose of the entire science of epidemiology and any efforts to maintain herd immunity and control the spread of pandemics through mandatory vaccination moot. The Constitution we currently have is not a suicide pact, at least in that regard (I have my doubts about it in regards to the Second Amendment but that's a whole other conversation) because it does not contain such a clause.

I hope that I have explained my position sufficiently.

Understood.

Our debate, if we have one, is not about the Constitution being a "suicide pact".

Your argument, if I understand you correctly, is that the entire science of epidemiology -- is sufficient proof to warrant government intervention in the case of a pandemic.

The root understanding of government, at least the U.S. Government, is that it's there to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Or phrased another way, to protect property (which includes the lives) of the people that comprise the nation.

So from these two arguments, I agree.

The science of epidemiology -- is enough proof to warrant government intervention.

So we agree thus far.

But there's a small problem... Rather teensy-weensy, in fact...

It comes from your use of the word "mandatory".

If you had said everything you had said without this word, or perhaps used the word "volunatary" in its place -- then we would be agreed 100%.

(Note to self: It's amazing how one word, just one word, on a forum post can create disagreements)

Because you used the word "mandatory", I think it's time for a quick recap of the root purpose and function of the U.S. Government.

You see, our Government has what amounts to a huge problem on its hands.

That is, it is supposed to preserve and protect the rights and freedom, the liberty, of its citizens, all of its citizens. At the same time.

Well, how exactly do you do this, do you accomplish this marvelous feat, in a case where Citizen A has some right, which we'll call "Right X", and when Citizen A exercises Right X, it interferes with Citizen B exercising a different right, "Right Y"

So it's Citizen A's Right X Vs. Citizen B's Right Y.

That's problematic, hugely problematic!

If the Government enforces Citizen A's right, Right X, then it equal-and-oppositely destroys Citizen B's right, Right Y.

If the Government enforces Citizen B's right, Right Y, then it equal-and-oppositely destroys Citizen A's right, Right X.

It's quite the dilemma, let me tell you!

So how could Government ever enforce something, how could government ever enforce anything, if it destroyed the rights (the rights that it was created to protect!) of an individual?

Warning: Deep answer coming from years and years of studying U.S. Law:

It can't.

Now, there's a very nuanced understanding there, let me see if I can explain it here with limited space:

It can't -- but it can "order", "require", "mandate", "enact" (choose whatever language you want), that its people, en masse, either do or do not do something.

It can even tell you that "this is Law".

(Fun fact: We have a Supreme Court to tell us when the things that other people have told us are "Law" -- are actually not "Law", and never were(!)... but we could also use the right logic, and discover this for ourselves...)

The problem is that the word "mandate" conveys the idea to the general (not educated in Law) population that something is required for them to do.

But see, you can't require people to do anything -- if and when it conflicts with any of their other rights.

We have Courts to resolve these rights issues -- that is the great purpose of Courts -- to resolve issues where Citizen A's Right X interferes with Citizen B's Right, or when the Government, by action or inaction, interfere with any of its Citizen's Rights, either en masse, or even individually.

Any government, and especially the U.S. Government -- is like that old story of many blind men in a room with an elephant -- they're supposed to touch it, and tell the others what it is. But because they are perceptually blinded, they only touch part of it, and what they communicate to each other is a localized perception, and ultimately, not the big picture of what it is...

If you feel that any, and I mean any force of Government is sufficient to get me to unwillingly relinquish my rights, then all I can say is that you don't understand Government.

The U.S. Government is there to protect me, and my rights, and you and your rights -- from other people that would step on them -- up to and including people in the U.S. Government, up to and including factions of the U.S. Government, and even up to and including the entire U.S. Government itself.

The U.S. Government can request, but it can never demand (even though it can use fancy language to make it appear that it is demanding!), especially if one or more of those demands are in contradiction to one or more of the principles of its founding.

So... that approaches a more nuanced understanding...

Or, you could have simply removed the word "mandatory" (because we're talking to a group of people who are mostly uneducated in Law) and/or replaced it with "voluntary"...

You would have had 100% of my agreement, if you did...

> Forcing someone else to take a vaccine, if they don't want to, or forcing someone else NOT to take a vaccine, if they do

"Making somebody pay taxes, if they don't want..."

Dude, this has been discussed ad infinitum. You don't want to take a vaccine? Fine. But then, do I have the knowledge to know you haven't taken it, as refusing to be around you, etc etc etc because you refuse to do something that is proven to better the life of humanity as a whole (And you can't prove otherwise). I could argue a lot more, but english is not my mother tongue.

There's a lot to unpack here.

First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim.

Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...? If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent.

Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything? So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child, or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom.

(I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)

I applaud you from taking the time to reply to that... but it was just not worth it.

"There's a lot to unpack here."

Yes there is; and it's the tip of the iceberg.

"First of all, "healthy people do not get diseases" is just flat out wrong, I don't know how you could support such a claim."

Fair enough! I concede that that was wrong, people do get diseases, and previously they might have been healthy, so as a statement standing by itself, evaluated as a truth or a claim by itself, it is definitely wrong.

Agreed.

Although, I would suggest that looking at it in context would provide a greater degree of what it was attempting to communicate, what I was trying to say.

But I agree that by itself, as a statement, claim and/or truth, it's wrong. Concur.

"Second, do you accept the inevitability of death in all things, meaning you take zero precautions to protect your own life in any and all situations of your life? You never wear a seatbelt, never go to a doctor, wouldn't stay clear of a person if you knew they had a very contagious disease, ...?"

Well, let's see. If I were driving, I would wear a seatbelt yes. And I have seen doctors in the past, that's true enough.

Would I stay clear of a person I knew had a contagious disease?

Well, I don't know.

Explain to me what you think a contagious disease is, if that contagious disease causes death or not (in other words, what am I risking), and what's the status of the person relative to my goals? In other words, am I getting to talk to Elon Musk? Might he give me a job? What's the risk and what are the rewards?

If I knew those things, then yes, I might be able to give you a hypothetical answer...

"If yes, I would be very surprised about your stoicism; otherwise it seems inconsistent."

I'm not as afraid of diseases as most people are. That is because I've done a ton of reading in many subjects (many many subjects!), and a ton of reading in medicine.

What scares most people in these areas -- doesn't have as much of an effect on me, because I know things that the average person does not.

"Lastly, do you really believe no person should ever be forced to do anything?"

Not by me. After a long time in meditation and deep introspection, I have realized that while there may be many people whose behaviors in various areas I don't like, don't appreciate -- that I'd rather work on my own toleration of them -- which is a quality which can be changed (acceptance or inacceptance of the behavior of what others do or don't do is a mental state -- it exists in your mind. If you can change your mind, you can rise above this... that is my goal for myself...)

"So, for example, a mother should not be forced to feed her child"

I am not prohibited from attempting to persuade, multiple times if need be, to this mother that feeding her child is a good idea, and socially beneficial.

Beyond persuasion, I will not use force. If it's my child, perhaps that's different, but if it's my child, why am I not feeding it (thus removing the obligation for the mother to be the sole party responsible). As I don't have children, I couldn't answer this question as applies to me, but all I can tell you is that polite repeated persuasion is permissible (to be used by me) -- but the use of force is not.

", or people should not be prevented from murdering other people? "

Again, same argument.

I can persuade, I can attempt to persuade them that what they are doing / have did (is/was) wrong, perhaps multiple times on muliple ocassions, maybe many times over, but I will not be the party using force against them.

"If not, your argument that unlimited freedom is the most important value to preserve falls flat and we must start talking about the situations in which you would restrict someone's freedom."

It's an important value to preserve for me. I should point out that the value does not exist as "unlimited", as that's an absolute, an extreme.

It's an ideal (for me), but it's an ideal that is not nor could ever be accomplished by a human living on the earth.

I am after all, human.

The philosophers of old used to think about things in "ideal" terms... for me, with respect to freedom, the challenge/goal I have set for myself... the "ideal" -- is to give all others theirs, even if it interferes with other others' freedom.

I can persuade (or attempt to persuade) other people that what they are doing might be wrong... but I can never coerce them, I can never use force.

"(I won't even go into how I think this notion of "freedom" is very simplistic because it ignores how un-free we are fundamentally due to situations outside of our control, e.g. very poor people are de facto not very free.)"

The more you try to control the universe... the more the universe will control you.

Simple example:

Find a wall.

Push on the wall.

Note that the wall pushes back at your hand with precisely the exact equal-and-opposite force that you apply to it. Precisely.

Now, take your hand away from the wall. Look at it. Is it exercising any control, any control over your hand? Is it pushing against your hand?

All objects/situations/people/places/things in the universe are like your hand with respect to the wall. If you do not attempt to control them -- you will not be controlled.

But if you do... expect and accept an equal-but-opposite force of control in precisely the same amount as you exert against the objects/situations/people/places/things that you are trying to control, by whatever means you are trying to control it.

My philosophy is that simple.

Newton's 3rd Law... applied to everything in the Universe that you or me or someone else would like to control...

Unvaccinated people put the immuno-compromised, newborns and the elderly at risk. The state doesn't have the right to force you to vaccinate, but they do have the right to force you into quarantine if you're not.

I've studied U.S. Law for close to 10 years.

First, please define what you mean by "state".

Are we talking Federal Government, or one or more of the 50 U.S. States?

Next, please explain to me why you think that entity has the power to do that...

Also, please explain to me your understanding of "Consent Of The Governed". What does that term mean, where does that originate from, how does that apply to to the U.S. Federal and State (and also local) governments?

Think of this as a test of your understanding of U.S. Law...

No, you can only be forced into quarantine if you have a communicable disease.

And the immuno-compromise put themselves at risk every time they go out without a mask.

Now, are you also going to require older people to top-up their vaccinations? You know they lose efficacy over time, right?

Not vaccinating does potentially cause harm to others through infection, and someone unvaccinated can only fully prevent such harm by completely avoiding any contact with humans they are not living with; furthermore, such harm cannot be reliably attributed to the perpetrator, so punishment is hard.

Hence, it is reasonable to outlaw being unvaccinated and going out of the house.

Unvaccinated people aren't going to hurt any vaccinated people. It's no worse than being fat or smoking; the worst thing you can say is it increases people's health insurance costs.