Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed by holiday gatherings

Re:Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed ... by timr on Friday November 13, 2020 @03:33PM (#25087124)

You're arguing that this situation should be an exception to the usual rules of personal liberty that we all take for granted -- I should be able to require you to wear a mask and not meet with family members, because $disease is deadly and transmissable.

OP pointed out that this is contradictory to the usual rhetoric on abortion.

Your response was that we make just such an exception for guns and drunk driving. The implication, therefore, is that this is of such an equivalent moral imperative, that the same reactions are justified here.

You may not want to be drawing the analogy, but if you aren't, there's no point in raising the subject at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed ... by ceejayoz on Friday November 13, 2020 @04:15PM (#25087596)

> OP pointed out that this is contradictory to the usual rhetoric on abortion.

I'm pointing out that it's not, just like drunk driving and moving your finger when it happens to be connected to a gun aren't "pro-choice" moments.

"My body, my choice" doesn't apply in the same fashion when other people's rights are also involved. (And, to head-off the "nuh-uh", pro-choicers tend to fall down on the "no" side of fetal personhood.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Super-spreading wedding demonstrates Covid-19 risk posed ... by timr on Friday November 13, 2020 @05:02PM (#25088048)

"I'm pointing out that it's not, just like drunk driving and moving your finger when it happens to be connected to a gun aren't "pro-choice" moments."

It's nothing like either of those, let alone "just like" them.

Catching a virus is not, in any way, like pulling the trigger on gun or choosing to drink and drive. The former happens to you. The latter two require personal agency.

[ Parent | on HN ]