To quote our vice-president, "The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is not negotiable. The right of women to make decisions about their own bodies is their decision, it is their body."

However, being pregnant does not cause other people to become pregnant against their will.

That doesn't address the core hypocrisy of the statement, which is that bodily autonomy is "non-negotiable" for some and non-existent for others. Either the government has authority over your body or they don't, regardless of justification.

I don't see the hypocrisy. Get vaccinated or get tested for covid weekly. It's your choice.

We need to get back to normal, continuing with our previous approach wasn't working, so we have to do something. This seems like a healthy compromise on personal choice and doing what's right for society. What would be a better balance?

The hypocrisy is quite obvious, you are choosing not to see it. If you argue that abortion is a right by virtue of people's bodies not being subject to government control, then you can't simultaneously argue in favor of government control of peoples bodies for some other reason. Be consistent. Either the government has the right to regulate your body or they don't, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're going to argue in favor of abortion then you need to start using a different slogan than "my body my choice", because clearly you don't sincerely believe in bodily autonomy.

I think I'm missing something. Where is the government trying to force vaccines? That's not my understanding of the announcement.

However, voluntarily ending pregnancy can cause fathers to-be to lose their child to-be against their will. We've decided that's OK, because the right of an individual over their body supersedes the rights of others with tangential impacts.

The right of woman to make the decision about injecting a substance into their body is apparently negotiable.

I am not aware of any law or order if you live alone in the desert/woods that would make substances being injected into my you.

There isn't any law or order yet, but seeing the trend in the US and other Western countries it is heading that way.

> With my plan, the unvaccinated will be disincentivized to go to the hospital to get COVID care, thus freeing these beds up. Again, this respects personal choices.

The fact that this sentiment already exists in America (via private insurance and out-of-network costs) is absolutely abhorrent.

Citizenry should never be disincentivized from seeking out healthcare.

Penalizing the unvaccinated is currently proposed to happen through their employer, with loss of employment (loss of being able to provide for one’s family) being the main incentive.

I am proposing a more direct penalty, which is only put into effect if:

1) you don’t get vaccinated

2) you get COVID

3) you get treatment at the hospital for COVID

The current penalty proposal (getting fired) happens at step 1. I do not agree with that.

In a socialized healthcare system, my penalty would be the same. Instead of your insurance company doling out the penalty (withholding payment), it would be your government, but the effect is the same.

I do not want to force people to do something they don’t want to do to their bodies, and I do not want others to suffer for the unvaccinated’s choices. Therefore, if you decide not to get vaccinated, you pay for your own healthcare if you go to the hospital for COVID treatment.

Personal choice comes with personal responsibility. But personal choice should still be allowed.

The problem is that unvaccinated people still take resources up, insurance or no. People who need surgery for cancer or need an ICU bed.

Undocumented immigrants take resources up. (If fact they may be uninsured and unvaccinated, too.) You should favor refusing medical care to them (and education to their children) based on this argument from resources. Do you?

Undocumented immigrants actually don’t take resources up statistically because if they did their undocumented status would be more easily uncovered, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Trying to swap one population for another and arguing it’s the same thing, when only one population is causing the problem, isn’t logical. Please address my concerns as they are.

He (or she) isn't saying they're the same thing, they're just demonstrating that the "takes resources up" argument carries no weight whatsoever.